Torturers open

[tsig]

Many members have expressed their belief in torture.

How many of you would do it?

Would any of you be willing to pour the water and restrain the victim?

How far would you go?

[fuelair]

Depends on who and what. Person who has kidnapped and hidden a child - you bet and it won't be water boarding. I would go far enough to get whatever information was needed but still leave something for the trial.
I keep explaining I want the world to be nice and I am willing to sacrifice my part of it to make it so.

[Upchurch]

If anyone were threatening my son or wife, I'd do that much or worse.


...but that's why the decision to do so should not be made by me in that situation. It should be made by someone who has his head on straight.

[Distracted1]

Many members have expressed their belief in torture.

How many of you would do it?

Would any of you be willing to pour the water and restrain the victim?

How far would you go?
I am not sure what it means to "believe" in torture.

I could be motivated by emotion to torture someone, sure. If someone hurt,or killed, or sexually assaulted someone I love, I might try to extract some sort of vigilante justice as well. Maybe even try to be judge, jury, and executioner.

I also remember that old university study wherein university students were divided arbitrarily into "prisoners" and "guards"- the guards started turning brutal in pretty short order. I have no reason not to expect that I would respond the same way under the same circumstances.



(I am sure mentioning this is a faux pas, however...)It seems likely concentration camp guards started out as pretty normal people in many instances, I like to think that I could never slide that far, but .....

I am thankful that torture is illegal in the U.S., I do not want my government torturing in my name when it does it deminishes itself, and me.

[tsig]

I am not sure what it means to "believe" in torture.

I could be motivated by emotion to torture someone, sure. If someone hurt,or killed, or sexually assaulted someone I love, I might try to extract some sort of vigilante justice as well. Maybe even try to be judge, jury, and executioner.

I also remember that old university study wherein university students were divided arbitrarily into "prisoners" and "guards"- the guards started turning brutal in pretty short order. I have no reason not to expect that I would respond the same way under the same circumstances.



(I am sure mentioning this is a faux pas, however...)It seems likely concentration camp guards started out as pretty normal people in many instances, I like to think that I could never slide that far, but .....

I am thankful that torture is illegal in the U.S., I do not want my government torturing in my name when it does it deminishes itself, and me.

By believe I mean that you think pain will induce truth.

[corplinx]

I would hire the cast of Jackass: The Movie to do it for me.

[tsig]

Depends on who and what. Person who has kidnapped and hidden a child - you bet and it won't be water boarding. I would go far enough to get whatever information was needed but still leave something for the trial.
I keep explaining I want the world to be nice and I am willing to sacrifice my part of it to make it so.

So you are willing to hurt someone who is in your power to get what you want.

How are you different from the criminal?

[Distracted1]

"By believe I mean that you think pain will induce truth."



In that case I guess I sometimes "believe" in torture. That is not meant to indicate that I find torture to be acceptable, only that it seems that it can certainly elicit truth from some of the people some of the time.

[tsig]

I would hire the cast of Jackass: The Movie to do it for me.

Don't have the courage of your convictions?

Just a voyeur never a voyager.

[NoZed Avenger]

nm

[tsig]

nm

Maybe you could be less succinct?

[applecorped]

Many members have expressed their belief in torture.

How many of you would do it?

Would any of you be willing to pour the water and restrain the victim?

How far would you go?

To the death.

[tsig]

To the death.

Yours or his?

[Upchurch]

By believe I mean that you think pain will induce truth.
If someone threatened my wife or son, I would not be using torture as an instrument to find truth. Ultimately, I don't believe that is what it is for.

[Brainster]

Many members have expressed their belief in torture.

How many of you would do it?

Would any of you be willing to pour the water and restrain the victim?

How far would you go?

KSM? I would absolutely be willing to do it. Hell, I'd be asking for the cattle prod.

[quarky]

I have asked an ex-girl friend to read my poetry. Anything's possible. People can be cruel.

She wanted me to 'snuggle' after orgasm.

