8 ms·

"And yet he's a super nice guy. In fact, nice is not the word. Ronco is good." So good he supports torture http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2014/12/09/ron-co

by air 12y ago

"And yet he's a super nice guy. In fact, nice is not the word. Ronco is good." So good he supports torture http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2014/12/09/ron-conway-blasts-sen-feinsteins-torture-report/ http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2014/12/09/ron-conway-bla...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dvt 12y ago
If you're really trying to say that torture is 'bad' (and not illegal -- which it sort-of is), you need to really flex some intellectual muscle and not merely just claim it. It's a been a pretty hotly-debated issue in (politico-)philosophical circles for the past 400 years; so don't think it'll be easy.
- jobu 12y ago
  It was my impression that the torture debate was settled after World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Torture is wrong, bad, illegal, and ineffective. In a modern world it shouldn't be supported, even from an "Old Testament" sort of good guy.
  - dvt 12y ago
    Small correction: the Geneva Convention says nothing about the effectiveness of torture, although other sources may. And the philosophical debate is far from over; it is ongoing: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Reading some of the literature can be quite fascinating. Ouch, the down-votes :(
    - r00fus 12y ago
      You're getting down voted because, knowingly or not, you're using conversational terrorism [1] techniques. Wary minds see/hear these words and immediately ignore any of your content. Think of it as a debating equivalent of pulling a godwin. [1] http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
      - dvt 12y ago
        What conventional terrorism technique have I used? Here's an analogue of what happened. Bob says: yeah it's pretty easy to see that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.[1] I say: not so fast, you can't just claim things like that. I mean it might be intuitive or 'generally accepted' (and even stochastically probable!), but the truth-value of such a statement is difficult to prove. [1] Goldbach's conjecture.
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      I'm not sure philosophers debating is a useful signal about whether an issue is settled. I'm having a hard time thinking of a topic on which philosophers would not debate.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  I'm perfectly happy claiming lots of things which have been hotly debated in (politico-)-philosophical circles for a long time. And so, I imagine, are most people, including (politico)-philosophers themselves. That everyone doesn't agree with me on everything doesn't lose me sleep.
- dhaivatpandya 12y ago
  Why is this post being downvoted so much? Although I don't agree w/ the author's position, torture and its effectiveness are still debated.
  - dvt 12y ago
    Actually, I never even stated my position! For the record, I'm pretty sure torture is usually morally wrong. But I also think that there are many cases where it may be permissible, e.g. the ticking time-bomb thought experiment. (Detractors of the ticking time-bomb experiment will argue that it's a fabricated scenario which never happens in real life. I don't think that's true.)
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      How about: torture is always wrong. But sometimes I will sacrifice my immortal soul (torture somebody) to save somebody I love. And its still wrong, and I will be prosecuted for it. But my child will live, or whatever.
      - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
        How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff. Perhaps contextualism is true? Perhaps actions themselves have no moral connotation but rather moral decision can only be made within a contextual framework. I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially. I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.
        JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        That's a way to analyze it. But not all moral frameworks are going to yield to academic dissection. I'm not so worried about finding a chapter in my philosophy text to label it; we can instead explore our existing moral foundations and answer honestly. If you must rationalize it, go ahead. But you can argue yourself into any number of conclusions. In the end that's a game with no winner.
sounds 12y ago
tl;dr Ron Conway posted these tweets: https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542383330193190913 https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542383330193190913 https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542404171865927681 https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542404171865927681 Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon, are boring. Ron Conway's tweets about the CIA are not really interesting. Ron Conway's actions to deliver funding, connect people, and general effect on the Silicon Valley startup atmosphere are very, very interesting. Obligatory disclaimer: I strongly support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and am shocked! Shocked I say! -- that Obama has not yet closed Guantanamo Bay after this many years in office.
- geebee 12y ago
  your tl;dr leaves this out "Interestingly, it was just several weeks ago that Feinstein was the one expressing her distaste for one of Conway’s projects. He’s a big backer of AirBnB, and Feinstein penned an opinion piece in The Chronicle urging Lee to veto the Board of Supervisors’ legislation allowing short-term rentals in private homes. Lee sided with Conway and AirBnB."
- graycat 12y ago
  "Here are your winnings, Sir."
  - graycat 12y ago
    The movie was Casablanca. Right after the line > am shocked! Shocked I say was the line "Here are your winnings, Sir." Someone didn't like/know that movie?
    - jamie_ca 12y ago
      Most like, HN doesn't encourage random pop-culture references that don't actually add anything to the conversation.
      - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
simon_ 12y ago
It is uncharitable and silly to believe that a good person could not have those positions in good faith. You may disagree with it, but "torture is sometimes permissible" is not an evil opinion held exclusively by evil people.
- lazyjones 12y ago
  > "torture is sometimes permissible" is not an evil opinion held exclusively by evil people. ... for a rather arbitrary definition of "evil" (and "good"), one I don't share. Doesn't it make you think a little when every depiction and description of hell contains various forms of torture?
- thanksgiving 12y ago
  > It is uncharitable and silly to believe that a good person could not have those positions in good faith. Imagine someone who just straight up punches people in the face without any warning for using the n word. Can that ever be in good faith? At what point is it OK to physically hurt others?
  - jdbernard 12y ago
    This doesn't justify torture, but I can imagine many situations where it physical violence can be good. I would say it is ethically good to physically harm someone if that harm prevents then from harming others, for example. There are tons of questions surrounding when it is OK, but to say that physical violence is never appropriate is to live in a fantasy world where evil doesn't exist. There are some forms of aggression that cannot be successfully resisted without resorting to violence.
    - thanksgiving 12y ago
