I definitely opened up a big can of worms in GD

[Silent3]

Opening a can of worms was not at all my desire, but I guess I should have figured it was inevitable. People obviously get emotional about an issue like torture, and no amount of disclaimers like "I'm not advocating torture" will help when people can't see the difference between asking a question or voicing a suspicion and advocating whatever the "wrong answer" to question might be used to justify.

[TZ]

1. I don't know what you did

But you do realize that something that requires thought and consideration instead of knee jerk responses isn't going to go over particularly well..;)

[Silent3]

2. With a big disclaimer that I'm do not at all advocate torture...

...I questioned the oft-repeated mantra "torture does not work", and then dared to suggest a limited, admittedly non-typical scenario where I have a hard time believing that torture wouldn't work, with "work" narrowly defined as "getting the particular piece of information you're looking for".

Which is, of course, exactly the same as insisting that torture always works, that it's a great policy, we should do it and do it often, and I love Dick Cheney.

[mr blur]

3. Why do you hate America?

Just wondering.

[bluedawg12]

4. It's the "all or none" fallacy.

We probably should add it to our list here, of logical fallacies.

It's either: "All X works all of the time" or "No X ever works," to prove some other point, such as should we engage in X morally, ethically, legally?

It's probably a by product of internet debate where ideas move quickly and main themes can be quickly diverted into side issues.