[foxholeatheist]

I don't believe that torture produces reliable high quality intelligence. It can but I don't think that it is very reliable. Sometimes it does produce results but results that in the current conflict seldom have any real effect on the battlefield.

Torture is a tool of the politicians, not the soldiers.

What's wrong with snuggling? I love it.

[tsig]

I have asked an ex-girl friend to read my poetry. Anything's possible. People can be cruel.

She wanted me to 'snuggle' after orgasm.

No beer or a smoke?
That is cruel and unusual

[tsig]

If someone threatened my wife or son, I would not be using torture as an instrument to find truth. Ultimately, I don't believe that is what it is for.

Thanks for the refreshing honesty but how would hurting someone else help your wife and son?

[tsig]

KSM? I would absolutely be willing to do it. Hell, I'd be asking for the cattle prod.

Then just how do you and him differ?

[quarky]

I don't believe that torture produces reliable high quality intelligence. It can but I don't think that it is very reliable. Sometimes it does produce results but results that in the current conflict seldom have any real effect on the battlefield.

Torture is a tool of the politicians, not the soldiers.

What's wrong with snuggling? I love it.

easy for you to love snuggling. I saw your wife with a catfish.

[fuelair]

So you are willing to hurt someone who is in your power to get what you want.

How are you different from the criminal?
I believe my example was a bit more specific than that. The way I am different is I did not kidnap a child and wouldn't.

That last line is the one I found stupid everytime in a show or movie the good guy has the bad guy set to die and some rectum says "Don't do it, you'll be just like him!" It was stupid when I was young, it is stupid now. If I kill a murderer I am making sure he won't do it again - and I will be no more likely to do it again as I was the first time. I have no interest in running out and torturing people - if you understand that I do not consider kidnappers, pedophiles, rapists, most murderers, terrorists etc. people.

If you leave others alone (except those as noted) you have nothing to worry about from me.


By the by, since a lot of religious stuff just recently here: this was, for me, a direct outgrowth of my realization that there was no god making things right. Since there is not a higher justice, then it is up to us to make things as right as possible.

[Brainster]

Then just how do you and him differ?

Innocent victims versus guilty as hell "victim".

[boooeee]

Many members have expressed their belief in torture.

How many of you would do it?

Would any of you be willing to pour the water and restrain the victim?

How far would you go?


Just because somebody wouldn't do it personally, doesn't make them a hypocrite (I'm assuming this is your underlying point).

I'm for law enforcement, but would never want to be a cop.

I'm for a military that can protect our interests, but I would never voluntarily enlist.

And for the record, I'm against torture (including waterboarding).

tsig - Would you send a kidnapper to prison? If so, how are you any better than him?

[Upchurch]

Thanks for the refreshing honesty but how would hurting someone else help your wife and son?
Does it really matter?

It's a hypothetical question. Why get bogged down on the details?

[Darat]

I am sure someone could come up with a scenario, that if I was to answer honestly, I'd have to say "yes" however in any real life situation I've ever heard of, my answer is no.

But can I be sure of that? The answer is "no" because we know that most people have the capability to inflict harm on others depending on the situation.

[fuelair]

Thanks for the refreshing honesty but how would hurting someone else help your wife and son?
From my end (wife, have no children), if they were only threatening I would simply present them with a series of facts (I won't bore you with them)that they should take under advisement. If they harmed/killed, they learn part of the facts the hard way (I believe in terminal education with the emphasis on education for as long as possible in these matters).

ETA: As to how it would help: they would experience Hell, they would understand I was really annoyed with them, they would realize some better how it felt, they would never be able to do it to anyone else, no judicial incompetant could help them.

[Praktik]

That last line is the one I found stupid everytime in a show or movie the good guy has the bad guy set to die and some rectum says "Don't do it, you'll be just like him!" It was stupid when I was young, it is stupid now. If I kill a murderer I am making sure he won't do it again - and I will be no more likely to do it again as I was the first time.


So I guess you weren't a fan of Seven eh? The whole movie turns around that very premise as Pitt succumbs to wrath and becomes the seventh deadly sin, all according to the dastardly plan of his antagonist.

