[dead]
The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
61–70 of 160 posts
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#62[flagged]
At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change. So at this point it's more of an indic…
How do I relate this, from your prespective they do nothing to fix an obvious issue. From their prespective it has nothong to do with guns and are so absolved from responsibility, they are only acting in reaction to a threat to their lawful rights.
Its unfortunate that you are left with only reactionaries to offer alternatives, because by nature they are predisposed to telling you to pound sand. We could have a more healthy relationship with guns, I think it starts with acknowledging the role pharmaceutical drugs and investigating their effects more publically. I would also support any kind of community work in teaching responsible firearm operation, and more generally promoting high ethical standards of conduct in everyday life.
That said, the safest place I inhabit is work, with its fences, badge readers, and security guards. The second safest place is at home, with cameras, alarms and locks. Paying administrators over security guards is a gross mismanagement of government money.
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? Yes. > ut yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". If you classify everything you don't like as " some form of torture", then sure you have a point. But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone is innocent. All we can do is go through the process tha…
>But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone is innocent. A basic principle of any civilised society is "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". I will not waste time explaining why this is important.
I am not presupposing guilt, I am seriously wondering how you would have a working justice system that never arrests suspects.
Complaining that all elements of a justice system is a form of torture is like unironically using the term "stare rape": you're trivialising the real term in pursuit of winning points in an argument.
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? Yes. > ut yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". If you classify everything you don't like as " some form of torture", then sure you have a point. But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone is innocent. All we can do is go through the process tha…
Define torture if you are so inclined. Regardless, the plea bargain system has been repeatedly abused to compel false testimoney from people otherwise helpless to defend themselves from a lengthy and costly legal proceeding that will leave them ruined. Its a violation of their human rights, its prohibited by the constitution, and empirically has ruined millions of people. Crimes that do not involve violence against a…
I agree with everything you said, and still disagree that Golding suspects until an appearance in court is the same as waterboarding them or pulling their fingernails.
Just because I pointed out that such a practice is not, in fact, any form of torture does not mean that the practice is not unduly burdensome and unfair.
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#65[flagged]
You have successfully identified the growing and confusing discomfort I have had with HN, without knowing myself its basis.
I hope we can evolve into a community that is consistently curious and thoughtful about consequences of policy decisions in various game-theoretical concepts as you describe.
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#66[flagged]
> What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government?
While this has surface appeal, this theory of "gun ownership as bulwark against oppression" falls apart when you examine both how the US still manages to exert power over its populace and how democracies where guns are much harder to get continue to function just fine.
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#67[flagged]
> what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of power" between the people and their government in the US? How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as…
Cliven Bundy still walks free as far as I know, which I personally find mind-boggling, but there is precedence.
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#68[flagged]
> What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? While this has surface appeal, this theory of "gun ownership as bulwark against oppression" falls apart when you…
> the US still manages to exert power over its populace
exert power != oppression
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of power" between the people and their government in the US? How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as…
Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea. And I never said it was fair, I said it was a balance; the balance is very clearly biased towards the govern…
>> were american gun owners considered an army
Guns do not make an army. Should 20 million AR-carrying Americans rise up, the "government" would be the least scared. The day after they stormed all the state houses, they would fractionize and turn against one another.
Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
#70[flagged]
> What about gun ownership (oh thats the nerve), its easy to assume things will be better when guns are banned, but what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? While this has surface appeal, this theory of "gun ownership as bulwark against oppression" falls apart when you…
>> the US still manages to exert power over its populace
Self-oppression. For all the fearmongering, the US population is clearly able to install random people into high office and rewrite the rules as they see fit. Both Obama and Trump are clear evidence that you don't need to be from established political families to gain power. Literally any idiot can be elected should the people want them. Many are.