Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
or alternatively, ace, you could at least make a pretense of having read the thread through before you started posting to it--if you had read it, you'd find that this question of precedent is addressed in it.
|
I generally stop reading b.s. pretty quickly. Simply stated the above responses do not address the fundamental question I asked. I believe the only real way to know the answer is for the experts to have direct experience with torture or intimate knowledge of the circumstance when others used torture. If what everyone is saying is that the experts read about it, I consider that a b.s. answer. Sorry if some of you folks want to tap dance around direct questions. Bottom line for me is that the 'experts' have no credibility on this question, and to those simply repeating what the 'experts' say and say its true because the 'experts' said it was should pause and reflect on the issue a bit more.
---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
If only the rigorous evidentiary standards called for in the first paragraph weren't implicitly discarded to write the second.
|
I was not making a claim that one technique is more effective than another, I just illustrated what I would do and why.