Thread: "The US Does Not Torture"

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I dodged it? When? That's a positive you are claiming. Provide evidence for it. If I'm not mistaken, I asked a question to try to figure out why you figured your argument was valid. If that's "dodging" in your mind, maybe you and I have a disagreement on the definition.

Yes, you never answered the question in your previous posts. Look at all of the posts you left today. Your answer is in none of them. That is conclusive proof.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm going to call bullshit on that one (though I'm sure you're not used to many people doing so). Guess what. I am alive. You're going to tell me I'm not? And then you're going to tell me that the burden is on me to prove to you I'm alive, because you are more convinced of the contrary? Hilarious. (And no, you are not "not even claiming the negative". Your stance has not been, "Well, hmm..maybe we do torture...I'd just like to see some more evidence." Your stance has been "I don't think we torture. Convince me of otherwise." Period. If I'm slipping on this one, then anyone reading this thread is invited to tell me that I'm wrong, and I'll honestly consider it.)

Good grief, Oneironaut, where are you getting this stuff? Again, I DO NOT CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY! I just have not been convinced of the notion yet because you have not argued anything except that some biased journalism links say that some European news outlets say that the military has COVERT "black sites". So my response is, "Uh, what evidence do you have that it is true?" and you keep putting bizarre words in my mouth about how I claim it is automatically false. I am not claiming it is false. I am asking you how the Hell you figure it is probably true.

And you are alive. Dead people can't type.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Just a few. You are making positives in all of these statements. Would it be most intelligent for me to refuse to take any of them into consideration and tell you to "provide more evidence" for them? If so, then please do.

"I think my daughter may be really intelligent for her age."

"I don't really think she is. I don't know for certain, but I don't think she is."

"What?! She's been getting nothing but praise from her teachers, and they are thinking about skipping her ahead a grade."

"All that tells me is that some radical, biased teacher is probably giving her good grades. That is not evidence that she's really intelligent for her age."

"WTF? Ok, then...If you 'aren't sure, but doubt it,' then provide some evidence that backs that stance."

"What? I don't have to. You're the one that says she's intelligent for her age. It's you're burden to provide evidence to me."

"I just told you that they her teachers are always talking about her, and they are thinking about skipping her ahead a grade."

"I just told you that that means nothing. What else do you have?"

I feel that that is pretty much what our conversation has deteriorated into.

Teachers work with your daughter every day in an intellectual capacity. They also would lose their jobs if they told you she is doing well if she is several grades behind on reading level and cannot do basic math. Their assessment is excellent evidence. Saying, "Oh, some guy says that some guys say that the U.S. has black sites where they know terrorists will be tortured," does not cut it for me. Where in the Hell do they get that information? I am used to news reports that back up what they claim. Sorry. Yeah, it increases the likelihood that it is true, but it is pretty weak, and it is not enough to call for me to prove a negative. The fact that the burden is not on somebody to prove a negative is a rule of law and debate. That is because proving a negative mere assertion that does not contain a contradiction is impossible.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

When have you, once, "specifically", asked me about "black sites?"

That's all I've been asking you about for the past seven or so posts.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Some European media outlets claim we take terrorists to sites in countries where some people are tortured even though the people working for us are told not to torture the terrorists?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am not even sure the terrorists are being taken to the "black sites". I just gave you the benefit of the doubt on that and argued in hypothetical terms. It looks like the only proof that they are even being taken to those sites is that the media has made claims and there is "an investigation", and that's only if that truth stretching journalist is telling the truth about even that. That is not proof that the terrorists are being taken to the black sites.

That is what I keep talking about, and you keep going back to the stuff about general torture and other things. I am just asking you what the backup of whatever European media outlets referred to in your links is. Notice that I said, "I am not even sure the terrorists are being taken to 'black sites'." That shows you right there that I am not saying the claim is false. I am just saying I am not convinced. For some reason, you keep assuming I am saying the claim is flat out false, and you keep challenging me to argue that it is false. There is no way to disprove a negative like that. That is why I keep using the Bigfoot analogy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And what sort of evidence would you be willing to accept as evidence. (Remember, if you are looking for satellite images, or actual coordinates, you are asking for proof, which I have never claimed to have.)

Anything. Just what the supposed news outlets claim is their reason for stating it would do something. So far, it just looks like a wild assertion. I have only seen pure statements with no rationale.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Is the United States government not a competitive outlet that has something to lose if they make stuff up? The only evidence that you have that the evidence I have posted is insufficient (which is....wait for it...a positive claim on your part) is that the Administration told you they do not torture. That is sufficient evidence to discredit the evidence that I have presented so far? Really?

Dude, get off the torture in general stuff for now. I am talking about these "black sites". I have been concentrating on that for more than a page now. I already said I am not sure if the U.S. has a secret torture policy. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the option I clicked in your poll. I still am not sure. I even said in this thread that the government might have gotten some of its information by having butcher knives up people's asses. I have only said that your arguments have not proven that Bush was incorrect in saying the U.S. does not have a torture policy. That's it. But in my last few posts, I have been specifically asking about evidence for the existence of top secret black sites.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What you just said is "That would be like if I said there is evidence of Bigfoot and told you to give me evidence that there is not evidence of Bigfoot." If I believed that the evidence you gave is insufficient, I should be able to provide sufficient evidence that the evidence you gave is not really evidence. That is not an unreasonable condition. If someone says "no, that evidence doesn't suffice" then they should be able to provide evidence that that evidence doesn't suffice. Yours is a completely unrealistic argument, trying to shift all responsibility to the person that you disagree with. You're (or you should be) better than that.

What evidence have I given? I am just asking you what your evidence is. Mere assertion about something supposedly top secret does not cut it for me. If a news outlet supposedly says the U.S. has secret interrogation sites, which they reportedly call "black sites", I want to know where in the Hell they get that and what other evidence there might be other than their mere assertion. THAT IS ALL I AM ASKING.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I've just listed many sources that have cited those locations as existing. Credible sources. Sources that (yes, without proof) it is still reasonable to doubt. I have never stated that they were 100% infallible. But they are credible to the point where, if they are fallible, you should be able to provide an argument as to why and/or how they are, because, yes, that would be another positive claim on your part.

Okay, so some sources basically say, "The United States has covert 'black sites' where terrorists are sent to be tortured in defiance of the Geneva Convention and in defiance of publicly claimed policy. Even though it is top secret U.S. military information, we know about it. We are not going to tell you how we know, but we know. It is true. You have our assertion. There it is." Sorry, I can't go on that. That is just a game of one person's word against another's, and it is not convincing. If Fox News said, "The U.S. military has secret locations in Poland and other countries where they take terrorists and give them massages and ice cream so they will talk," my response to be, "Top secret? Then how do you figure?" I would be asking the same question. When people talk about covert military policies, they have explaining to do. If that's all you've got, then okay. There we go.