Safe spaces for everyone?

[Ryika]

I'm not in a place where I can watch the video you linked ATM. In the video I saw the Nazi was clearly yelling at the POC, making gestures at them and invading their personal space. It's possible the video has been cropped to just the punch or something, in which case I think you can probably go find the uncropped video without my help.

It's the only version I could find, with the Nazi saying ~3-4 words, putting his hand up and then being punched.

 

[Lexicus]

So that was an attempt at moving the goal post after all. Then I'm glad we both agree that torture works as a method to get information.

Again, please look up the concept of "actionable intelligence". You cannot act on information derived from torture, even if it happens to be correct, without confirming it via other sources, because you can't trust what people tell you under torture. So even if you get correct information under torture, it isn't actionable intelligence.

This is why the thought experiments about "what if we had some dude with information on a dirty bomb" miss the point and are totally irrelevant to this argument.

 

[Hygro]

The other thing is that if there was the 24 scenario and someone tortured useful information we wouldn't have to codify a pro torture position we could instead be reasonable about the extraordinary circumstances that lead to a break in the rule of law.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's the only version I could find, with the Nazi saying ~3-4 words, putting his hand up and then being punched.

The earlier version that was circulating he was partway through a tirade and what we heard was "...nation, THEY deserve the welfare... No, it's fine..." And he was at first moving towards the person with his hand extended.

 

[Ryika]

Again, please look up the concept of "actionable intelligence"
The only thing you are proving is that you, like Sam Harris, have no idea what is entailed in gathering intelligence

Yeah again, you're moving the goalpost. First you claimed it does not produce "reliable intelligence information", and now you want "actionable intelligence". The two are not the same, but the first can lead to the latter, and yes, the second one is much harder to come by in its "raw" form, which is partly due to the fact that those who know that kind of information are generally very unwilling to give it away as they tend to be higher-ups, and those who are less committed to whatever cause don't have it.

The earlier version that was circulating he was partway through a tirade and what we heard was "...nation, THEY deserve the welfare... No, it's fine..." And he was at first moving towards the person with his hand extended.

Yeah, that's the version I've seen. Then I maintain my position that you're just being ridiculous. The Nazi is not yelling at them, he's speaking in a tone that one would expect from a heated conversation, especially given that they confronted him and not the other way around. He's also not invading their space, in fact, he's moving back a bit, only raises his hand as he says that "No, it's fine", clearly in response to the black guy who is getting into the Nazi's space from off screen, and before the black guy does that and knocks him out, there's like a meter of empty space or so between his hand and anybody else.

 

[Lexicus]

First you claimed it does not produce "reliable intelligence information", and now you want "actionable intelligence". The two are not the same,

LOL. This isn't moving the goalposts.

So you argue that there is not one person who either being threatened with torture, or as a result of torture, would give true information about something in hopes that they don't have to go through more torture in the future?

Then I'm glad we both agree that torture works as a method to get information.

I might as well accuse you of moving the goalposts because you went from "true information" to just "information." But we both know you didn't move the goalposts here simply because you changed your wording, and I suspect you know that I didn't move them either by going from "reliable" to "actionable." My point has been consistent the whole time: we might get correct information from torturing someone, but we have no way of knowing it is actually correct because we can't trust what people tell us under torture. Any information we get will be correct only by luck.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yeah, that's the version I've seen. Then I maintain my position that you're just being ridiculous. The Nazi is not yelling at them, he's speaking in a tone that one would expect from a heated conversation, especially given that they confronted him and not the other way around. He's also not invading their space, in fact, he's moving back a bit, only raises his hand as he says that "No, it's fine", clearly in response to the black guy who is getting into the Nazi's space from off screen, and before the black guy does that and knocks him out, there's like a meter of empty space or so between his hand and anybody else.

Hm okay well I guess you have a much more flexible definition of harassment than... Probably almost every other person

 

[Ryika]

Hm okay well I guess you have a much more flexible definition of harassment than... Probably almost every other person

I'm relatively sure most people would agree with me that being confronted by a group of people and responding to what they say, is not harassment.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I might as well accuse you of moving the goalposts because you went from "true information" to just "information."

And the goalposts have been doubly moved because our starting premise, from Harris, is that the information we will get will be unreliable. We are to assume that as our premise. That is what he is perfectly willing to acknowledge will be the kind of information we will derive from this torture session.

It's to his credit on some level that Harris goes where his logic leads him. But when your logic leads you to the view that torture is okay, back up and see if you've made some errors in your chain of reasoning.

