"Not true. If you have 3 people with IQs of 70, 110, and 120, the average is 100, but only one person is below average. What you're talking about is the median, not average."

-- trend2121

--------------

Incorrect. A 100 I.O. score is defined as the average:

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq04.htm

As for the rest of your last post, I maintain that my point is entirely relevant. Even if Glenn wasn't 100% accurate about the NYT mentioning "torture" (and I don't know that he wasn't %100 correct) his general point is still valid, as my argument shows.

No one's research is consistently perfect, so even if you're correct about the NYT, you're still only nit-picking.

Exactly; and even if they had, my argument would still stand.

trend2121, you have earned a failing grade.

Congratulations on winning the point I made on Saturday morning at 5am:

In the first example given of the new use of the word torture, it said "rights groups say". The subsequent uses were in direct quotes. It wasn't the Times using the word, but repeating a word used by others.

In replying to your post, I was refering to what Glenn wrote, not you, where he said that non-US actions were called torture by the Times, but that US actions were not. I have made the point that in both cases they were quoting others who called those actions torture, not calling it that themselves. I've also shown that the Times has not, contrary to Glenn's main claim, treated US and non-US actions differently. 

half the population is below average, and the average I.Q. is 100!

Not true. If you have 3 people with IQs of 70, 110, and 120, the average is 100, but only one person is below average. What you're talking about is the median, not average. 

"NYT did not call anything torture. They quoted others who did. Not the same thing at all."

-- Bob Potter

--------------------

Exactly; and even if they had, my argument would still stand.

trend2121, you have earned a failing grade.

NYT did not call anything torture. They quoted others who did. Not the same thing at all.

It matters little if the NYT (or any other institution or individual has called US interrogation techniques "torture" or not. What matters is how OFTEN and how CLEARLY they do so, and thus their overall expressed position.

It clearly matters to Glenn, as he wrote an entire article about it. He said they didn't call US actions torture, and since they have at least 10 times since April 26, he's obviously wrong.

But then, if Glenn did care about the point he was making, it would make sense for him to support it against proof that what it claims is obviously false.

How can you make it more clear that something is torture than to use the word "torture?" They don't us all caps or bold as a matter of style. In news stories, they don't have a position and shouldn't. They are reporting on the positions of others.

"In this case, even the US State Department has called this torture. Besides, if Glenn's point is that the Times and NPR have one standard for US torture and another for others, showing that the use the word torture for others without also showing the word is not used for the US does not make his point."

-- trend2121

-----------------

It matters little if the NYT (or any other institution or individual has called US interrogation techniques "torture" or not. What matters is how OFTEN and how CLEARLY they do so, and thus their overall expressed position.

One of the main propaganda techniques of the modern form of creeping fascism is the drowning out of the truth not by outright and total censorship but by force of statistics, i.e., the truth is hidden in plain sight ... on the back page, or in small print, or by being mentioned much less often. Modern people (most of them lacking the where-with-all to research and judge logically and ethically; remember, half the population is below average, and the average I.Q. is 100!) are becoming very aware of political disagreements, and when they see "experts" arguing both sides (even if one side is lying outright), most tend to accept the louder one as true because doing so is easier than thinking critically.

What is produced by torture is not "evidence"... it isn't evidence of anything. Evidence is some known fact that tends to prove an allegation or argument that is in question. No statement elicited by torture can be considered a known fact... even if some government or tribunal chooses to rely on such a statement to justify whatever "finding" it may reach, it still isn't evidence... all that it can really prove is the lack of integrity of that government or tribunal.

Journalists should never call statements elicited by torture "evidence."

the comments particularly, were instructive
http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2009/07/04/pakistans-future-birthrate-550-million-2060

1)The subject of discussion is applying harsh interrogation techniques to the terrorist suspects and not to the people, in general.

Please note, Mike, that some of these "terrorist suspects" are also known as "innocent civilians," as has already been proven. The difference between these innocents and people in general is purely a matter of unfortunate circumstance.

C.He could give an advice to the future terrorists to stay away from the U.S. to avoid any – soft or harsh – interrogation.

Mike, you know that few (if any) people we've tortured were arrested in the US? Staying away from the US didn't help them.

I agree that America now faces much bigger threat than “Saudi thugs.”

Yep. Bush's policies ensured that, serving as the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have ever hoped for. However, I hope you can see that the threat we face today is infinitesimal compared to the Axis Powers and the USSR. Unless of course you mean the republicans, who do constitute the biggest threat we've faced since WW2.

From my point of view, the real thread is for the so called Left and Right to drift more in opposite directions. As long as we are united, those “Saudi thugs” will not destroy us. Otherwise, we will destroy ourselves from within.

I agree with this. The "Saudi thugs" will never destroy us under any circumstances, but I totally see the part about destroying ourselves from within. One side of our political system is tied to reality, and the other is opposed to it. This is not merely my opinion, but has been demonstrated time and again, with you and others. Republicans believe in "facts" that are demonstrably untrue, and their opinions often conflict with basic logic. The answer, unfortunately, is not for the opposing side to become less realistic in order to mend the gap. Truth and justice must be respected, and cannot be discarded simply because a sizable minority of the country wants to do so. If this results in a civil war, then that's how it must go. I hope that is not the case. The fact that you've apparently modulated your views on torture gives me a bit of hope, however.