Sam Harris vs. Glenn Greenwald

People don't like citing evidence, do they?

I guess evidence is just less fun than name-calling.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  On 10/20/2015 at 4:56 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 3:45 AM, delet... said:

 

  On 10/19/2015 at 11:41 PM, Brisbot said:

Things tend to be more nuanced. Sam is on the side of nuance which throws other people for a loop. He is asking difficult questions which aren't necessarily comfortable, which NEED to be asked.

 

Such as the one example: is it right to torture someone who has kidnapped someone and needs to be coerced into telling you where the kid is and WON'T do it through simple reasoning with him.

 

 

 

The thing with torture though, is that it doesn't work, it has been shown many times that it's far more effective using normal police interrogation techniques, like developing a rapport with the subject etc. Whereas with torture you generally end up with useless intelligence and more importantly if you allow for it in the system in any way, it eventually corrupts the whole system. So therefore it should be verboten with no moral equivocation, thought experiments, or pretending that it is necessary in some dramatic cases, when if we go back to the start of what i was saying, it doesn't actually work and you are better off without it for that point alone, let alone the danger to our policing system and civil liberties as an whole if it were to be given in to.

1)

 

Torture saved that baby in the case study I posted. Not a thought experiment baby but a real, actual baby.

For everyone who says that torture doesn't work (even a little), or that "ticking time bomb" scenarios are merely theoretical, I'll post this again.

 

2)

 

"Torture doesn't work" is a good argument--I partially agree with it--but it's not a moral argument.

It's a practical argument.

You wouldn't say "torture is morally wrong because it sucks at getting information."

 

3)

 

So you're saying that if we found ourselves in a "ticking time bomb" scenario tomorrow,

where some dude put a dirty bomb in NYC,

you would categorically say "no torture" in trying to find out where it is?

Is that really what you "anti-torture" folks think?

Morals are relative, we are after practical results. Which is why I usually can't be arsed getting into a debate on moral dilemmas where the parameters consider only one factor and refuse to allow for consequences.

But I honestly would say no torture. Not ever. I've met some political prisoners who were tortured, it fundamentally changes them.

The thought of a suspect being rectally fed hummus with Meshuggah blaring out of speakers is kind of interesting. When I was captured in the Paktia Province of Afganistan these torture methods are what gave away my location and saved me. Ironically, I eat hummus all the time... the normal way.

  Quote

 

 

Morals are relative, we are after practical results. Which is why I usually can't be arsed getting into a debate on moral dilemmas where the parameters consider only one factor and refuse to allow for consequences.

 

But I honestly would say no torture. Not ever. I've met some political prisoners who were tortured, it fundamentally changes them.

Sam isn't talking about political prisoners.He outlines how it can be necessary in certain situations, such as a prisoner who has kidnapped someone, and refuses to talk about it.

Surely there is a line somewhere for you where you will say "Yes, we should do whatever is necessary to save x amount of lives". If he has a remote bomb somewhere that has the potential to kill dozens, don't you think torture might be necessary?

Alright, so no torture ever. Not even minor torture such as sleep deprivation to try and find the location of someone, or a bomb, or something, which could kill none or a dozen? What happens, happens?

This is assuming normal interrogation fail and the prisoner.

Tho torturing political prisoners is definitely wrong if there is nothing time-sensitive going on. You shouldn't do something like that unless others are GOING to get hurt if you don't.

  Quote

 

i will try and find the quotes from ex military and cia interrogators that clear up what i mean. But law enforcement as an whole are not behind torture as a useful information gathering technique. but surely you could do that, i don't wanna be all day looking this shit up, perhaps type "torture doesn't work" or something into google.

 

as for provisions, for only certain circumstances, once something is on the books it tends to be a slippery slope.

About being in the books. Say you'd have to get permission, in the same way you'd have to get permission to search someone's house. You have to show that you KNOW that he's kidnapped someone, that normal techniques haven't worked, that you are out of options, and if you don't someone's going to get hurt as the case is time sensitive.