      You know that it is just a slippery slope away from supporting violence against charlie hebdo, right?
    - lostcolony 12y ago
      It's really easy to come up with hypotheticals when violence stops other violence, with no other ill effects and no risk. Real life isn't as pretty. You meet violence with violence and all you're guaranteed is violence. You may 'win', you may not, but all you're certain to achieve is perpetuating the cycle.
mrxd 12y ago
In fairness, he'd probably be really nice to any torture victims if they ever pitched their startup to him.
- myhf 12y ago
  And if he didn't invest in their startup and made sure no one else invested either, he'd probably be really nice about showing them the door.
Udo 12y ago
A good person can still be "wrong" (for any given definition of it). Feinstein is wrong about AirBnB, and Conway is wrong about torture. I was a big fan of Christopher Hitchens' yet I think on balance he was wrong about the Iraq war. For me, the main objection to torture is not that it often yields unreliable intel, or that innocents end up getting tortured to death, or that it produces more terrorists - all of which are true. I recognize torture sometimes saves lives, and I'm not unsympathetic to the emotion that it carries a somewhat satisfying vengeance component against an enemy who, in their own words, values death more than we value life. Yet my objection is about what effect torture has on us as a society. It's a plague on our house.
- Devthrowaway80 12y ago
  You don't object to innocent people being tortured to death? If there was no societal impact, would those objections be enough for you to oppose torture? "My main objection to driving drunk is not the whole 'running over pedestrians' thing, which does happen, but more the effect that it has on my paint job - I come home with all sorts of scuff marks."
  - Udo 12y ago
    > You don't object to innocent people being tortured to death? Yes, I do object to that. Every single point I made against torture, I obviously support. But hinging the entire anti-torture argument on innocents isn't going to be enough, sadly. Because of ambiguities about who exactly is innocent, and because of the relative ethics of torturing one possibly innocent victim in order to save potentially huge numbers of other innocents, a more profound argument is needed - one that covers the entire spectrum where torture is used. In my opinion, this argument has to be about what torture turns us into. Your interpretation of my comment is both very uncharitable and factually wrong.
    - Devthrowaway80 12y ago
      Ah, I see. I misinterpreted your comment, apologies. Would you mind elaborating on what societal impact you think participating in torture has on the US? I'm curious to hear the viewpoint of an American on this. (From the perspective of a heathen foreigner, the US military has done despicable things for decades, so to some degree this is just business as usual.)
aptwebapps 12y ago
I am totally opposed to torture but I have no problem believing someone is "good" even if they think the CIA's actions were correct. Similarly, I try not to fall into the trap of thinking that people who disagree with me are either lying or stupid.
logn 12y ago
He said the CIA saved lives and that Feinstein should listen to her experience vs political staff. That's not a defense of torture. Even assuming you're opposed to any torture in all cases, you can still criticize the torture report and defend organizations involved. Anyhow, I'd like to think that our goodness as people is not necessarily determined by our political tweets.
- olavk 12y ago
  There is a lot of discussion in this thread if torture theoretically could be morally justified - ticking time bomb scenarios and so on. But his support is not for some theoretical scenario. It is for the actual CIA actions where people were tortured, where it didn't result in reliable intelligence, and where the CIA lied about the effectiveness of the torture. Of course, even if the torture didn't lead to intelligence of any value, it still might have been effective. The purpose of torture when used around the world is not primarily to produce intelligence. The primary purpose is to punish, to instill fear into the enemy, and to provide satisfaction. You can still support torture even if you know it does't provided intelligence of value, if you believe the other purposes justifies it. Bu can you really be called a "good person" if you support torture for the sake of the fear and the pain and the satisfaction? I guess you can - if you are rich and influential enough.
  - logn 12y ago
    I just don't see where he made any of these arguments. My take is that he generally supports the CIA and does not like Feinstein. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I take issue with the idea that torture is ok or produces anything of value. But in this case, the most disturbing part for me is that it was government policy. He linked to http://www.ciasavedlives.com http://www.ciasavedlives.com which includes these lines: The SSCI Majority would have the American people believe that the program was initiated by a rogue CIA that consistently lied to the President, the National Security Council, the Attorney General, and the Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing. ... Congress was in the loop. The so-called "Gang of Eight” of top Congressional leaders were briefed in detail on the program. The briefings were detailed and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection to encouragement to be even more aggressive. Again, none of this context appears in the Majority's report. I think those are fair points. If I had only 140 character to make this comment, maybe I'd be perceived as a bad guy too?
thaumaturgy 12y ago
If you look closely enough at anyone, you will find something to dislike about them. Funny thing about people. Funnier thing: if you look closely enough at anyone you dislike, you can find something to like about them. People are probably mostly the product of their environment and I doubt anyone here knows Ron Conway well enough to discuss his position on torture. Let his actions speak for him; you can be opposed to torture under pretty much any circumstances, as I am, and still regard someone with a different point of view as basically good. I really wish your comment didn't get so much of the attention in this thread, it's a bit of a distraction from what should've been the main point of the article.
- Semiapies 12y ago
  Yes, it does rather take away from endlessly extolling the virtues of the man.
  - thaumaturgy 12y ago
    Cool, so we're People magazine now, only with a SV focus. "Silicon People". Wow, that really works in more than one way. HN's been a pretty shameless gossip site for a while, nice to see folks finally dropping all pretense about it.
    - Semiapies 12y ago
      Bluntly, People magazine does more in-depth coverage of its subjects than pg's post does of this guy. They would have felt compelled to give a number of examples of things he's done that a reader might actually see as good, as opposed to just asserting it a few times. Beyond that, the post is just some hand-waving about a claimed trend with little support. That's why the torture thing blew up - it was an actual, specific ethical matter involving the guy instead of a generic business hagiography (he's good, but you wouldn't want him mad at you, blah blah blah).
wmeredith 12y ago
Everyone responding to this comment is arguing as if "good" and "bad" are provable facts. It's an opinion. You can't disprove it.

