This is from page 7 -- but it's an egregious enough example of anti-skeptical behavior that I think it deserves to be spotlighted despite the fact the thread is currently several pages past the post in question.
In response to a request from leftysergeant to provide evidence for a key claim, BeAChooser replied:
No lefty ... I'm not going to do that because I've asked you repeatedly to back up claims you've made ... and you ignored me. So all I'm going to do is give you some clues where you can look to find the answer to your question.
This is the kind of behavior which non-skeptics delight in, because it allows them to make all kinds of non-supportable claims.
A skeptic does not use (alleged) non-skeptical behavior of others as an excuse for behaving non-skeptically. Regardless of whether someone else has provided evidence for their claims, a skeptic should be delighted at the opportunity to do so regarding their own.
Providing evidence is not some kind of punishment. It is a chance to demonstrate the validity of what we say. It lets others see for themselves whether what we are saying has merit or not -- so if what we say
does have merit, it is to our benefit to present the evidence, as clearly and as often as we are given the opportunity to do so.
Of course, if what a person is saying is BS,
then it's understandable why the person might want to be a bit more evasive in presenting evidence and either to present it in hard-to-read forms or to come up with excuses for not presenting it. That's what we see over and over again, for example, with paranormalists.
Skeptics who have facts on their side don't need to play games like saying,
here are some clues and if you follow the trail of bread crumbs I'm leaving you'll be able to find evidence to back up what I'm saying. When someone does play that kind of game, it's an indication that the facts if examined with a clear eye probably
don't support what they say.
Skeptics who have facts on their side can simply say,
I believe such and such. Here is a reliable source which backs me up. [The skeptic then quotes a short excerpt or summarizes what the source says in support of that particular point.]
Here is another reliable source for that point. [Again, the skeptic quotes or summarizes the part of the source material which supports the point being made.] There's no need to engage in an elaborate song and dance, no need to scatter "clues", if one can instead lay out the facts clearly.
Leftysergeant asked you to provide evidence for your claim that: "
There are many historical examples where valuable intel has been obtained through torture."
If you are correct, then providing evidence of your correctness should be easy. Pick several of these "many historical examples". Since there are many, you have the luxury of picking a few which are simple, clear, and well-documented. For each example you select:
1. State what the incident was;
2. State what the intelligence was;
3. State the method by which it was obtained;
4. Provide a link to a reliable source which supports your statements.
Do that for several incidents. If your links are reputable sources and do indeed support your assertions then this makes you look good and gives you credibility.
If leftysergeant or others then ignore valid examples you have provided, this gives you a wonderful opportunity to provide
more examples (again, stating clearly what the incidents were, what the intelligence was, and the method by which it was obtained -- and providing links to reliable sources verifying what you are stating). Doing this adds to your credibility while reducing theirs.
If, on the other hand, you
don't have valid examples to back up your claim, then evasive tactics such as you are employing are one option. (In skeptical circles, the use of such tactics causes people to hold one in lower regard; but in non-skeptical circles, people who practice that kind of evasion are often admired for their rhetorical skill. Hence the popularity of certain talk-radio hosts.)
I don't think anyone is disputing that people who are tortured can be made to talk against their will. Certainly there are many examples where people have been made to confess to things (whether they actually committed the acts or not) due to torture.
The question, then, is not how often people have
confirmed information which they were being questioned about through torture; the question is how often these things
came to light because of torture.
It seems clear, for example, that the LA terror action did
not come to light through the torture of KSM, so that example does not support your claim. The more you allude to that example, while refraining from providing valid examples, the weaker you make your case appear: if you had valid examples, you'd apologize for your error in using the KSM example, withdraw it, and provide valid ones in its place. The failure to do so makes it appear as if you don't have any better ones to provide.
You've made vague allegations in this thread that there may be some instances regarding the IRA in which torture brought information to light -- but since you were wrong in your first example, we have no reason to believe you are right about this one until you provide specifics and a source. Ditto for your allusions to torture possibly having brought to light important information for the French, Egyptians, Jordanians, and Israelis. Until you provide details to support your claims, it is irrational for others to assign any weight to what you say.
So do you have any valid examples to present? Or is this mainly bluff and bluster to cover the fact you made a dubious claim regarding something which you accept on faith and which you want others to accept on that basis as well?
and thank you for pointing it out to me. But I have read over the text on pages 37 and 38 several times, and for the life of me I do not see anything there which says what you claim it says. My strong suspicion is this is simply a speculation you (or someone you have read) came up with -- not something the document you claim as your source actually states.
