dimreepr

We've gone over the number's and they're roughly the same as killing the next person you see, would result in a desired outcome. Are you saying that persecution/oppression doesn't create freedom fighter's or that torture isn't persecution/oppression? Like I said, your credulity isn't an argument...

No, the only argument you've made, in either thread, is from your own credulity, which when challenged with a reasonable argument/question you simply repeat, just a little bit angrier; that's why the cartoon is so appropriate. I'm also not declaring any victory, and to even raise that shows the depths you need to sink to. Or are you now attempting to play the victim card? All I'm declaring is that your life philsophy was unworkable in the justice/punishment thread, and your absolute opinion re torture in this thread, (based on that same unworkable philsophy) is certainly not absolute in certain undesirable scenarios, as far as any reasonable democratic westernised society would hold. You really need to read my post's, because @Intoscience posted this, I thought you agreed with him... 😉 I hope I'm judged by a "do gooder" that understands this: "A dog starvd at his Masters Gate Predicts the ruin of the State A Horse misusd upon the Road Calls to Heaven for Human blood Each outcry of the hunted Hare A fibre from the Brain does tear A Skylark wounded in the wing A Cherubim does cease to sing" - William Blake

Please stop referring to my "What is justice" thread and declaring victory, it's dishonest because you used the same argument...

I was going to leave it at a neg rep, but then a few minutes later I was negged, an insight into your idea of justice, I think; tit for tat is the ideal, once we define tit... To contemplate torture is only ever about revenge, much like to contemplate a nuclear response... It's not my problem that you don't understand the crossword...

Let's think of the brakes, first... 😇

Whatever you say... Do you? Or is this another example of probability over possibility?

It depends on, how one define's, serious...

I don't think this is a new problem, it reminds me of my gran chatting over the garden fence, scaled up. Some people are gossiper's and some people are gossipee's; we're social people, we just want friend's. I don't think it distorts reality, it emphasises the problem of gossip.

Why do I need any? Because the statement is to emphasise and to set up the point (he could of killed thousands for all I know, but what I do know is, he didn't 'personally' kill millions), which is 'he persuaded ordinary people like you and me, to kill for him!!! That you seem to think you're immune suggests you're more susceptible, scammer's rely on certainty.

Putin isn't going to be forced by anyone, but when faced with a dead end; he might be willing to negotiate...

An interesting related question: Is it rational to believe in god? I think Nietzche spent his mind on how to replace god, as in "the parable of the madman" Maybe Jesus had better luck...

They have the motivation to fight; a honey badger will face down a lion.

I'll leave you to work out why I'm sending you a bill for a new irony meter. Way to miss the point, yet again, I'm not making excuses for anyone, I sympathise with the suffering that drove them, not the men they became. Putin reminded me of you, because people like you won't listen to reason (because you've been convinced by circumstance that you can't be wrong) and because your both people (innocent babies once upon a time...) Now who's being obtuse? Hitler never physically (hand's on) killed anyone, he never pulled the trigger and he probably never actually witnessed a person die. He persuaded ordinary people, like you and me, to do the dirty work, torture, genocide, murder etc. etc.

She, hasn't told me yet...

Cometh the man, cometh the woman...

We're better off fighting???

To all people in science, we're better off together...

That's a bias we all share...

You should know how it work's here by now; it's not enough to just claim your intuition is better than science, you have to provide some evidence. By which I mean data, not anecdotal media coverage, but a ted talk would be a start... My thought's on Putin is, he reminded me of you: 100% certain he is right, dispite the evidence. Convinced that force will work, dispite history. Is that the answer you expected? Because the answer you're refrencing is "Hilter didn't kill anyone, he persuaded others to kill for him."... 😉

Even if you witness the crime, you can't be sure of what you've seen.

I don't know how else to explain it to you!!! You can't know for certain, the guilt of anyone, even if you witnessed it yourself; we all know how dodgy witness testimonials can be. So let me be clear, even if I witnessed the crime and I'm a natural torturerer and a psychologist, I can't be sure of his guilt. So no, it's never OK to torture; it could be me, you know a human being... The fundamental question isn't that torture is ineffective, it's when can we know? It's not a ploy, it's you doing the painting... 😉

The simple things are often missed...