by air 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dvt 12y ago

If you're really trying to say that torture is 'bad' (and not illegal -- which it sort-of is), you need to really flex some intellectual muscle and not merely just claim it. It's a been a pretty hotly-debated issue in (politico-)philosophical circles for the past 400 years; so don't think it'll be easy.

jobu 12y ago
It was my impression that the torture debate was settled after World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Torture is wrong, bad, illegal, and ineffective. In a modern world it shouldn't be supported, even from an "Old Testament" sort of good guy.
- dvt 12y ago
  Small correction: the Geneva Convention says nothing about the effectiveness of torture, although other sources may. And the philosophical debate is far from over; it is ongoing: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Reading some of the literature can be quite fascinating. Ouch, the down-votes :(
  - r00fus 12y ago
    You're getting down voted because, knowingly or not, you're using conversational terrorism [1] techniques. Wary minds see/hear these words and immediately ignore any of your content. Think of it as a debating equivalent of pulling a godwin. [1] http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
    - dvt 12y ago
      What conventional terrorism technique have I used? Here's an analogue of what happened. Bob says: yeah it's pretty easy to see that every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.[1] I say: not so fast, you can't just claim things like that. I mean it might be intuitive or 'generally accepted' (and even stochastically probable!), but the truth-value of such a statement is difficult to prove. [1] Goldbach's conjecture.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    I'm not sure philosophers debating is a useful signal about whether an issue is settled. I'm having a hard time thinking of a topic on which philosophers would not debate.
Chinjut 12y ago
I'm perfectly happy claiming lots of things which have been hotly debated in (politico-)-philosophical circles for a long time. And so, I imagine, are most people, including (politico)-philosophers themselves. That everyone doesn't agree with me on everything doesn't lose me sleep.
dhaivatpandya 12y ago
Why is this post being downvoted so much? Although I don't agree w/ the author's position, torture and its effectiveness are still debated.
- dvt 12y ago
  Actually, I never even stated my position! For the record, I'm pretty sure torture is usually morally wrong. But I also think that there are many cases where it may be permissible, e.g. the ticking time-bomb thought experiment. (Detractors of the ticking time-bomb experiment will argue that it's a fabricated scenario which never happens in real life. I don't think that's true.)
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    How about: torture is always wrong. But sometimes I will sacrifice my immortal soul (torture somebody) to save somebody I love. And its still wrong, and I will be prosecuted for it. But my child will live, or whatever.
    - dinkumthinkum 12y ago
      How about we actually use philosophical argument and not this weak wishy-washy stuff. Perhaps contextualism is true? Perhaps actions themselves have no moral connotation but rather moral decision can only be made within a contextual framework. I think to say "torture is always wrong" is just something to say to fit in socially. I don't think you can make moral decisions about any action murder, theft, etc; there must be a contextual framework and hierarchy of values.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        That's a way to analyze it. But not all moral frameworks are going to yield to academic dissection. I'm not so worried about finding a chapter in my philosophy text to label it; we can instead explore our existing moral foundations and answer honestly. If you must rationalize it, go ahead. But you can argue yourself into any number of conclusions. In the end that's a game with no winner.

