4 ms·

'Ticking time bomb' isn't even effective in theory let alone practise. It's just a weak and puerile excuse for sadistic bullying. This thread speaks volumes ab

'Ticking time bomb' isn't even effective in theory let alone practise. It's just a weak and puerile excuse for sadistic bullying. This thread speaks volumes about the low moral character found in people like 'Ronco' and much of the SV wannabe culture.

dvt 12y ago
I don't think you understand the ticking time-bomb thought experiment. It's well-bounded and presents a very compelling argument for the moral permissibility if we're virtue ethicists or requirement, if we're utilitarians, of torture. The only counter-argument is, does it actually happen in real life? Some say yes, some say no.
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  The counter argument is that it's based on a moronic assumption that the person being tortured is guilty and yet will reveal the correct location and instructions on how to disarm the device while the clock is still ticking. That holds water for nobody but a sadist looking for cover or a dimwit who has seen too many episodes of 24.
  - dvt 12y ago
    That exact scenario has occurred many times in real-life. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa... The assumption is not at all moronic.
    - dreamfactory2 12y ago
      That's a completely different scenario with different motivations and no bearing on the ticking time bomb one. (And even in that case note the information came too late to save the victim.) In a ticking time bomb scenario, a suspected terrorist might or might not give up the correct location of the device in many circumstances - could be a lead pipe, asking nicely, bribery, being attractive, making a convincing moral argument, or they may be unwilling, or unable in the event that they are innocent. Clearly none of those can be assumed and it won't be the same each time. So even if one were to look at it from a purely amoral utilitarian viewpoint - even on those kind of sociopathic terms it is still absurd and very telling for an individual to seize on torture as a magic bullet for obtaining success. When we also consider that torture is widely documented as ineffective for gathering information, we are left with sadists, stupids, and immature creeps whose understanding of the world is based on action movies.
      - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
        It is documented by people trying to make an emotional point that it is ineffective. It is so obvious that I cannot believe intellectual people fall for the idea that because we find torture morally disgusting that is must be "ineffective." That is purely an emotional argument to make us feel better about our emotional decision. When does torture become ineffective? Why is it that threatening a child with going to bed early or a criminal with jail time to give up co-conspirators can be effective but "torture" cannot? Where on the spectrum does it become ineffective? Such a delineation does not exist and we all know it. If we want to ban it on moral grounds then fine but let's not delude ourselves. It makes us feel nice to say it doesn't work. No one argues it is this perfect mechanism, neither is sending your kid to bed early, but to say it wholly does not work is spurious.
        dreamfactory2 12y ago
        This is the big lie. In fact it's documented time and time again by experienced interrogators that it's ineffective e.g. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_... On the contrary, the only people proposing torture are doing it from a purely emotional standpoint. And what a disgusting and shameful emotional standpoint they are revealing themselves to have.
        dinkumthinkum 12y ago
        Nonsense. You are claiming it is ineffective and your proof is an op-ed written by one FBI interrogator. Did you actually read the original article [1]? Nowhere does Ali Soufan really make a case that torture is actually ineffective. Soufan makes claims that digging through receipts and conventional methods were more effective than whatever "torture" the CIA actually did but nowhere is the claim "torture is not effective" substantiated. You are showing your emotions by claiming that anyone that could think torture could be effective (setting aside the decision to use it based on moral grounds) must only be doing so because of emotions. Is thinking that digging through someone's receipts during an investigation also an emotional position? What you have made is a non sequitur. Take the emotion out of it. Where is the actual evidence or theory of why it cannot possibly work? The problem you have is that any example of torture yielding the intending information disproves your position entirely. You will really make that claim? As well, I asked what is the delineation because everyday parents as well as police use the tactics on the spectrum of discomfort to yield results often-times (nothing is perfect) the results are obtained. So where is this magical line of delineation? I don't think it exists. You are only proving the point that the fact based decision of whether or not torture can be effective in yielding information is being made based on emotion rather than reality. The Mexican military have used the tactics of torture to discover information that they were trying to find and in instances they did yield that information. [2] Again, any instance that shows that it "works" disputes directly your claim. Now, again, this is separate from our decision not to use such tactics because they are wholly disgusting and morally despicable but we are being coy if we claim it does not work because we want to make ourselves feel better. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06soufan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss& http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06soufan.html?_r=2... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070804197.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07...
dinkumthinkum 12y ago
All this hatred directed at Ron Conway, whom I don't really have any opinion, in a thread about an article Paul Graham wrote that has nothing to do with torture ... This smacks of the kind of inane, conversation drowning behavior of PETA. What is theoretically wrong with the "ticking time bomb," since you wrote that specifically? What is the lapse in logic or the shaky philosophical flaw in the "theory?" And then you go and besmirch the whole "SV wannabe culture" because they don't have the same thoughtless moral certainty that you do. Reasonable people can disagree and it does not mean one side is evil or one is stupid, necessarily. I think it is a bit much to say Ron Conway is despicable or whatever because of this.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  Wow, a rare sane comment in this whole subthread. What are you still doing on this site?
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  Ticking time bomb covered in other comments. It's not quite about torture per se (which is actually a clear moral good vs evil issue - after all you don't hear people saying we need to consider both sides of the rape argument to reach a balanced view). Point here being that PG wrote a feelgood piece about the SV great and good that will be lapped up by many who are engaged in tech. Central to the piece is that Ronco's success was down to his great character so it is entirely on topic to discuss. But (a bit like Google's "don't be evil") when you scratch the surface of the subject there's a quite different story which reveals the article as a bit of a propaganda piece (whether or not unwittingly).