[dudalb]

I guess the idea of innocent victim versus guilty criminal is simply incomprehensible to some people.
I will see your "Seven" and raise you a "Dirty Harry".

[Praktik]

I guess the idea of innocent victim versus guilty criminal is simply incomprehensible to some people.

I always get those two mixed up!!

Such difficult concepts to understand... like "microwave ready in 10 mins" or "atmospheric humidity is considered to be at 100% when its raining".

[tsig]

I believe my example was a bit more specific than that. The way I am different is I did not kidnap a child and wouldn't.

That last line is the one I found stupid everytime in a show or movie the good guy has the bad guy set to die and some rectum says "Don't do it, you'll be just like him!" It was stupid when I was young, it is stupid now. If I kill a murderer I am making sure he won't do it again - and I will be no more likely to do it again as I was the first time. I have no interest in running out and torturing people - if you understand that I do not consider kidnappers, pedophiles, rapists, most murderers, terrorists etc. people.

If you leave others alone (except those as noted) you have nothing to worry about from me.


By the by, since a lot of religious stuff just recently here: this was, for me, a direct outgrowth of my realization that there was no god making things right. Since there is not a higher justice, then it is up to us to make things as right as possible.

If you kill another human you are in fact a murderer. So it would then be ok if I killed you after you became a murderer?

Or maybe you would like to strap those "kidnappers, pedophiles, rapists, most murderers, terrorists etc. people" to a table and work your will on them.

[tsig]

Innocent victims versus guilty as hell "victim".

In the US you only get "guilty" after a trial.

[tsig]

Just because somebody wouldn't do it personally, doesn't make them a hypocrite (I'm assuming this is your underlying point).

I'm for law enforcement, but would never want to be a cop.

I'm for a military that can protect our interests, but I would never voluntarily enlist.

And for the record, I'm against torture (including waterboarding).

tsig - Would you send a kidnapper to prison? If so, how are you any better than him?

Of course the kidnapper should go to prison after he has been tried and convicted.


You are a bit squeamish about applying the pain but you're ok with it being done in done in your name

[tsig]

I am sure someone could come up with a scenario, that if I was to answer honestly, I'd have to say "yes" however in any real life situation I've ever heard of, my answer is no.

But can I be sure of that? The answer is "no" because we know that most people have the capability to inflict harm on others depending on the situation.

Sorry you don't know yourself well enough to simply say "no".

If your morality is contingent on the situation then I don't see that you have any.

[Ziggurat]

Then just how do you and him differ?

How do soldiers and serial killers differ? Your question is no more meaningful.

Context maters. So do goals and results. KSM isn't evil only because of the methods he is willing to use, the purpose to which he employs his terrorism is evil too.

[tsig]

How do soldiers and serial killers differ? Your question is no more meaningful.

Context maters. So do goals and results. KSM isn't evil only because of the methods he is willing to use, the purpose to which he employs his terrorism is evil too.

Just knew this would come up.

Soldiers kill others who have the ability to kill them.

Torturers hurt those who cannot harm them.

Is this distinction clear now?

[Ziggurat]

Just knew this would come up.

Soldiers kill others who have the ability to kill them.

Sometimes. But often this is simply not the case. In fact, the military tries very hard to make it not the case, to make sure our soldiers are safe even as they kill. Is it somehow immoral of the military to protect our soldiers? Does that make our soldiers more guilty?

And would a serial killer somehow be less culpable if he armed his victim and let them fight back before killing them?

You have created an absurd standard.

[tsig]

Sometimes. But often this is simply not the case. In fact, the military tries very hard to make it not the case, to make sure our soldiers are safe even as they kill. Is it somehow immoral of the military to protect our soldiers? Does that make our soldiers more guilty?

And would a serial killer somehow be less culpable if he armed his victim and let them fight back before killing them?

You have created an absurd standard.

My "absurd standard" is the "Bill of Rights"

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentviii

[Distracted1]

Sometimes. But often this is simply not the case. In fact, the military tries very hard to make it not the case, to make sure our soldiers are safe even as they kill. Is it somehow immoral of the military to protect our soldiers? Does that make our soldiers more guilty?

