I'm ashamed of my country

"Benjamin Turek" wrote in message
news:GVlUf.9004$vy.6853@trnddc01...
so are you to br the champion of the spineless.

Hm.....you got a better candidate in mind?

why don't we pander to whom ever is selling something good today?

Well, I suppose I might patronize someone who had something good to sell
today.....if it was something I wanted or needed.....and if the price was
right.....but I'll be jiggered if I'd know how to pander to him or
her.....or why.....or what any of this has to do with what we're talking
about here.....or what the hell you ARE talking about, for that
matter....which, if you think about it, makes us about even.

I guess that is just another difference in our opinions.

You got me stumped, Bennie.....I didn't know one had been offerred.

not standing up for what you believe is just as wrong, flexibility is the
key.

No. Thinking is the key. And it can result in either flexibility or
rigidity, depending on circumstances....and how good (or not) you are at it.

and until someone can show the horrific damage caused by a dog lunging at
you or licking peanut butter off of you, having your picture taken naked,
and witnessing an ugly American have sex is some great evil when American
soldiers lives can be on the line I will gladly stand by my opinion.

I know a dog would have you standing in a warm puddle of your opinion in ten
seconds or less.

maybe the biggest problem I have is that the information that could have
been potentially gathered could have helped to save my life, while I was
in a foreign country with people shooting at me.

No, that is by no means your biggest problem. You have a few greater ones,
not the least of which is that dead men write poorly.

So it has given me a different look at the situation.

Yeah, that much appears to be true.

I didn't have the opportunity to sit in front of my computer and ponder
the morality of psychological torture.

And now, here you are with the opportunity......and no tools. Life just
isn't fair, is it?

I am sure you'll get a big kick of breaking this down and writing snappy
responses to the individual sentences I wrote.

It's not much of a kick, really. But I've found that dealing with arguments
one at a time makes it a lot easier for me to keep track of them and to do
them all the justice they deserve. Besides, it makes it easier for readers.
I find the usual hash of selective editing followed by a dull-witted mush at
the end very unhelpful.

Maybe you'll call me an idiot,

Maybe not. Mmmmmm.....aaarggghhhh.....groan......Oh, alright!

Idiot.

although I am sure you won't stoop to using an insult containing less than
four syllables.

Hah! Fooled ya!

And that's just fine.

Well, FINE!

Some people need to do stuff like that to boost their self image, provide
themselves with a sense of accomplishment.

Indeed....and we've certainly got our share of them. But I'm working on
that.

And that's fantastic,

No, that's bad.....and not a little sad......um....well, sometimes it's
funny.

I am glad I was able to help you.

Well there, as they say, is the rub, Bennie. You haven't. You haven't
helped anyone......least of all yourself. A stew of self-pity, rage,
ignorance, nationalism, and bigotry is just something to sit in till you get
eaten, and whether it's someone else who partakes of the repast or yourself
is immaterial in the end.

Wolfgang

riverman wrote:

A roffian posted: "We invaded Iraq because Saddam was a brutal despot,
and if we have to torture a few people, its justified."

Hmmm..

Report: U.S. military abused Iraqi detainees at former Saddam military base:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...raq-abuse.html

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article ctkUf.14649$gD4.5326@trnddc05, says...
I would venture to say that at times torture of prisoners is the only option
left available. Its not pretty, but wounds heal. If the torture of a few
people leads to saving of a couple hundred lives, I believe the end
justifies the mean.


Math problem: Let p1 = the probability that there might be a ticking
time bomb somewhere. Let p2 = probability that the prisoner in custody
has information about the bomb. Let p3 = the probability that we could
get accurate information from the prisoner about the bomb. Let
p4 = the probability that we could get and use the information in time,
and let n = the expected number of lives that could be saved.

What are the minimum values of p1, p2, p3, p4, and n which would
justify the use of torture?

Kevin

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:55:46 -0600, Kevin Vang wrote:

In article ctkUf.14649$gD4.5326@trnddc05, says...
I would venture to say that at times torture of prisoners is the only option
left available. Its not pretty, but wounds heal. If the torture of a few
people leads to saving of a couple hundred lives, I believe the end
justifies the mean.


Math problem: Let p1 = the probability that there might be a ticking
time bomb somewhere. Let p2 = probability that the prisoner in custody
has information about the bomb. Let p3 = the probability that we could
get accurate information from the prisoner about the bomb. Let
p4 = the probability that we could get and use the information in time,
and let n = the expected number of lives that could be saved.

What are the minimum values of p1, p2, p3, p4, and n which would
justify the use of torture?

Kevin

All depending on how you define "we", whenever p2 is 100%, p3 is also 100%.

Also depending on how you define "we," if p1 is anything above zero and n equals
1 or more, especially if "n" is or consists of your wife, kid(s), mother,
father, friend(s), or anyone else you care about, I'd suspect that you would
hope p4 would be 100%, but would take anything above zero given no other
options...

The problem is that p2 is almost always a completely unknown variable and p3
decreases exponentially with regard to a decrease in p2...calculating p3 is
easy, but you MUST know p2, and it's almost always incalculable.

HTH,
R

On 22 Mar 2006 17:40:25 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

rdean posted:
"...and regardless of what you mean by
"our"..."

Strange statement, that...should I have said "your"?

What's so strange? You said "our (military)"...define "our"...and then explain
how "our" encompasses any and all that might read your post...

HTH,
R

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:58:54 GMT, "Wayne Harrison" wrote:


"Benjamin Turek" wrote in message
news:ctkUf.14649$gD4.5326@trnddc05...
I would venture to say that at times torture of prisoners is the only
option left available. Its not pretty, but wounds heal. If the torture of
a few people leads to saving of a couple hundred lives, I believe the end
justifies the mean.

sweet baby jesus. i would rather apologize on roff than to be forever
known as the author of those words.

the horror of that attitude is to obvious to be examined, or explained.

awh

wayno,

I'd simply offer this, and I'm not asking for your comment (although it is
welcome), just your consideration - if the torture (however you choose to define
it) of those who were intent upon harming your loved ones (or even just unknown
innocents), without the slightest hesitation, thought, or remorse, would (or
even likely could) save the lives of those self-same people, what would you want
done?

The horror of a lot of things is obvious, but it doesn't mean that sometimes the
best of men must endure a lessor horror while standing to prevent a greater
horror...and more than you can probably imagine, I hope you and yours never have
to get right up in the face of either...

TC,
R

Frank Reid wrote:
As a guy that wore a uniform for 23 years, I can tell you that torture
is the quickest way to get your own troops in the same boat. The end
DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS!!! I trained folks around the world on this
specific point. Unfortunately, you parrot what you hear from your
government and thats why many of our troops are blown up on the streets
of Iraq. If we do it, if we sanction it, we reap what we sow. By the
way, the worst information validy is gained by info from torture. In
my time, if I had heard that info was gained by torture, I would have
thrown it out as unreliable.
Frank Reid


I've noticed that almost all of the people that are cheering on the
torturing are safely sitting behind their computer screens at least
6,000 miles away from any chance that they will have to face the
consequences.

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:55:46 -0600, Kevin Vang wrote:
Math problem: Let p1 = the probability that there might be a ticking
time bomb somewhere. Let p2 = probability that the prisoner in custody
has information about the bomb. Let p3 = the probability that we could
get accurate information from the prisoner about the bomb. Let
p4 = the probability that we could get and use the information in time,
and let n = the expected number of lives that could be saved.

What are the minimum values of p1, p2, p3, p4, and n which would
justify the use of torture?


All depending on how you define "we", whenever p2 is 100%, p3 is also 100%.

You think so? I mean seriously, do you really think so?


Also depending on how you define "we," if p1 is anything above zero and n equals
1 or more, especially if "n" is or consists of your wife, kid(s), mother,
father, friend(s), or anyone else you care about, I'd suspect that you would
hope p4 would be 100%, but would take anything above zero given no other
options...

Perhaps. On the other hand, if myself or one of my loved ones were the
suspect being held underwater, my feelings on the matter might be
different.


The problem is that p2 is almost always a completely unknown variable and p3
decreases exponentially with regard to a decrease in p2...calculating p3 is
easy, but you MUST know p2, and it's almost always incalculable.


That is a problem, isn't it?


Kevin

wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 17:40:25 -0800, "riverman" wrote:

rdean posted:
"...and regardless of what you mean by
"our"..."

Strange statement, that...should I have said "your"?

What's so strange? You said "our (military)"...define "our"...and then explain
how "our" encompasses any and all that might read your post...

HTH,
R

Of course, "our" as in the "USA's". Naturally I am speaking as an
American. I do still have that right, don't I?

--riverman

"Math problem: Let p1 = the probability that there might be a ticking
time bomb somewhere. Let p2 = probability that the prisoner in custody

has information about the bomb. Let p3 = the probability that we could

get accurate information from the prisoner about the bomb. Let
p4 = the probability that we could get and use the information in time,

and let n = the expected number of lives that could be saved.

What are the minimum values of p1, p2, p3, p4, and n which would
justify the use of torture?"

An interesting effort to use pseudomath to dehumanize a decision. It
gives math a bad name.

Pretty much any bad decision can be justified by simplifying it into
only the variables you want to consider. Why not take into
consideration the emotional and personal toll on the torturers, the
stress caused to troopers who feel morally repulsed by the knowledge
that their country tortures people, the future impact on diplomacy, the
lost future 'bargaining rights' with the host countries of the victims,
the economic impacts of dealing with countries that have trade
ministers who abhor torture, or the entire slippery slope of creeping
change in how wars are conducted. If we condone torture in any form, we
have already begue to become who we are fighting against, and have
accepted and adopted the very standards that we profess to be fighting
against. How can we continue to protest the WTC plane crashes as being
'wrong', as its only a few steps further down the road to conducting
terrorism ourselves on that same scale.

We become them. Fit that into your probability model.

--riverman