It has to be shown that it's necessary.

who the fuck are yo

u even quoting where a

re the names how do you even d

o that

Brisbot-I've never met any terrorists or suspected terrorists who have been tortured, so have no anecdotes for that data point. But I will assume that what holds true for the political prisoners holds true for other people.

Because we know that torture produces unreliable results, and because it violates numerous international agreements, there is no practical argument to be made for it.

Limpy will of course ask me to refer to the missing baby case he linked to earlier.

To which I will say that one case study for does not outweigh the numerous studies which show the opposite. Morally and practically, I am opposed to torture. If we are prosecuting a war on terror because we believe it is harmful to our way of life, then we must have moral rectitude on our side. Otherwise it's just hypocritical waffling, because what is our way of life then? One that justifies violation of human rights under some circumstances?

totes

edit: Brisbot pls, love your music. not digging your torture endorsement (even if only endorsed in very rare circumstances)

edit2: also have to say Sam Harris defenders always produce an interesting and disturbing outcome in a discussion once they hit the roadblock of having to explain his torture endorsement. It's quite a problem for someone running an organization called 'project reason' which has a stated goal of encouraging free thought and expression across the globe. Sam probably wishes he had a time machine so he could *not* say he endorsed torture when he did

  On 10/19/2015 at 11:41 PM, Brisbot said:

I don't think he believes he is in the wrong. I also don't believe that he IS totally wrong. I am not totally sure what I think of Sam, and am trying to make my opinion, but I just can't treat what John says seriously if he just states his beliefs without the reasoning behind them.

When I say he knows he's wrong, I'm talking about how he knows that he's not representing Harris' views correctly. I don't think he's stupid, so I can't see any other explanation.

Whether Harris is 100% correct on every issue is beside the point at the moment, and for the record I disagree with him on a bunch of stuff (I think he should be harsher on Israel for example, though he's not as pro-Israel as the likes of Greenwald would have you believe either), and there's plenty up for debate with respect to his moral arguments (that's the nature of moral arguments really, it's not something you can conclusively prove one way or another). But like I said, that's all beside the point, because the vast majority of the attacks on his positions are not attacks on his positions at all, it's all knowingly dishonest straw-man bullshit.

  On 10/20/2015 at 8:12 AM, chenGOD said:

 

Morals are relative, we are after practical results. Which is why I usually can't be arsed getting into a debate on moral dilemmas where the parameters consider only one factor and refuse to allow for consequences.

 

But I honestly would say no torture. Not ever. I've met some political prisoners who were tortured, it fundamentally changes them.

 

You're way off base if you think his arguments refuse to allow for consequences (he's a consequentialist ffs!).

It's worth reminding everyone again that Harris believes torture should be illegal, and illegal in all situations (even the crazy hypothetical ones where it may be morally justifiable on consequentialist grounds).

  On 10/20/2015 at 11:29 AM, caze said:

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 8:12 AM, chenGOD said:

 

Morals are relative, we are after practical results. Which is why I usually can't be arsed getting into a debate on moral dilemmas where the parameters consider only one factor and refuse to allow for consequences.

 

But I honestly would say no torture. Not ever. I've met some political prisoners who were tortured, it fundamentally changes them.

 

 

You're way off base if you think his arguments refuse to allow for consequences (he's a consequentialist ffs!).

 

It's worth reminding everyone again that Harris believes torture should be illegal, and illegal in all situations (even the crazy hypothetical ones where it may be morally justifiable on consequentialist grounds).

 

Sorry I was referring to Limpy's moral dilemmas. Harris obviously acknowledges consequences.

Harris might well think it should be illegal in all situations, but he does also believe that there are circumstances where torture is ethically necessary: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy#torture

  On 10/20/2015 at 1:41 PM, chenGOD said:

 

Sorry I was referring to Limpy's moral dilemmas. Harris obviously acknowledges consequences.

