213374U

Yay. Can't wait for some good ol' Spearmen vs Panzer action.

Yeah, no worries.

Err, yes. That admiral. Did he convert to Islam lately, or are you a bit too obsessed with these things and your brain is playing tricks on you?

Where did I say that I was against the "people's movement"? Just curious. What's all this about a "people's movement"? Mousavi isn't an enemy of the regime as he's being romantically portrayed in the media. He's just the current visible head of the other "wing" of the Islamic Revolution. Just another run of the mill power struggle in a totalitarian state. Nothing to see here, move along.

That hinges on the circumstance that torture is illegal and therefore must be carried out without supervision and in secret. Nobody wants to be fined, imprisoned, conscripted, have their property confiscated, lose custody over their children, etc. And yet, those are apparently acceptable, by most standards. Isn't that for all intents and purposes institutionalized "tyranny"? Is it better or worse than torture? Do you support the concept of a tyranny of a majority controlled by mass media? History suggests that the only thing preserving our treasured inalienable human rights is economic prosperity. If that fails, it's the national razor all over again. That's a Western invention, btw - and one without which we couldn't afford our current mindset... but I digress. Tyranny is one of those words with a very strong emotional charge. Even if it wasn't your intention, using it to strengthen your point is an appeal to emotion that distorts and misleads. In the end, what you have is the state ****ing with the individual, one way or another, by virtue of powers which have a basis in force. The line in the sand can be drawn anywhere. I made a hypothetical scenario with the intention of examining the moral aspect of torture without prejudices. It's funny to see you freaking out over this, considering your posting history. Let's not forget that, rhetoric aside, bourgeois pigs are people too. But yeah, let's bring up the fascist bogeyman, that never fails! Uh, no, they didn't. There were some "revenge war crimes," but the Soviet Union never engaged in organized campaigns of genocide in occupied territories. Sorry.K

Utilitarianism. So the question here would be, "is there any other way to deal with these rabid kittens"/"is flinging kittens the most conducive solution towards achieving a greater good"? But then you have to consider moral minimums too, assume that there's such a thing as a greater good outside of general consensus, etc. In retrospect, I suppose I should haven't steered the discussion this way. So, to preserve the rule of law, laws must be broken at times? Doesn't that suggest that there's something wrong with the idea to begin with? Long time no see, btw. Yes. YES. That is the crux, actually, of the whole issue. Because, as with what lof suggested, whenever we go against someone else's will (be it by imprisoning, drafting into a military, or simply imposing laws), it's justified because it is assumed that something is achieved by that. Obviously, if that's false, it's in this particular case unnecessary cruelty and generally an arbitrary abuse - immoral. But if it, on the other hand, does serve a purpose (other than causing suffering, but that's a different story), things aren't so clear anymore. From what I've been reading, at this point the discussion can't proceed further, as crucial facts can't be determined. More specifically, it's uncertain whether it can be established that torture is completely obsolete.

Yes, that's nice. How about a relevant argument please? Anything that imposes one's will over another's can be construed as relegating "certain people" (who?) to a "subhuman" state. And, uh, it happens everyday. Where's the outrage? Where's the difference? edit: consistency

Yes, Allah is great, Anarcho-syndicalism is the only way to Salvation, and unfortunately Santa won't be bringing you any presents because you have been a very, very naughty boy! See, I don't need to explain why - here with lof, we take what people say at face value! You've sufficiently proven that you don't understand the point of a thought experiment, or even the simple process of argument-rebuttal that makes a debate possible. Come back when you do. PS. Maxwell's Demon isn't really under your bed, sleep tight.

No, it doesn't sound plausible. Implausibility does not equal impossibility, and it does certainly not imply absurdity. Nope, not even with your fallacious ridicule. And, again, that's why it's a hypothetical scenario. Stop running circles, you'll end up throwing up. Either think of an argument or go back to The Manifesto.

lof, meet thought experiment. Thought experiment, meet lof. And you still haven't explained why it's absurd. You are just now realizing that a hypothetical scenario is... *SHOCK!!!* not real. Welcome to page 3.

