The Glade 4.0

Generally, every side in a war perceives themselves as the "good guys".



This helped with Germans, it was notoriously unhelpful with Japan. Japanese often refused to surrender, and if captured attacked their captors in futile gestures. Japanese sailors and airmen were often machine-gunned in the water or abandoned because attempting to capture or rescue them was viewed as too hazardous - and for good reason.



What problems did Soviet occupiers encounter that we did not?



Not in and of itself. No one is arguing that torture is inherently useful. It's use is to elicit information, or eliminate the probability of information - something that even this Senate report discusses; contrary to popular belief some subjects simply continued to insist they had no information rather than make anything up and internal CIA documents indicated that they had determined from these methods that the subject had nothing else useful.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I take it you're in favor of a direct democracy then.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Define "lots". We took "lots" because it was the most massive war ever fought. Japanese were still notoriously unwilling to surrender. On the other hand, people regularly surrendered to the Japanese, or Russians and Germans to each other, despite knowing what awaited them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

...

People need to be shot for expressing a certain viewpoint now.

Ok tough guy, start firing. Have at it. In fact, team up with Elmo, maybe he'll finally follow through if he has a wingman.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Unpopular governments don't last long and usually end in violence. You may not be alive to reap what you sow but your kids and grandkids will be.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yup, I'm sure it's just around the corner. Go hang out with Arathain. I understand he's looking for someone to help shoot people.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The comfort of the lie that "it can't happen here" is very strong.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Fortunately, that lie is completely unnecessary in the face of the evidence. Are you going to give up your Star Citizen and your jedi knight cosplay to go start your revolution? No? Well, I don't think anyone else is either, and they certainly aren't going to over the lives of a few jihadists.

People have it good here, Elmo, and that's what all those flowery principles you like are for. Liberty isn't good for it's own sake; it's good because it creates the environment where people get to sit around and watch football and know someone else is going to take care of the messy business like waterboarding jihadists. No one wants what you're selling. You don't even want it. You just want to feel like the revolutionary standing up to the big bad government in between your other hobbies.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah you just keep telling yourself you're one of the "good guys" and you're dong what is "necessary". Just like the SS.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

That may be a bit too far sir.

DE's more of a well meaning brownshirt.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I think of him more as Col. Jessup.

They all thought they were doing what "had to be done". The degree of the horrors might be different but the way their egos sought insulation against their actions is the exact same.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

COL Jessup was pretty much right in the points he made on the stand. Fortunately for me, I don't have an author dictating that I make inexplicably bad command decisions for no apparent reason. Plus, that makes me Jack Nicholson, which is definitely cool.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I heard the proper thing to do when you're worried that your country is in the control of horrible Nazis is to buy more internet spaceships.

Or maybe this is just to generate material to use trying to seduce women? I heard standing up to imaginary Nazis on the internet makes chicks want you really badly.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I never said the correlation was a negative. It just represents another point of view. Not one with which I (or, apparently, many here) agree, but valid in its way.

That's ok. You compared me to Jack Nicholson, I'm perfectly happy with that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I swear you go out of your way to be as dense as possible sometimes.

Oh, I don't need to. You give me gems like what's underlined above.

So anyone "opposing" (that is, holding a contrary viewpoint about) either the cessation of these activities, or an investigation of them, or prosecution of them "needs to be shot in the face"

Or are you taking exception to the idea that you would be the one doing the shooting, because you didn't specify that?

Whose supposed to be doing the shooting for you, then? You just want someone else to shoot people in the face for you?

Or am I supposed to just understand this is all a hyperbolic expression of outrage, and I should just understand that you don't actually mean for anyone to be shot?

Well, here's a clue - that's pretty much how I took it. Unfortunately for you, that still makes you an internet tough guy, tough guy. This is a matter of public debate; no one is going to be shouted down by histrionics about shooting people in the face.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.gladerebooted.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11094&p=260658&hilit=creepy#p260658

Hmm.. yet somehow there's nothing creepy about wanting people to be shot in the face over their viewpoint.

I have to constantly remind myself that I'm talking to someone that wonders wy it's not ok for him to resolve conflicts in public via fisticuffs.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wait, I thought it wasn't a matter of public debate.



Even if you really think he was trying to shout down public debate, why would you care? At least as far as this issue is concerned, you don't value it to begin with. Whatever you're actually angry about, it's not this.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

It pretty clearly IS a matter of public debate. Whether it should be is another issue. There is a legitimate argument that it is; there are also arguments that this sort of thing should be kept secret.