I don't think Limpy is ignoring consequences either, he's just focusing on specific things because Robbie is repeatedly ignoring them.

  Quote

 

 

Harris might well think it should be illegal in all situations, but he does also believe that there are circumstances where torture is ethically necessary: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy#torture

I know, I just said that in the post you responded to, and it's important to remember that those circumstances would be preventing an imminent nuclear attack or something similar.

I posted a scenario where a dude stole a car with a baby in the back seat

The dude ditched the car in the middle of nowhere

With the baby still in the backseat

He denied even taking the car

(Despite being caught on surveillance video taking the car

And being in possession of items stolen from the car)

If you leave a baby in a car sitting out in the sun

It will soon die or suffer brain damage

So now, the question is:

should this guy NOT be tortured

In order to try and find the baby before it dies?

(The fact that people deny that such dilemmas are even possible

Or think that torture is always the worse moral option

Is frankly shocking)

As it turns out

The cops beat him up until he told them where the car was

(Personally, I don't care how the torture affected the guy

I don't care if he now has a stutter or chronic insomnia

Fuck him, he's a selfish fuck

I would torture him myself to find the baby)

I happily (though perhaps nervously) await a technology

That can just read some dude's mind

And render torture the antiquated barbarism that it is

However, we don't yet have such a technology

So...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thread needs

less

posting

and

more

hugging

and

kissing

imo.

Sent

from

the bottom

of

my heart

and boner

<3

what if you give them ecstasy, they mght talk

  On 10/20/2015 at 9:26 PM, Deer said:

what if you give them ecstasy, they mght talk

not sure if they've tried that, presumably they have - but no idea, they definitely have tried LSD (didn't work), marijuana (kinda worked, but not great), heroin (similar), and various baribituates (slightly better, but still not great).

  On 10/20/2015 at 9:47 PM, caze said:

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 9:26 PM, Deer said:

what if you give them ecstasy, they mght talk

 

not sure if they've tried that, presumably they have - but no idea, they definitely have tried LSD (didn't work), marijuana (kinda worked, but not great), heroin (similar), and various baribituates (slightly better, but still not great).

 

Have they tried just being nice?

hahah if they have tried all of that they suresly tried ecstasy, i would love to see the results tho, did they just become one with Allah and made their beleifs more powerful??

  On 10/20/2015 at 9:49 PM, Timothy Forward said:

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 9:47 PM, caze said:

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 9:26 PM, Deer said:

what if you give them ecstasy, they mght talk

 

not sure if they've tried that, presumably they have - but no idea, they definitely have tried LSD (didn't work), marijuana (kinda worked, but not great), heroin (similar), and various baribituates (slightly better, but still not great).

 

 

Have they tried just being nice?

 

yes, does actually work some times.

everyone's heard of good cop/bad cop, but there's also just the good cop, it usually involved preying on the suspects stupidity though, so won't work for most of the serious cases.

Reasonable people should be able to disagree about how to fine-tune our morality without being called "sociopath," "neocon," etc.

I think we're all just trying to make this world less of a bummer.

I think my way would make it less of a bummer, and you guys disagree.

That's totally reasonable.

But just don't call people "fucking idiot" or "sociopath" for having a moral position that , ultimately, has the same end-goal are yours.

  On 10/20/2015 at 10:36 AM, chenGOD said:

Brisbot-I've never met any terrorists or suspected terrorists who have been tortured, so have no anecdotes for that data point. But I will assume that what holds true for the political prisoners holds true for other people.

Because we know that torture produces unreliable results, and because it violates numerous international agreements, there is no practical argument to be made for it.

 

Why does it hold true in all circumstances?

So if you're in charge of the situation, and things have failed. You would rather stick to your morals than potentially save dozens of people? Surely there is a point where you have no choice but to do what it takes to save others as your inaction could lead to the death of others.