Because an analogy by itself is not a rebuttal, I do not need to waste my time refuting a non-argument. Try harder.

Don't be a conceited jerkwad. Also, work harder on your argumentations, as all you did is substitute one word for another that means exactly the same in this context (ethics-morality). If something is necessary, in this case, for the greater good, it cannot be "ethically" or otherwise wrong, as either an acceptable alternative exists or the goal is impossible to achieve. Asshat. No, I mean, how do you figure it's not possible to have a desperate, utterly humiliated person believe he's better off taking what the "good cop" is offering? Sigh. And here I thought we were making progress. So... can you actually substantiate that? "Help help, I can't find a good argument so I'm going to resort to irrelevant analogies in a desperate effort to divert the attention and evade the point!" Try harder. You'd like that, but no such luck, sorry. I'm just playing the part everyone seems to ascribe to me.

How can it be both wrong and necessary? Wrong how and necessary for what? How about we keep the intellectually hollow aphorisms to a minimum? They sure sound cool, but aren't good for much. @Wals: thanks for the recommendation. I'm adding that to my wishlist - even if it completely misses the point. I haven't disputed the effectiveness of interrogation methods that don't involve torture, even if it's impossible for any technique to reach 100% success rate. I also don't accept your rationale that using it would mean sacrificing one's morality, as that concedes the point that torture is the wrong choice. Sorry old boy but you're not going to win this one so easily.

This and torture are mutually exclusive... how? Interesting point of view. So you consider it could be a moral choice, a sort of selfless sacrifice. It is at any rate, as torturers have their characters changed by torture as well, whether they know it or not. Unlike videogames, torture really does cause a desensitisation to suffering in the perpetrator, from what I've read mainly about military Argentinian torturers. As for the practicality of the scenario (or lack thereof), that's the whole point. I would certainly not feel comfortable with a state agency that had legal authority to operate around the rule of law in that sense. But that is beside the point and it obscures and shifts the focus away from the morality of torture, which is what I'm trying to discern.

Perhaps. But does that mean that fun ⇔ replayability? Time for my nap.

Answering a question with a question? How lame. Don't hijack my hypothetical scenario, lof. I don't hijack your "let's all jack off to communism" threads. The point is that you're making up a ridiculous situation to prove your point. Why don't you come back when you have a justification for torture that's not pulled out of an episode of 24?It's not a justification for anything, but it's not as if I really expect you to understand this. You can patronize with your moral absolutes as much as you like, but unless you can adequately defend them, they are just useless dogma. If a silly thing like my little hypothetical scenario leaves you squealing like a schoolgirl, you got some stuff to figure out on your own. And if I got you so worked up, I must be doing something right. So, quit squirming and answer the goddamn question, or things are going to get ugly. Understand? I don't watch TV, btw.

No. I said games can be great fun the first time around, not so much in subsequent playthroughs. Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear, but Tigranes seems to have caught my meaning well enough...

The reason would be, obviously, to earn Shep's trust and stay close to him. She is still TIM's hand-picked overseer for the Lazarus cell. Good point about the Collectors' base, though. I did voice my opinion on how I'd like Miranda's character to develop in ME3... not how I expect it to. No, in fact it's the opposite. It's the "soft and sensitive" delivery of some lines that I find the most grating. Renegade is fairly good, methinks. @Oner: haven't touched DA, nor do I intend to. Don't know about Morrigan. RE Shadow Broker: the impression I get is that the SB is not a new player in the galactic scene, unlike humanity. This is not supported by facts, though, so it could be easily either way.

You mean it couldn't possibly be that she's using Shep and pretending...? Frankly, the prospect of a Mata Hari of sorts is more interesting to me than yet another not-evil-but-misguided character that returns to the light by virtue of Shep's Saving Grace. You mean , right? Yeah, that makes sense.

