iNow

Mostly I'm saying I don't give a shit what Peterson is saying. He's a pot stirrer trying to get attention and appeal to a very vocal minority. He's not representing actual issues that are actually problematic IMO. Also this:

Entirely irrelevant to what I said. You suggested motivation was the only thing which might allow someone to resist torture. I provided numerous other things which demonstrated that claim as plainly false. Frequency or commonality of those alternative explanations matters not. Your personal incredulity is also irrelevant, as is your own personal response to pain. Why wouldn't a person just tell you what you want to hear also when they're being tortured? If they'll do that and just tell you what you want to hear even in the face of far less intense or severe questioning practices, so why wouldn't that extend also to more torturous approaches? (EDIT: I may have misread you... you may be saying they'll share what you NEED to know, not LIE and say what they think you WANT to hear to end the captivity or torture /EDIT). This subject has come up many times here. The outcome is always the same. My unkind summary of those exchanges is as follows: Some people watched a bit too much 24 where Kiefer Sutherland playing Jack Bauer was able to beat the terrorist and save the girl. This is basically the sum total of their thoughts on torture as a mechanism for extracting information. Note that I'm not referring to Zapatos here, but instead am speaking in general terms. Knowing him like I do, I suspect Zapatos is mostly saying that no options should be ruled out in advance and torture ought to be left as an option on the table. The stance he has represents an unwillingness to ever answer in the absolute... to never say anything with 100% certainty and ensure all positions leave room for the exception... that he's 99% certain he wouldn't torture, not 100% (please correct me if I'm wrong). I digress... the past discussions on torture always seemed to return to the same answer. Torture will sometimes be helpful but only as if that happened by accident. The person shared information they would have shared via other means (i.e. the torture was incidental, not causative). Further, those discussions always reminded us who are using evidence to inform our positions (and not Jack Bauer from 24 episodes) that the FAR better and more successful approach to extracting information is to build a trusting bond with the captive and have them share openly what you need after building a rapport and trusting relationship with them with respect and dignity. More bees with honey... fewer beatings from batons and more sharing of few bits of nice food, bringing water when they're dehydrated, offering them a smoke, etc. The research seems to support this, but I'll be damned if the search function on the site will let me find all of the past works I've cited when this topic was raised. Sorry about that. Feel free to dismiss this all as unsupported, but it's not.

Too many other variables to consider. Go see a doctor. Until then, keep in mind that this is the internet so it's definitely cancer and your penis is going to fall off within 3 weeks. Better act now.

Or a congenital insensitivity to pain… or just practice desensitizing to it. Or years of mental and mindfulness training and an ability to keep a quiet mind even in the presence of intense stimuli. Or be in a state of physical and mental shock. Or any of the countless many other things which would help one resist torture that have literally nothing whatsoever to do with motivation.

🤷‍♂️

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44235.pdf

Also, it’s being stoked by the crowd who would look at Biden’s cancer research efforts and says, “oh look, now Biden is even trying to take away our cancer!” Manufactured outrage. Benghazi! Her Emails! Murderous caravans at the border! Socialism!! Stoke the fear, pump up the rage balloon, control the masses! One needs look no further than this very thread to confirm it works even on otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful folks.

When I do this, I keep returning to the same question… Where were these people over the last 200+ years? Why are they only speaking up now today on this topic for the very first time?

No, but the manufactured rage generally is.

In what way / how so? Ok. When you’re president then you can be less transparent.

I’d be even more specific. People are upset about process. They acknowledge this is how it always works, but they’re mad at Biden for saying it out loud and being transparent about it. RAGE!!!!

This isn’t a blog

No, I’m using the past to reinforce my stance that there is no actual issue here, that it’s a bullshit line of attack and a distraction. I also acknowledge it would be different had he said “must be a white male,” but that’s bc for centuries that’s all there ever was. Also:

More to the point, I COMPLETELY reject the foundational premise here that anything whatsoever is wrong with this. I find arguments that this is a problem totally lacking and wholly without merit, and history completely backs me up here. This is how it’s ALWAYS been, and that’s not a “they did it so we should too!” position being espoused. The real issue is now the rage manufacturing apparatus of the right are stirring up yet another baseless furycane bc people are easier to control when they’re angry, even if the subject of that anger is specious like this is. See also: Benghazi! And “her emails!” and “caravans of foreign rapists at the border!!”

Here’s what the feels like: Me: Look at history here. Others: You’re saying this. Me: No, that’s not the point I’m trying to make. Here is my point. Others: Nope. I’ll tell YOU what YOUR point is. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Fair. Next we must define what we mean by right and wrong

That is not a correct interpretation of my point. I looked for similar comments from Carter, Clinton, and Obama but couldn’t find any… So I shared those I DID find and it was coincidental they were all from Republicans. As I later clarified, my point was how the context of this “debate” seemed absent from the discussion given precedent. Unsure how much more clear I can be.

I chuckle a bit that even those advocating for the removal of rep found it useful to signal their own agreement in this thread… about removing rep.

I need it explained. Kindly please proceed.

The movement which matters here IMO isn’t feminism, but instead the movement from small minded white males who feel increasingly marginalized and are afraid of no longer representing the majority. If white males support minority positions like they so often profess to do, then why are they so terrified of moving into the minority themselves? You wouldn’t be hearing about these “evil feminism” messages so often if fewer males were receptive to them.

Counter Proposal: Return to the old system where a single click from me or swansont would knock someone’s rep down by 372 or more points since the power of the result was driven by the positive rep of the person applying it. 😂 Kidding aside, to me this all seems less related to the content of one’s argument than it’s related to the manner in which one makes it. A quality argument is almost NEVER neg repped even when people disagree (and let’s be honest, I’ve probably received more neg reps even when presenting rational quality arguments over the years here than anybody else…combined!). Instead, negative responses with rep tend to come when people post needless personal barbs or act disingenuously… when they seem to be knowingly misrepresenting the position of others or continue to act as if their position hasn’t been refuted even when it very much has, and even when that refutation comes from recognized topic experts (see also: the science of gender and sex). Neg reps come when one acts in bad faith, is being an asshole (yep, I’ve gotten lots of those, too… and I deserved many of them!), or when one gets obstinate and just digs in their heels. I’m not one who thinks every kid should always get a trophy and I do tend to adjust my approach based on community responses, but YMMV. 🤷‍♂️

How does one objectively define torture? Understanding what’s being described is prerequisite to subjectively determining whether it’s right or wrong.

Just making sure everyone was clear on precedent. Please do carry on attacking me for being aware of it and willing to share it for the important context it offers to the current “debate.”

Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a fucking break” category for me: Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956 and then named William Brennan (yep, a Catholic) to the bench. Recordings from Lyndon Johnson show he deliberately chose to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice and later nominated Thurgood Marshall. Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980. He said “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman. Reagan also chose Antonin Scalia for the court specifically because he was “of Italian extraction” as confirmed by several of his direct staff. In 1991, George H.W. Bush pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist and later nominated Clarence Thomas (yep, a black man just like he said). Donald Trump, September 19, 2020 (a day after Justice Ginsburg died). Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to ONLY female candidates. "It will be a woman … we have numerous women on the list." STFU already and stop listening to the propagandists.

I’m trying to focus discussion on the probable response from US and allies (and the potential ramifications of that) when/if Russia decides to invade more and more sovereign neighbors. When comments at least attempt to tie back and relate to that focus, it’s appreciated.