zapatos

Of course. But it was the question asked by joigus.

https://www.gwern.net/docs/history/2020-hassner.pdf

Further to our discussion, here is a recent study which discusses the likelihood of COVID spread within a household. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/31/the-new-omicron-subvariant-is-more-contagious-but-vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-to-spread-it-study-finds.html

You're right. Let the kid drown.

Does the military only attack if they know they will win? Do you only apply for a job if you know you will be selected? Nothing is 100% in this world. Quit trying to set impossible goals. I remember that time my son slipped on the river bank into the water, and I had to decide whether or not jumping in to save him would, without a doubt, be successful. After all, I didn't want to waste my time...

Yes, you're special.

You seem to be going through some dark times yourself.

Perhaps you could surround the straw with a round disk that fits neatly on top of the drink. That is actually doable and should greatly reduce the opportunity for people to spike drinks.

Wow. Torture has a bigger impact than I thought it did. Perhaps we can entice our enemies to torture someone. That way we can win a war without firing a shot.

I never made that claim. No. Can you please provide it?

Citation? All the data being shown here is related to extremists, the military, people believed to be extremists, etc. Where is the data on torture regarding people like you and me? If there is none then how can we make the claim that it doesn't work on people like you and me? How much torture is someone willing to endure to avoid giving up the location of their car keys? There doesn't seem to be the data to support the blanket claim that torture doesn't work.

Okay. I guess I just didn't see 'incarceration for a crime' as a loss of human rights. But I guess that is another thread.

Putting someone in prison is not equivalent to torture. Let's not confuse different forms of punishment.

Well, it's not complicated for you. Others disagree.

Not so strange I don't think. War is hell, but there is no need to intentionally increase pain and suffering. That is why we outlaw hollow point bullets, landmines, poison gas, and yes, torture.

Perhaps you missed it. In this thread "it" refers to "mandatory vaccination policy for Covid -19". You can read the very first post for more details.

So, should it be mandated for the NHS staff or not?

I wasn't aware there was evidence that torture did not work in any circumstances. Did I miss something? I agree. Just for an extreme example, let's assume I break into your house and ask where you keep your cash (and let's say you DO keep some cash around). You say "I have no cash", hoping I'll go away. But if I start torturing you, I imagine you would succumb to the torture and tell me where the money is. Giving me the fake location in your house only buys you time, not a reprieve. Many criminals will tell the police who their boss is just by being offered a shorter sentence. It seems obvious that many criminals would also succumb under torture. I of course don't condone any of this, only making the point that to say torture doesn't work is overstating things. Personal motivation, risk/reward, strength of character and belief, all play a role. Absolutely correct. Torture is horrible. It should never be policy. It is of limited effectiveness. It is a step back for humanity. It entails huge risk. But... If the outcome of some act was bad enough and could potentially be averted, I think it shouldn't be off the table. That's all. I was just answering the OP, not promoting torture.

Given that people will tell you what you want to know with means far short of torture, it seems obvious that torture would be effective in many circumstances.

Sorry, wasn't suggesting you were. It's more like a reminder to myself to not take my own views too seriously. I often think "well of COURSE others will feel this way" about some particular topic when in fact they don't.

I used to be more surprised when I'd find people who had ideas in complete opposition to my own but the last five years have opened my eyes a bit. I guess that is why people fight so hard for their beliefs; they just can't fathom that their own logic, which makes so much sense to them, is not obvious to all.

It's not like there is a test or a tournament used to select a justice. If there were I'd agree it is not cricket. The way the rules were set up the President gets to choose whomever they like, and the only check is that the Senate gets to make sure he is not making a rather egregious mistake. To suggest the President cannot have any criteria in order to make things 'fair', makes the selection process no more than a lottery where you or I could be selected. I don't understand how a lack of selection criteria for a job is in any way reasonable. I suppose we are again not "looking in the same direction".

So you cannot think of one single extreme situation that would warrant torture?

It sounds like you are saying 'in principle it is wrong to have 'black' and/or 'woman' as a job requirement from Biden for a spot on SCOTUS". Is that correct? If so, can you please explain why?

Yes, I believe it is. That part of the issue is easy for me. I think most people could come up with a situation where the benefits outweigh the downside of torture. Deciding who, why and how someone gets tortured to me is a gray area that will never be close to getting universal support.