dvt 12y ago

I don't think you understand the ticking time-bomb thought experiment. It's well-bounded and presents a very compelling argument for the moral permissibility if we're virtue ethicists or requirement, if we're utilitarians, of torture. The only counter-argument is, does it actually happen in real life? Some say yes, some say no.

dreamfactory2 12y ago
The counter argument is that it's based on a moronic assumption that the person being tortured is guilty and yet will reveal the correct location and instructions on how to disarm the device while the clock is still ticking. That holds water for nobody but a sadist looking for cover or a dimwit who has seen too many episodes of 24.
- dvt 12y ago
  That exact scenario has occurred many times in real-life. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa... The assumption is not at all moronic.
  - dreamfactory2 12y ago
    That's a completely different scenario with different motivations and no bearing on the ticking time bomb one. (And even in that case note the information came too late to save the victim.) In a ticking time bomb scenario, a suspected terrorist might or might not give up the correct location of the device in many circumstances - could be a lead pipe, asking nicely, bribery, being attractive, making a convincing moral argument, or they may be unwilling, or unable in the event that they are innocent. Clearly none of those can be assumed and it won't be the same each time. So even if one were to look at it from a purely amoral utilitarian viewpoint - even on those kind of sociopathic terms it is still absurd and very telling for an individual to seize on torture as a magic bullet for obtaining success. When we also consider that torture is widely documented as ineffective for gathering information, we are left with sadists, stupids, and immature creeps whose understanding of the world is based on action movies.
    - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
      It is documented by people trying to make an emotional point that it is ineffective. It is so obvious that I cannot believe intellectual people fall for the idea that because we find torture morally disgusting that is must be "ineffective." That is purely an emotional argument to make us feel better about our emotional decision. When does torture become ineffective? Why is it that threatening a child with going to bed early or a criminal with jail time to give up co-conspirators can be effective but "torture" cannot? Where on the spectrum does it become ineffective? Such a delineation does not exist and we all know it. If we want to ban it on moral grounds then fine but let's not delude ourselves. It makes us feel nice to say it doesn't work. No one argues it is this perfect mechanism, neither is sending your kid to bed early, but to say it wholly does not work is spurious.
      - dreamfactory2 12y ago
        This is the big lie. In fact it's documented time and time again by experienced interrogators that it's ineffective e.g. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_effectiveness_of_torture/ http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/an_fbi_interrogator_on_the_... On the contrary, the only people proposing torture are doing it from a purely emotional standpoint. And what a disgusting and shameful emotional standpoint they are revealing themselves to have.
        dinkumthinkum 12y ago
        Nonsense. You are claiming it is ineffective and your proof is an op-ed written by one FBI interrogator. Did you actually read the original article [1]? Nowhere does Ali Soufan really make a case that torture is actually ineffective. Soufan makes claims that digging through receipts and conventional methods were more effective than whatever "torture" the CIA actually did but nowhere is the claim "torture is not effective" substantiated. You are showing your emotions by claiming that anyone that could think torture could be effective (setting aside the decision to use it based on moral grounds) must only be doing so because of emotions. Is thinking that digging through someone's receipts during an investigation also an emotional position? What you have made is a non sequitur. Take the emotion out of it. Where is the actual evidence or theory of why it cannot possibly work? The problem you have is that any example of torture yielding the intending information disproves your position entirely. You will really make that claim? As well, I asked what is the delineation because everyday parents as well as police use the tactics on the spectrum of discomfort to yield results often-times (nothing is perfect) the results are obtained. So where is this magical line of delineation? I don't think it exists. You are only proving the point that the fact based decision of whether or not torture can be effective in yielding information is being made based on emotion rather than reality. The Mexican military have used the tactics of torture to discover information that they were trying to find and in instances they did yield that information. [2] Again, any instance that shows that it "works" disputes directly your claim. Now, again, this is separate from our decision not to use such tactics because they are wholly disgusting and morally despicable but we are being coy if we claim it does not work because we want to make ourselves feel better. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06soufan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss& http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06soufan.html?_r=2... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070804197.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07...

dinkumthinkum 12y ago

All this hatred directed at Ron Conway, whom I don't really have any opinion, in a thread about an article Paul Graham wrote that has nothing to do with torture ... This smacks of the kind of inane, conversation drowning behavior of PETA. What is theoretically wrong with the "ticking time bomb," since you wrote that specifically? What is the lapse in logic or the shaky philosophical flaw in the "theory?" And then you go and besmirch the whole "SV wannabe culture" because they don't have the same thoughtless moral certainty that you do. Reasonable people can disagree and it does not mean one side is evil or one is stupid, necessarily. I think it is a bit much to say Ron Conway is despicable or whatever because of this.

thaumaturgy 12y ago
Wow, a rare sane comment in this whole subthread. What are you still doing on this site?
dreamfactory2 12y ago
Ticking time bomb covered in other comments. It's not quite about torture per se (which is actually a clear moral good vs evil issue - after all you don't hear people saying we need to consider both sides of the rape argument to reach a balanced view). Point here being that PG wrote a feelgood piece about the SV great and good that will be lapped up by many who are engaged in tech. Central to the piece is that Ronco's success was down to his great character so it is entirely on topic to discuss. But (a bit like Google's "don't be evil") when you scratch the surface of the subject there's a quite different story which reveals the article as a bit of a propaganda piece (whether or not unwittingly).