sounds 12y ago

tl;dr Ron Conway posted these tweets: https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542383330193190913 https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542383330193190913 https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542404171865927681 https://twitter.com/RonConway/status/542404171865927681 Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon, are boring. Ron Conway's tweets about the CIA are not really interesting. Ron Conway's actions to deliver funding, connect people, and general effect on the Silicon Valley startup atmosphere are very, very interesting. Obligatory disclaimer: I strongly support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and am shocked! Shocked I say! -- that Obama has not yet closed Guantanamo Bay after this many years in office.

geebee 12y ago
your tl;dr leaves this out "Interestingly, it was just several weeks ago that Feinstein was the one expressing her distaste for one of Conway’s projects. He’s a big backer of AirBnB, and Feinstein penned an opinion piece in The Chronicle urging Lee to veto the Board of Supervisors’ legislation allowing short-term rentals in private homes. Lee sided with Conway and AirBnB."
graycat 12y ago
"Here are your winnings, Sir."
- graycat 12y ago
  The movie was Casablanca. Right after the line > am shocked! Shocked I say was the line "Here are your winnings, Sir." Someone didn't like/know that movie?
  - jamie_ca 12y ago
    Most like, HN doesn't encourage random pop-culture references that don't actually add anything to the conversation.
    - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

simon_ 12y ago

It is uncharitable and silly to believe that a good person could not have those positions in good faith. You may disagree with it, but "torture is sometimes permissible" is not an evil opinion held exclusively by evil people.

lazyjones 12y ago
> "torture is sometimes permissible" is not an evil opinion held exclusively by evil people. ... for a rather arbitrary definition of "evil" (and "good"), one I don't share. Doesn't it make you think a little when every depiction and description of hell contains various forms of torture?
thanksgiving 12y ago
> It is uncharitable and silly to believe that a good person could not have those positions in good faith. Imagine someone who just straight up punches people in the face without any warning for using the n word. Can that ever be in good faith? At what point is it OK to physically hurt others?
- jdbernard 12y ago
  This doesn't justify torture, but I can imagine many situations where it physical violence can be good. I would say it is ethically good to physically harm someone if that harm prevents then from harming others, for example. There are tons of questions surrounding when it is OK, but to say that physical violence is never appropriate is to live in a fantasy world where evil doesn't exist. There are some forms of aggression that cannot be successfully resisted without resorting to violence.
  - thanksgiving 12y ago
    You know that it is just a slippery slope away from supporting violence against charlie hebdo, right?
  - lostcolony 12y ago
    It's really easy to come up with hypotheticals when violence stops other violence, with no other ill effects and no risk. Real life isn't as pretty. You meet violence with violence and all you're guaranteed is violence. You may 'win', you may not, but all you're certain to achieve is perpetuating the cycle.

mrxd 12y ago

In fairness, he'd probably be really nice to any torture victims if they ever pitched their startup to him.

myhf 12y ago
And if he didn't invest in their startup and made sure no one else invested either, he'd probably be really nice about showing them the door.

Udo 12y ago

A good person can still be "wrong" (for any given definition of it). Feinstein is wrong about AirBnB, and Conway is wrong about torture. I was a big fan of Christopher Hitchens' yet I think on balance he was wrong about the Iraq war. For me, the main objection to torture is not that it often yields unreliable intel, or that innocents end up getting tortured to death, or that it produces more terrorists - all of which are true. I recognize torture sometimes saves lives, and I'm not unsympathetic to the emotion that it carries a somewhat satisfying vengeance component against an enemy who, in their own words, values death more than we value life. Yet my objection is about what effect torture has on us as a society. It's a plague on our house.