Also I am not talking about political prisoners, that is wrong indeed... there is 0 reason to torture people without a VERY good reason. Even if unreliable results are produced, you've already exhausted other options and you're running out of time.

I used to think it wasn't justified ever either but when pressed I can think of a point where it breaks down.

  Quote

 

 

what if you give them ecstasy, they mght talk

Good Cop bad cop routine, forcing someone to take ecstasy. These are both forms of torture. Torture ranges from causing someone to be uncomfortable to causing physical harm. Basically forcing someone to do something they don't want to do in order to extract information from them.

An issue is that torture is a loaded word, one can't help but think of an iron maiden or that... stretchy thingy... or pressing someone with stones (jesus).

Maybe need to come up with a silly euphemism.

  On 10/20/2015 at 6:36 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I posted a scenario where a dude stole a car with a baby in the back seat

The dude ditched the car in the middle of nowhere

With the baby still in the backseat

He denied even taking the car

(Despite being caught on surveillance video taking the car

And being in possession of items stolen from the car)

If you leave a baby in a car sitting out in the sun

It will soon die or suffer brain damage

 

So now, the question is:

should this guy NOT be tortured

In order to try and find the baby before it dies?

 

(The fact that people deny that such dilemmas are even possible

Or think that torture is always the worse moral option

Is frankly shocking)

 

As it turns out

The cops beat him up until he told them where the car was

(Personally, I don't care how the torture affected the guy

I don't care if he now has a stutter or chronic insomnia

Fuck him, he's a selfish fuck

I would torture him myself to find the baby)

 

I happily (though perhaps nervously) await a technology

That can just read some dude's mind

And render torture the antiquated barbarism that it is

However, we don't yet have such a technology

So...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think it's more like, those scenarios are so rare that when you allow the state the ability to torture it then becomes misapplied on a massive scale. Which is pretty clearly what has happened throughout the entire history of humanity. The enemy of the state, be it real or imaginary, will get tortured. If you set the precedent that torture is allowable then the state works to expand its ability to apply that acceptable torture. Once again, we have clear examples within the last ~10 years within this country where the state will attempt to expand it's ability to abuse its "enemies" at the expense of everyone.

Do you have confidence in the US government to properly apply torture techniques? Do you have a person to suggest to lead the torture department of the USA? Someone who will properly apply the concept you are suggesting? Such a proposal really requires that nuance, as it relates to the reality of the situation, be accounted for in full. Otherwise it is sort of a game of masturbating the intellect with hypothetical scenarios.

Quite clear that the cost of allowing such unethical practices under the authority of the state is always going to be be a net loss for everyone. Same goes for policies such as the death penalty or manifestly unjust laws such as prohibiting psychoactive substance possession.

It's better to set your focus on means that will allow you to achieve your desired goal without compromising your ethics. For instance, it's quite possible in the near future we will be able to read people's mind with advance technology. We will at least be able to read and control the brain in such a way that we could have viable solutions to an intelligence issues such as this. If we had focused our energies on developing this technology more heavily 50 years ago we might already have achieved it, but our focus is instead on enacting means of legally torturing people. Torture being a highly ineffective technique anyhow. I would argue your one example is probably part of only a ~handful of documented cases where torture has been successful. And if you're going to torture someone you might as well kill them, because the risk of releasing someone you've tortured under state authority is a security threat anyhow. If net gain safety and well being is your focus I mean. This is sort of the snowball effect of "greater good" ethical compromise policy. (wrote this before I read the last piece of your comment limpy)

Now, that being said. I would torture someone if I felt it might save an innocent person, but I would also accept that I will be punished for compromising ethical standards. I've perpetrated evil in the pursuit of a "good" outcome. Such is the moral conundrum of being a soldier.

Adieu I agree with you

I do think the US is incompetent and that torture should be outlawed as it will save more lives than it would otherwise because the current torture regime is absurd. Torturing political prisoners is wrong, as most of the time they have the wrong guy, and it leads to a drone strike on the man they are after's mother or something.

