dippin

I am sorry, but this statement right there points to the futility of discussing this with you.

First of all, experts are nothing more than people with a great deal of experience studying something. Yes, they do get things wrong from time to time, but I'd still rather rely on the findings of any research done by experts than this sort of ultra relativism that posits any statement of fact as inherently in doubt.

I mean, it's really easy to defend this position, but it's bullshit and tells me more about you than the situation.

You are basically saying that torture should be the default, and that the burden of proof is on those who say it doesn't work. Never mind the impossibilities of proving a negative, you are saying on top of that that any opinion from anyone with an in depth knowledge of the subject (i.e., the experts) is inherently false because there have been instances of experts being wrong before.

I mean, how can anyone argue against such bulletproof standards? If your position is "torture until there is definite proof that it does NOT work, and such proof has to come from people who have no in depth knowledge of the subject because experts have been wrong before," nothing short of God himself coming down to earth to tell you that torture is wrong will suffice.

Of course, it is ironic that the American right, long the attackers of relativism, are now reduced to the most extreme forms of relativism.

Now, I would love to know which lines you don't think should be crossed. Why don't we implement torture at home?