It might be worth being familiar with the difference between “such-and-such type evidence needs to be discounted for Reason X” and “anything that doesn’t agree with me doesn’t count”. People who can’t grasp this distinction might have problems with any discussion of issues, since a position generally involves a weighing of conflicting evidence, and people’s opinions tend to correlate with the evidence that they find more compelling.
Of course, some people don’t really have a problem with the methodology (even if they understand it altogether) but with the conclusion. When they see a conclusion they strongly dislike it’s time to whip out specious arguments they don’t apply elsewhere, or to themselves.
Quite of few of the most articulate, insightful, and time-tested members of this board responded to your thread on torture. Getting you to admit that there are any flaws in your argument (to say nothing of your argument actually being riddled with inaccuracies and poor conclusions) is impossible.
Before you lecture anyone on the proper way to debate, get your own house in order, you troll.
Excuse me if I occasionally like to be concise. Also, you invented any bullshit reason you needed to discount the mountains of evidence against torture being effective, like that the people needed to have tortured to be credible.
I noted in the OP that someone who says “I only have experience with Method X but I’m sure it’s better than Method Y” is less than completely convincing (especially if others disagree). You can call it what you want. I doubt if you (or anyone else) disagree with this as a general rule.
You don’t need to have direct personal experience with torture to know that it doesn’t fucking work, you goddamned jackass. And the ‘others who disagree’ are morally reprehensible, so I don’t attach any credence to their opinions.
I am not all that familiar with the posters to that thread, though I don’t think that thread was an advertisement for many of them.
But it makes no difference. The makeup of this board is such that arguments that tend to support torture are not going to find a sympathetic ear from many. There are other boards where “quite of few of the most articulate, insightful, and time-tested members” would hold the exact opposite, and that would be equally meaningless.
Saying “everybody here agrees with me” is a shallow argument that betrays weakness, especially in this circumstance.
Θα ήταν ίσως χρήσιμο να γνωρίζουν τη διαφορά μεταξύ του είδους των αποδείξεων πρέπει να αποκλείεται για λόγους X “και” κάτι που δεν συμφωνεί μαζί μου, δεν το κάνουν. "Οι άνθρωποι που δεν μπορεί να λάβει αυτή τη διάκριση δεν μπορεί να έχει προβλήματα με οποιαδήποτε συζήτηση των θεμάτων, από μια γενική εκτίμηση των αποδεικτικών στοιχείων, και τις απόψεις τείνουν να συσχετίζονται με τα στοιχεία που θεωρούν ως πλέον πειστικό.
Φυσικά, κάποιοι άνθρωποι πραγματικά δεν έχουν πρόβλημα με την μέθοδο (αν και είναι αρκετά), αλλά με το συμπέρασμα. Όταν βλέπουν ένα συμπέρασμα, που αντιπαθούν έντονα ότι είναι καιρός να μαστίγιο προσχηματικοί επιχειρήματα, δεν εφαρμόζονται αλλού, ή να τον εαυτό τους.