 

[Lexicus]

And the goalposts have been doubly moved because our starting premise, from Harris, is that the information we will get will be unreliable. We are to assume that as our premise. That is what he is perfectly willing to acknowledge will be the kind of information we will derive from this torture session.

Another point Harris neglects to mention, and that his comparison with dropping the 117th bomb on Kandahar misses, is that acting on false information derived from torture will likely have moral consequences even worse than the torture alone. For example, they tell us some guy is in village X which is what we wanted to hear, and we go into village X guns blazing and it turns out we just killed a bunch of innocent people for no reason. Harris would probably call something like this a well-intentioned mistake.

 

[Ryika]

But when your logic leads you to the view that torture is okay, back up and see if you've made some errors in your chain of reasoning.

This doesn't make sense. If there is an error, then it's with his assessment of how reliable the information is, not that there must be an error in the chain of reasoning "because there can't be a case where torture is okay".

If we had tools to torture and get reliable information with high frequency, then it wouldn't even be a question, torture to end a war quicker and with less impact on the population would be better than war without torture.

 

[Gori the Grey]

then it's with his assessment of how reliable the information is

It's hard to talk to you some times. He hasn't made an "assessment of how reliable the information is"; he's told us to regard it as unreliable. For purposes of his argument. He's invited us to do that.

And when one does, his analogy with bombs falls apart.

 

[Ryika]

It's hard to talk to you some times. He hasn't made an "assessment of how reliable the information is"; he's told us to regard it as unreliable. For purposes of his argument. He's invited us to do that.

His position is that while it's unreliable, overall it's a net positive.

A gun that shoots 1 out of 10 times when you pull the trigger is unreliable, but it's still better than no gun at all if you're forced into a confrontation. Unless it blows up in your face more often than it shoots, which again you can make a good argument for and I even agree with is more likely than his position.

But that again does not make...

But when your logic leads you to the view that torture is okay, back up and see if you've made some errors in your chain of reasoning.

...right. If tomorrow we invented a method of torture that gets reliable information 100% of the time, then one could make the argument that it's the most humane way to end a war quickly, and it would be a pretty strong case.

 

[inthesomeday]

Valessa doesn't really seem to believe in morality or moral analysis of things.

 

[Ryika]

Valessa doesn't really seem to believe in morality or moral analysis of things.

So you don't think there could ever be a situation where it's more moral to torture someone than it is to not do so?

 

[Lexicus]

Valessa doesn't really seem to believe in morality or moral analysis of things.

Or at least, more interested in moral analysis of thought experiments than of reality.

So you don't think there could ever be a situation where it's more moral to torture someone than it is to not do so?

Yep; confirmed

 

[Ryika]

Or at least, more interested in moral analysis of thought experiments than of reality.

No, I'm interested in entertaining his argument from his point of view, because you originally made the point that he's immoral for making that argument. I said from the very beginning that his assessment of the situation may be incorrect, and that I don't agree with his framework, but if you want to show that he's being immoral by proposing the argument, then you have to entertain it from his point of view, and look at the morality with that lens, because if you don't, then you take what might be error, or just a different perspective, and claim it is immorality.

But yeah, you're right to an extend, the thought experiment part is indeed so much more interesting than the part that is close to reality.

Whether it is okay morally justified to torture people who may not even have the information you're looking for, with only the small off-chance that you get the information you need when the alternative is doing nothing and just letting a dirty bomb go off... that's just so much fun to think about, because the chance and the cost are so far off what you'd normally have to work with.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You can't be very imaginative then, it has to be said.

 

[Lexicus]

because you originally made the point that he's immoral for making that argument.

Actually, I originally made the point that his defense of torture is not "moderate". That was my purpose in bringing up Sam Harris in the first place: as an example of someone who makes a big show of being a "moderate" but has many positions that are not moderate at all. I think the case there is good since Harris even admits that there is something of a "mainstream consensus" that torture is pretty bad, and that he is bucking this consensus.

Whether it is okay morally justified to torture people who may not even have the information you're looking for, with only the small off-chance that you get the information you need when the alternative is doing nothing and just letting a dirty bomb go off... that's just so much fun to think about, because the chance and the cost are so far off what you'd normally have to work with.

All I can say is, it's a good thing you don't work for any real intelligence agency.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's the only version I could find, with the Nazi saying ~3-4 words, putting his hand up and then being punched.

You imagine that if we let him say all fourteen we'd find anything to surprise us?