Just checked. Everyone loyal, Legion tech specialist, Zaeed 2nd fireteam leader. Result: Legion gets acquainted with a Collector missile. =/ Funny, because when you pick him, Miranda says "well, at least he knows what he's doing" - Zaeed is discreetly mute... The VO work is pretty good overall, and Miranda is no exception. It's really jarring though that the only voice actor I find myself constantly facepalming at is the one that voices... maleShep. Maybe it's because he's the one that has the most lines, or maybe a perception that "it's not how I would have said it". I'll have to try femShep sometime. As for Miranda... I'm going to be really disappointed if it turns out in ME3 that she's more loyal to Shep than Cerberus. Cold-hearted calculating manipulative bitch FTW!

Answering a question with a question? How lame. Don't hijack my hypothetical scenario, lof. I don't hijack your "let's all jack off to communism" threads. As for the question you pose, you'll need to revise it. You assert that performing P would result in both democratic socialism and a utopia, but that DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Do you have a point here? So if it isn't fun, how replayable can it really be? Games are only worth (re)playing as long as they are fun, but apparently this isn't as obvious as I thought. These are games we're talking about, not gym routines. Oh wait, the professor says that this isn't really replayability, but "fun factor", a measurable and distinct intrinsic quality. But of course! How could I possibly the subtle yet deep difference in meaning between those two fundamental ontological categories of the object!

So, if using torture is wrong, not using it is right. The direct consequence would appear to be that the attack proceeds as planned, and people die. Interesting, but I would like to hear how you see this as a more acceptable outcome. This is a hypothetical scenario. Nobody is actually being tortured so no need to get your pants all in a bunch. It is useful however to establish whether torture can be a moral choice or not, and why; it's not meant to be a justification of torture. Morality is an important aspect to consider in the lawmaking process, so the discussion has value, hurting sensibilities notwithstanding. Yes, the method is fiction because this is a hypothetical scenario. Mr. X doesn't exist, either. But I'd like to see this proof you claim to possess that establishes beyond all doubt that torture cannot be used to extract information, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Remember, it takes only a counterexample to destroy a general rule. And I'm even more interested in finding out if those who so adamantly argue that torture is immoral are incidentally conviced, as seems to be your case, that it doesn't work - and how both ideas are related. As for the Northern Ireland example, I think you are trying to give torture an undue weight in this regard, and at the same minimizing that of other factors. Torture = Lose, Due Process = Win? I doubt it's that simple. Nothing ever is. I don't have a clear opinion on the matter myself. Don't know enough... which is why I'm posting all this crap. edit: Just saw this. 0_o There must be a way to make money off that talent of yours. TV contests maybe? Prodigious really...

Huh? A game can be great fun the first time around, but once you beat it, replaying it is pointless. Great "fun factor" the first time around, close to zero afterwards. Fun factor? What unit is that measured in, Pythons? Or is it a dimensional coefficient without units? Replayability-o-meter? Jeez, did they make Angry Gaming Aficionado a bachelor's while I wasn't looking? Sure. So... invest more in gameplay and less in churning out full-price sequels like there's no tomorrow. Simple, no? Oh wait... it's nowhere near as profitable. Why settle for selling just one when you can sell three???

Hypothetical scenario: Mr. X is known to have very close ties to Organization O, whose members have been convicted for committing random acts of violence against innocent civilians in the past. State Security Organization S has intercepted information that an attack on a population center identified only by codename is imminent. As a precautionary measure, all members of Organization O have gone into hiding, save for Mr. X. Procedure P is proven to be a reliable method for extracting information from uncooperative subjects, but will subject the individual to considerable physical pain and mental stress. It will, however, leave no lasting scars. Question: would it be wrong for S to detain Mr. X and subject him to P in order to acquire the information necessary to prevent the attack? Aye or Nay?