And would a serial killer somehow be less culpable if he armed his victim and let them fight back before killing them?

You have created an absurd standard.
Does'nt your response lead to the inevitable conclusion that soldiers fighting a battle are performing acts that are morally equivalent to torturers hooking up a car battery to someones nipples and tossing a bucket of water on them?
I reject that premise.
When Hamilton challenged Burr to a duel, was he the moral equivalent of a serial killer. (keeping in mind that he had dueled often in his past and won)?

[Ziggurat]

Does'nt your response lead to the inevitable conclusion that soldiers fighting a battle are performing acts that are morally equivalent to torturers hooking up a car battery to someones nipples and tossing a bucket of water on them?

If you accept tsig's logic. Which I don't, and which is rather my point. Context matters. Goals matter. Consequences matter. And available alternatives matter. But none of these things receive any consideration by tsig.

[Ziggurat]

My "absurd standard" is the "Bill of Rights"

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

Which has precisely nothing to do with either serial killers or soldiers. Nor is this the same standard (you're the same as KSM if you torture him) that you tried to establish earlier.

[boooeee]

If your morality is contingent on the situation then I don't see that you have any.

Of course the kidnapper should go to prison after he has been tried and convicted.


So, the morality of depriving somebody of their freedom is contingent upon whether they have been tried and convicted.


If you paid attention to what I said, I said I was against torture, including waterboarding. I'm also against spurious arguments for positions I happen to agree with.

[tsig]

So, the morality of depriving somebody of their freedom is contingent upon whether they have been tried and convicted.


If you paid attention to what I said, I said I was against torture, including waterboarding. I'm also against spurious arguments for positions I happen to agree with.

So you do not want to be the guard or the guy who pulls the switch? But if you farm it out it's ok?

How is it spurious to ask if you are ready to do what you propose?

If you were tried and convicted and my job was to guard you I would have no problem with that.

[Ziggurat]

So you do not want to be the guard or the guy who pulls the switch? But if you farm it out it's ok?

Wow. I mean, just... wow. It's rare that I see one poster so completely misread the meaning of another poster.

[boooeee]

So you do not want to be the guard or the guy who pulls the switch? But if you farm it out it's ok?

How is it spurious to ask if you are ready to do what you propose?


Because we live in a society where different people can have different roles and responsibilities.

I would not voluntarily enlist in the military.
I would not join the police force.
I would not become a firefighter.
I would not become a surgeon or nurse.
I would not be a prison guard.
I would not be a beekeeper.

Does this mean I'm a hypocrite for enjoying the benefits of these services that others are willing to provide?

Expanding on your prison guard example, I would not be okay with guarding the kidnapper. I do not like the idea of spending my working hours in close proximity with convicted felons. However, I am glad that there are people that are willing to do this (and, as I understand, they are compensated pretty well). Does that make me a hypocrite? Does it invalidate my stance on criminal justice?

[corplinx]

In the US, we have people that work at livestock processing plants. Often times people from animal rights groups will infiltrate the plants and records plant works acting nonchallantly while treating the animals being fed into the grinder less than gently. The factory workers tend to treat the animals being processed as products after a while. The person watching the video imagines their pets being treated that way. The worker on the line sees a product being handled.

I am sure that a person doing something less seemingly inhumane like pouring water on a piece of cloth, will acclimate even more quickly. Especially since they know the water boarding won't leave physical scars or kill the person. Believe it or not, Hitchens and Mancow found people to water board them. Navy Seal trainers routinely water boarded the trainees.

There is worse. The staff at Abu Ghraib abused inmates just because they enjoyed it. As far as orders go, there are states in the US where prisoners are executed by someone who has to perform the procedure.

I would guess that there are members of the CIA who know exactly who KSM is and exactly what he has done. Some of these personnel understand what waterboarding is, what effects it has, and what it causes. If I was such a member of the CIA, with the knowledge _and_ responsibility that they have..... well I am not. Corplinx the husband and father who works at a desk at a computer all day can't answer that question in a meaningful way, because I can't imagine being in those shoes.