That said the point where I think it is justified lies at your last paragraph. You KNOW the person is responsible, as in there is video footage of him kidnapping a girl. And yet he doesn't give into normal techniques and still refuses to acknowledge he's even done it.

Even if it is few and far between (as it SHOULD be) I think it is justified.

  On 10/20/2015 at 10:59 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 10/20/2015 at 6:36 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I posted a scenario where a dude stole a car with a baby in the back seat

The dude ditched the car in the middle of nowhere

With the baby still in the backseat

He denied even taking the car

(Despite being caught on surveillance video taking the car

And being in possession of items stolen from the car)

If you leave a baby in a car sitting out in the sun

It will soon die or suffer brain damage

 

So now, the question is:

should this guy NOT be tortured

In order to try and find the baby before it dies?

 

(The fact that people deny that such dilemmas are even possible

Or think that torture is always the worse moral option

Is frankly shocking)

 

As it turns out

The cops beat him up until he told them where the car was

(Personally, I don't care how the torture affected the guy

I don't care if he now has a stutter or chronic insomnia

Fuck him, he's a selfish fuck

I would torture him myself to find the baby)

 

I happily (though perhaps nervously) await a technology

That can just read some dude's mind

And render torture the antiquated barbarism that it is

However, we don't yet have such a technology

So...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

I think it's more like, those scenarios are so rare that when you allow the state the ability to torture it then becomes misapplied on a massive scale. Which is pretty clearly what has happened throughout the entire history of humanity. The enemy of the state, be it real or imaginary, will get tortured. If you set the precedent that torture is allowable then the state works to expand its ability to apply that acceptable torture. Once again, we have clear examples within the last ~10 years within this country where the state will attempt to expand it's ability to abuse its "enemies" at the expense of everyone.

 

Do you have confidence in the US government to properly apply torture techniques? Do you have a person to suggest to lead the torture department of the USA? Someone who will properly apply the concept you are suggesting? Such a proposal really requires that nuance, as it relates to the reality of the situation, be accounted for in full. Otherwise it is sort of a game of masturbating the intellect with hypothetical scenarios.

 

Quite clear that the cost of allowing such unethical practices under the authority of the state is always going to be be a net loss for everyone. Same goes for policies such as the death penalty or manifestly unjust laws such as prohibiting psychoactive substance possession.

 

It's better to set your focus on means that will allow you to achieve your desired goal without compromising your ethics. For instance, it's quite possible in the near future we will be able to read people's mind with advance technology. We will at least be able to read and control the brain in such a way that we could have viable solutions to an intelligence issues such as this. If we had focused our energies on developing this technology more heavily 50 years ago we might already have achieved it, but our focus is instead on enacting means of legally torturing people. Torture being a highly ineffective technique anyhow. I would argue your one example is probably part of only a ~handful of documented cases where torture has been successful. And if you're going to torture someone you might as well kill them, because the risk of releasing someone you've tortured under state authority is a security threat anyhow. If net gain safety and well being is your focus I mean. This is sort of the snowball effect of "greater good" ethical compromise policy. (wrote this before I read the last piece of your comment limpy)

 

Now, that being said. I would torture someone if I felt it might save an innocent person, but I would also accept that I will be punished for compromising ethical standards. I've perpetrated evil in the pursuit of a "good" outcome. Such is the moral conundrum of being a soldier.

 

I agree with everything you said here

I definiately don't want to see widespread, intitutionalized torture

and yeah "governments gonna goverment"

the only antidote to a shady goverment is to make it as transparent as possible

and use whatever power we have to help make Policy as sane as possible

And one day, hopefully, barbarisms like torture will go the way of the frontal lobatomy

Technology will enable to see inside the minds of criminals

No more torture

No more innocent people being convicted, jailed or executed

but then of course the government will have other plans for such a technology...

Mind control technology being one the biggest threats in the coming future I think.