Pretty much any matter of national interest could be a subject of public debate. For example, technical aspects of radars and guidance systems might come out in public amid some hypothetical scandal if one were discovered to, say, perform far below minimums. In that case, we would see a lot of people expressing opinions on the technical aspects of these systems when in reality only people like you and Coro should really be talking about them.

That is not to say this necessarily is such an issue, but certainly aspects of it - such as the degrees and circumstance sof its effectiveness - should be based on the opinions of people such as psychologists and other experts or at least people with some passing experience and knowledge - not just what intuitively seems true to the average Joe just because it supports what he wants to be true.



That would involve me being angry about something.

I care to the extent that I find it amusing that Arathain on the one hand talks about us being a nation of laws, and expresses a lot of moralistic outrage - then turns around and says people need to be shot in the face merely for expressing opposition to an investigation or prosecution.

The reason I don't value public debate is that so much of it consists of precisely this sort of nonsense. Khross has some interesting things to say on the issue and seems to be able to discuss it intelligently. So does Talya. Arathain and Elmo on the other hand, don't.

Then we get you, coming in here once again to take a quick **** on my posts before departing again by intentionally overlooking distinctions between things like "is" and "ought". As tempting as it would be to dismiss this as stupidity on your part, I know that you're not a stupid man so that doesn't leave a whole lot of reasons why you go out of your way to attack a superficial appearance of inconsistency but are unbothered by hyperbole about how people need to be shot in the face. Does it not strike you as worthy of comment that otherwise intelligent and educated people (and again, as much as it might be tempting to dismiss Arathain as an idiot out of sheer frustration, the fact is that he IS an intelligent and educated person) seem to think the appropriate way to debate matters is announce that anyone expressing opposition ought to be shot in the face?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'd have to be stupid to believe that, and you said it yourself: I'm not stupid. You can call it "sheer frustration" if you'd like, but it's all the same. The point isn't so much that you're angry, but that you're ascribing your anger to things that don't make any sense.

I didn't ignore "is" versus "ought". Only the "ought" was irrelevant. You think that public debate on this issue ought not matter. So then why does Arathain being an "internet tough guy" about it bother you? Why would you care about an offense against something that you don't care about?


There are a couple reasons, but the only really important one is because I recognize it for the hyperbole that it is. Why would I be bothered by it? More to the point, why would you? It's not because you didn't understand it was hyperbole. Nor is it because you value his opinion. You've already dismissed that as unintelligent nonsense. If that's what you honestly believed about them, there'd be no reason to concern yourself one way or the other with their opinions any more than you would the ramblings of that crazy homeless dude at the offramp. And yet you do.

I'm not trying to "attack inconsistency", but you are being inconsistent. The point isn't that inconsistent = bad, but that inconsistent = normal psychological response. It's displaced anger. You're shouting at your kids because you took a pay cut at work. And displaced anger is almost always an ego-defense. No, that doesn't mean you're egotistical. Everyone has ego; everyone defends it. But the catch with this kind of defense is that it only works when you don't think it's working. Our minds work very hard to keep us from being aware of it. And that's where projection comes in to save the day. Yeesh, it smells like anger in here. Where's that coming from? Can't be me. Must be coming from someone else.

Which is why the last thing you can do is admit to being angry. Or at least, that's part of the reason. Maybe you can admit it to yourself, but you can't admit it here. Not because of pride or stubbornness, but because it would raise another threat to ego.

At any rate, here's the $64k introspection: what is it about this topic that threatens you?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

The problem with that being that there's nothing for me to be angry about. Frustration is not a synonym for anger. Yes, this board can be somewhat frustrating sometimes, but you have a lot to learn if you think that means there's "anger". "Anger" is one of those convenient excuses these days for "I don't want to have to consider your position, therefore I'll attribute it to some negative emotion".

But let's suppose that someone is angry about some issue or other. So what? Why is that bad? People are never suppsoed to have negative emotions? Or are they only ok when they "make sense" to you? Has it occurred to you that maybe you just lack the life experience yet for it to make sense?

No, probably not. You ARE very intelligent - but like a lot of intelligent people, you think that you've got a lot more figured out than you really do. I'm a pretty smart guy myself, but I won't pretend to have figured out that equation, or what you or Coro is talking about in General, even though at one time I might just barely have understood what you guys are talking about - and that's pretty much the situation you're in here but I suspect that admitting it will prove very difficult.



No, I don't think that public debate ought not to matter - I asked Arathain, specifically, why the matter of what interrogation technique is used ought to be a matter of public debate. No answer was forthcoming other than the same vague threats that we've been hearing for the last 10 years.

Furthermore, where do you get the idea that Arathain's behavior bothers me? Why do you think I'm offended by it?

