Huh?

Yes, to answer your question, I was saying that what CH experienced, and what the evil pricks that got it first hand experienced was comparable, or in the least that the stress difference did not elevate one from not torture - to torture.

That argument, BR's argument, is ludicrous.

Stress level defines torture now? HA!

For clarity's sake, in my own words, BR's main point has all along been that Centinel's original statement is wrong, because it takes the results of a mild example of WBing and extrapolates that to prove something about all examples of WBing.

I don't disagree and I understood this to be his point from his very first post.

But secondly, the posts you link to do not address the repetitive point that BR has been making, which is probably why he has been repeating it.

Well, I disagree so we must have had some miscommunication.  Let me recount my points and attempt to clarify why I believe that they address BR's point.

As we see from the quote above, the effect is an involuntary physiological one ... not avoluntary or involuntary psychological one.  Does an involuntary phsyiological response impose different psychological effects on someone just because they volunteered vs. they didn't?  Perhaps.  But it is clearly not a bright line slam dunk to believe so and certainly not something that can be easily interpreted using common sense by laypeople.

In this argument I am making the case that the primary effect of the waterboarding is an involuntary physiological response, not a psychological one.  I am also calling into question BR's own assumption, therefore, that a given involuntary physiological response will produce differing psychological effects based on whether the subject was a volunteer, or not.  The point being that to answer such a question definitively requires more expertise and formal study than to simply rely on a layperson's common sense.

I believe that this directly addresses (i.e. confronts in a substantive way) the point BR initially made and that you have rephrased above.  Do you still disagree?

As I write this it occurs to me that you may be using "addresses" in the sense of "completely refutes or renders moot".  Please clarify your meaning.  If you are using this latter definition then I acknowledge that this comment does not completely demolish BR's point but I do believe that it deals it a reasonable blow.

Hmmm, who to believe?  Trained psychologists with extensive experience with waterboarding, or BR with his layperson's common sense?  No offense to you and your common sense, BR, but I'll stick with the professionals if that's OK with you.

"But gosh, GoRight," says BR, "those trainees are there voluntarily so they are just like Hitchens.  This proves nothing."

Not so, says I, while that may be true to a certain point it is not completely true.  For people in the program this training is not optional.  If they want to stay in the program they have to take the training.  And the training in this case is going to simulate an actual interrogation.  In other words the subjects will have far less control over when and how things are called to a halt.  Their limits will be pushed beyond their internal comfort zones unlike Hitchens.  After all, common sense tells us that this must be the case or the training would be useless and ineffective.

Ignoring the taunting tone of this point, the substance contained therein simply builds on the prior point.  The third paragraph contains the primary substance of the reply.  The first two paragraphs simply established the context for what was to follow, although in an admittedly schoolyard tone.  The first paragraph does, however, introduce the significant point that we have the opinions of professional psychologists with extensive experience in the relevant topic area and that their opinions on the effects of waterboarding would suggest that the effect BR is claiming is not as substantial as he would have us believe.

In the third paragraph I actually begin by acknowledging his point as being valid ... to a point.  I then distinguish between the case of CH and the case of US Military Trainees.  I do NOT claim that the trainees are subjected to something 100% the same as what the detainees go through as BR later tries to claim.  Clearly the military subjects know that they are not going to be killed so the experience will never be 100% the same.

But I AM making the claim that to be useful and effect that the training must be as close to the real thing as possible, and that the trainees can certainly be placed in a position where they don't have control of when the process is halted (since that would be left to the discretion of the mock interrogators and the medical staff who are present).

I think that the loss of control aspect of this is a significant part of BR's point, and I believe that Military training and the opinions of the professional psychologists involved therein deals a significant blow to that part of his argument as well.

The purpose of the training is to prepare the subjects for what they might actually encounter in the field.  The purpose of the training is to give the subjects the tools and techniques they will need to successfully resist and survive an actual interrogation.  To do that they will necessarily have to push people beyond their comfort zone, which means that yes, the subjects will NOT be given the same level of control as Hitchens had.

Why?  For the very reason you are citing with respect to Hitchens vs the detainees.  If the effect you are claiming is common sense and as significant as you claim it is, then yes allowing that much control to the training subjects would effectively make the training ineffective and useless for the purposes it was trying to achieve.  Sooo, common sense tells us that they must NOT be given that level of control.

In this argument I am clearly acknowledging the validity of the effect he has described relative to CH, but I again bolster the point that I don't beleive that the military subsjects will be treated as mildly as CH was in that video.  If all they do in the SERE training is what they did to CH then they might as well stop because IMHO it is effectively useless for preparing the subject for what they would actually encounter in the field.  If the trainees ever find themselves in a real interrogation by a real enemy that involves the use of waterboarding it ain't gonna just be what we saw them do to CH.

The obvious point being, that we still would not call what we do to our troops in training torture, and therefore that Centinel's point is still valid, if not for CH specifically then for the military trainees in general.  The fact that these troops continue about their daily routine after undergoing the process is defacto proof that the technique is not torture ... at least by Centinel's definition or what actual torture is and I concur.

Does that clarify things at all, or are you still of the opinion that my posts are not addressing BR's original point?