I think the question is naive, flawed, and ultimately pointless.

[tsig]

Wow. I mean, just... wow. It's rare that I see one poster so completely misread the meaning of another poster.

You might want to read the post just after yours and see if I misread.

[tsig]

Because we live in a society where different people can have different roles and responsibilities.

I would not voluntarily enlist in the military.
I would not join the police force.
I would not become a firefighter.
I would not become a surgeon or nurse.
I would not be a prison guard.
I would not be a beekeeper.

Does this mean I'm a hypocrite for enjoying the benefits of these services that others are willing to provide?

Expanding on your prison guard example, I would not be okay with guarding the kidnapper. I do not like the idea of spending my working hours in close proximity with convicted felons. However, I am glad that there are people that are willing to do this (and, as I understand, they are compensated pretty well). Does that make me a hypocrite? Does it invalidate my stance on criminal justice?

Since we are talking about torture and not the criminal justice system your whole post is off topic.

[CapelDodger]

KSM? I would absolutely be willing to do it. Hell, I'd be asking for the cattle prod.

I'm sure we'd all be up for torture as punishment, given enough provocation. I don't think that's the subject at hand.

[CapelDodger]

By the by, since a lot of religious stuff just recently here: this was, for me, a direct outgrowth of my realization that there was no god making things right. Since there is not a higher justice, then it is up to us to make things as right as possible.

Karma?! Don't give me frickin' karma! I'm gonna screw this life up for him, just you see if I don't :mad:.

Denial, anger, planning, revenge, gloating. The five stage path to satisfaction. It's always worked for me.

[CapelDodger]

I'm also against spurious arguments for positions I happen to agree with.

Doncha hate that? I just want to slap some people until they shut up ... :)

[fuelair]

If you kill another human you are in fact a murderer. So it would then be ok if I killed you after you became a murderer?

Or maybe you would like to strap those "kidnappers, pedophiles, rapists, most murderers, terrorists etc. people" to a table and work your will on them.
Putting this gently, you would be perfectly welcome to try. No, many - probably most - people have a point at which they do not consider the killing of another person murder. It becomes: excusable revenge, excusable retribution, self defense, self-preservation, etc. And many other people will forgive,exonerate, cheer, cooperate in the act. There is (I believe) an enough-is-too much point where many people will decide real justice/prevention is overdue/necessary and act on that. Properly done, no problem.


As to the kidnappers,etc. why would I need a table? (That is an alternative, but.....

[tsig]

Putting this gently, you would be perfectly welcome to try. No, many - probably most - people have a point at which they do not consider the killing of another person murder. It becomes: excusable revenge, excusable retribution, self defense, self-preservation, etc. And many other people will forgive,exonerate, cheer, cooperate in the act. There is (I believe) an enough-is-too much point where many people will decide real justice/prevention is overdue/necessary and act on that. Properly done, no problem.


As to the kidnappers,etc. why would I need a table? (That is an alternative, but.....

I know it's English but it does not make sense.

Put the scalpel down and face the microphone.

[boooeee]

Since we are talking about torture and not the criminal justice system your whole post is off topic.


I'll back up.

You seem to be arguing that if somebody isn't willing to personally waterboard a terrorist suspect, that it would be hypocritical for them to support waterboarding as an interrogation technique. Is that a fair summary of your position?

If so, my point is that such reasoning would make hypocrites of us all. Pick any person and I will guarantee that there are things that they will not do personally that are nevertheless necessary for a properly functioning society. See the examples I outlined for myself in my "off topic" post.

My post was not off topic. I was merely trying to show the absurd conclusions your reasoning would lead to.

And, you do seem to be misreading my posts, but I'm trying to take this in baby steps. I'd be interested to hear why your contingent morality is okay, but Darat's contingent morality means he actually has no morality at all.

[tsig]

I'll back up.

You seem to be arguing that if somebody isn't willing to personally waterboard a terrorist suspect, that it would be hypocritical for them to support waterboarding as an interrogation technique. