CIA accused of 'testing torture techniques' on detainees...

[MobBoss]

Once again, you didn't provide any way for me to even determine what the context was, but it seems that I was merely pointing out that a youtube video was biased and that someone was jumping to conclusions on the basis of that video.

Once again, do you think you could actually provide an example of where I was "complaining" about a "source" being "biased" instead of merely pointing out that it was?

And do you think you could actually provide a link to that example so I can determine the context of the remark? Or are you intentionally not providing it?

You obviously didnt read my edit.

I already provided you the comment, pages ago. It was one of the 10 I linked.

Like I said, you didnt even read them, or you would have realized it was one of the 10. I also find it ironic that you accused me of not reading them, when I assuredly did. Every single one. But you didnt.

And yes, you just painted yourself into that corner. Enjoy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Like I said, you didnt even read them, or you would have realized it was one of the 10.

I didn't bother after finding the first two were completely bogus and documenting that fact. And now I've shown that two more were as well!

So much for you carefully researching each one to assure the validity before including them.

 

[MobBoss]

I didn't bother after finding the first two were completely bogus and documenting that fact. And now I've shown that two more were as well!

Except they arent. The are indeed complaints about bias, from you, from sources and from individuals. And as stated, its there for everyone to see.

Like I said, your ability to deny the obvious is amazing.

So much for you carefully researching each one to assure the validity before including them.

I said I read them all. I didnt say I carefully researched them, and I even gave the caveat that not all were equal in their level of 'complaint'.

In other words, I was honest about it. And I continue to be honest about it.

 

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: Formaldehyde and MobBoss - stop the fighting.

 

[nonconformist]

That was 28 years ago, so no.

Most of those journals should still be in publication, or archived. You don't even remember the abstracts of the dozens of papers you read?

Blah, blah. Spare me the 'science is so special' lecture. It involves humans and is thus able to be affected by human bias, error and emotion, just like anything else humans are involved in. Case in point, all the recent scandal over the global warming crap. Science is of itself is NOT inviolate. Its simply a means to an end, so get over yourself.

Scientific peer-reviewed newspapers pretty much are, because scientific method tends to exclude the potential of bias, excluding systematic errors. The fact each peer reviewed paper itself peer reviews previous literature, to form a viable and independent hypothesis as well as the compulsive use of statistical analysis reduces error rates to "pretty bloody accurate".

Though I can't help at being cynical about the guy who provides a logorrhoea of FoxNews and other articles demonising everyone with lies and half-truths also whining about how biased science is.
Maybe reality has a liberal bias.

 

[Patroklos]

I kind or wish I lived in Forma's world sometimes. It is far more interesting and exciting than reality.

Moderator Action: You really need to be told separately?
Debate the issue, don't attack the other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[MobBoss]

Though I can't help at being cynical about the guy who provides a logorrhoea of FoxNews and other articles demonising everyone with lies and half-truths also whining about how biased science is.
Maybe reality has a liberal bias.

Your reality maybe. For example, in your reality I whined about how biased science is...however in the REAL WORLD I never said any such thing, I was simply pointing out what I believed to be bias in a single article.

For someone talking about lies and half-truths, its ironic you cant even get the facts straight on the person your talking about.

 

[Ayn Rand]

So as there has been no progress in this discussion, and as I like to reach a decision, I am going to default to a pro-US government position and conclude that the actions of the psychologists, while ethically unfortunate, were driven by necessity. However, I think there could have been some more oversight and a more objective standard of proof used in the [I suspect many] cases where entirely innocent parties were subjected to these procedures.

Therefore, insofar as it is possible, I think these actions were in the middle-ground - they were not outright, unjustified torture as some allege, but nor were they entirely legal [by international standards] and ethical procedures of interrogation as some apologists would have us believe.

So to answer question 1) from the OP, no I don't think the doctors should have refused to participate on ethical grounds, but nor do I feel it should have been held against them if they had refused.

 

[nonconformist]

Your reality maybe. For example, in your reality I whined about how biased science is...however in the REAL WORLD I never said any such thing, I was simply pointing out what I believed to be bias in a single article.

For someone talking about lies and half-truths, its ironic you cant even get the facts straight on the person your talking about.

My reality is having peer reviewed "nature"