Here's a hint - I'm not. I'm amused by it. I find the back-peddling afterwards to be more amusing still. I find it tremendously amusing that someone who IS intelligent and educated, and obviously considers himself to be informed and to give matters due consideration... thinks the best manner to address an issue that IS a matter of public debate - regardless whether it should be - is to talk about how people that hold a certain viewpoint ought to be shot in the face.

What's even more amusing is that you're apparently more concerned with running down this inconsistency that you think you've identified than anything else. What is it about me that bothers you so much, Stathol? If you think I'm such a colossal *******, why is it that you don't engage on the topic unless you think there's some way you can lecture me - pretty much invariably mistakenly, by the way. Is this just a search for an excuse to ban me?



Gee.. why would I ever dismiss "people need to be shot in the face!" as unintelligent?

More importantly.. if you can recognize Arathain as engaging in hyperbole, why would you then think that I was not engaging in hyperbole to challenge him to "start shooting"? Do you actually think I thought he was going to go on a shooting spree? Do you actually think I was seriously challenging him to shoot anyone?

No, that's probably not it. Probably it was more convenient to think that. Hey



Funny.. I wonder what effect it is that makes hyperbole identifiable from one person, but not from another?

Claiming someone else is projecting, and angry, and talking about their ego are pretty easy things to say, Stathol. Very easy indeed.



Well, you're certainly very good at ad hom, and at begging the question. Calling someone "angry" is very much like calling them "defensive" - if they deny it the point stands, if they admit it, it's a character fault, and if they ignore it it's an admission by default.

I think the real question, Stathol, is why it's so hard for you to explore the idea that maybe I don't need to be angry at all? You seem to have missed something important in all this - why would public opinion not matter?

Here's a more important question - We live in a free society. Public opinion generally should matter - but it doesn't, even when things become a matter of public debate. Why is that?

Have you thought about that? Has it occurred to you that maybe a part of the reason is impotent raging about shooting people in the face, and similar commentary? did it ever occur to you that I might be trying to make a point about that?

Why would a person in a position of real responsibility ever consider the opinion of someone like Arathain? Compare it to Khross - both of them undoubtedly oppose torture but Khross is in touch with reality. The topic deserves intellectual discussion in the light of sober reality, not a contest to see who can be the most outraged about it. Khross did that, most other people didn't - and in case you had missed it this evaluation is not because of a universally high opinion of Khross's thoughts on my part. However, he deserves credit here. Angry men do not stop to give credit where credit is due, Stathol. There's something to be learned here - don't fall in love with your own hypothesis - but it does not appear you gave any other possibility even a moment's thought.

Why not? You are a scientifically minded person. You should know better. You should also think pretty seriously about why our system is the way it is, and why someone would point out how foolish empty rage about shooting people in the face really is. No, our government doesn't listen very much - because they can't. There's too low a signal-to-noise ratio, and for the most part the people here are too smart to have any excuse for constantly generating more noise. If that sounds angry to you, then you have a very great deal to learn.


Edit: Actually, you know what? **** it.

I'll tell you exactly what makes me angry around here, since otherwise you're just going to regard this as a lot of posturing, and it may not be very obvious to you.

It is not anything in this thread, or by far the vast majority of other threads, but it HAS happened.

It's when people here, often with no children of their own, call into question how I raise my kids. I can think of at least twice that this has happened, and yes, that really does piss me off. I do not like it all. I take good care of my wife and kids, I do my best to raise my kids, and judging by my oldest, I've so far been successful. That oldest, by the way, I adopted when she was 12, and I didn't even meet till she was 9. Becoming her dad - not her stepdad, or just her "father" but her dad is the best thing I've done and probably ever will do in my life. So frankly, anyone that thinks I'm doing it wrong because I'm violating some abstract principle in their head can **** right off - and that has definitely been implied.

If you don't beleive this, I suggest you look back at what Talya had to say about her kids earlier in this thread. If you think that it's some kind of character flaw that it pisses me off when people - yes, even internet forum people - start implying there's something wrong with how my family works, then you can **** right off too. In fact, just writing about it is starting to piss me off right now.

So there you have it. That's what pisses me off. It is not anything in this thread, any other thread active right now, or even anything terribly recent. So you can knock it off with the bullshit about how I'm supposedly angry right the **** now and go back to the topic of torture and interrogations, because if you actually have the gall to suggest I'm being anything other than sincere about this then I really WILL be angry about something in this thread. Do you get this?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Amid the details, it turns out 22% of the people held were held erroneously.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/us/po ... rror-.html

And 18% of those tortured produced no intelligence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... t/numbers/