Devthrowaway80 12y ago
You don't object to innocent people being tortured to death? If there was no societal impact, would those objections be enough for you to oppose torture? "My main objection to driving drunk is not the whole 'running over pedestrians' thing, which does happen, but more the effect that it has on my paint job - I come home with all sorts of scuff marks."
- Udo 12y ago
  > You don't object to innocent people being tortured to death? Yes, I do object to that. Every single point I made against torture, I obviously support. But hinging the entire anti-torture argument on innocents isn't going to be enough, sadly. Because of ambiguities about who exactly is innocent, and because of the relative ethics of torturing one possibly innocent victim in order to save potentially huge numbers of other innocents, a more profound argument is needed - one that covers the entire spectrum where torture is used. In my opinion, this argument has to be about what torture turns us into. Your interpretation of my comment is both very uncharitable and factually wrong.
  - Devthrowaway80 12y ago
    Ah, I see. I misinterpreted your comment, apologies. Would you mind elaborating on what societal impact you think participating in torture has on the US? I'm curious to hear the viewpoint of an American on this. (From the perspective of a heathen foreigner, the US military has done despicable things for decades, so to some degree this is just business as usual.)

aptwebapps 12y ago

I am totally opposed to torture but I have no problem believing someone is "good" even if they think the CIA's actions were correct. Similarly, I try not to fall into the trap of thinking that people who disagree with me are either lying or stupid.

logn 12y ago

He said the CIA saved lives and that Feinstein should listen to her experience vs political staff. That's not a defense of torture. Even assuming you're opposed to any torture in all cases, you can still criticize the torture report and defend organizations involved. Anyhow, I'd like to think that our goodness as people is not necessarily determined by our political tweets.

olavk 12y ago
There is a lot of discussion in this thread if torture theoretically could be morally justified - ticking time bomb scenarios and so on. But his support is not for some theoretical scenario. It is for the actual CIA actions where people were tortured, where it didn't result in reliable intelligence, and where the CIA lied about the effectiveness of the torture. Of course, even if the torture didn't lead to intelligence of any value, it still might have been effective. The purpose of torture when used around the world is not primarily to produce intelligence. The primary purpose is to punish, to instill fear into the enemy, and to provide satisfaction. You can still support torture even if you know it does't provided intelligence of value, if you believe the other purposes justifies it. Bu can you really be called a "good person" if you support torture for the sake of the fear and the pain and the satisfaction? I guess you can - if you are rich and influential enough.
- logn 12y ago
  I just don't see where he made any of these arguments. My take is that he generally supports the CIA and does not like Feinstein. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. I take issue with the idea that torture is ok or produces anything of value. But in this case, the most disturbing part for me is that it was government policy. He linked to http://www.ciasavedlives.com http://www.ciasavedlives.com which includes these lines: The SSCI Majority would have the American people believe that the program was initiated by a rogue CIA that consistently lied to the President, the National Security Council, the Attorney General, and the Congress. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing. ... Congress was in the loop. The so-called "Gang of Eight” of top Congressional leaders were briefed in detail on the program. The briefings were detailed and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection to encouragement to be even more aggressive. Again, none of this context appears in the Majority's report. I think those are fair points. If I had only 140 character to make this comment, maybe I'd be perceived as a bad guy too?

thaumaturgy 12y ago

If you look closely enough at anyone, you will find something to dislike about them. Funny thing about people. Funnier thing: if you look closely enough at anyone you dislike, you can find something to like about them. People are probably mostly the product of their environment and I doubt anyone here knows Ron Conway well enough to discuss his position on torture. Let his actions speak for him; you can be opposed to torture under pretty much any circumstances, as I am, and still regard someone with a different point of view as basically good. I really wish your comment didn't get so much of the attention in this thread, it's a bit of a distraction from what should've been the main point of the article.

Semiapies 12y ago
Yes, it does rather take away from endlessly extolling the virtues of the man.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  Cool, so we're People magazine now, only with a SV focus. "Silicon People". Wow, that really works in more than one way. HN's been a pretty shameless gossip site for a while, nice to see folks finally dropping all pretense about it.
  - Semiapies 12y ago
    Bluntly, People magazine does more in-depth coverage of its subjects than pg's post does of this guy. They would have felt compelled to give a number of examples of things he's done that a reader might actually see as good, as opposed to just asserting it a few times. Beyond that, the post is just some hand-waving about a claimed trend with little support. That's why the torture thing blew up - it was an actual, specific ethical matter involving the guy instead of a generic business hagiography (he's good, but you wouldn't want him mad at you, blah blah blah).

wmeredith 12y ago

Everyone responding to this comment is arguing as if "good" and "bad" are provable facts. It's an opinion. You can't disprove it.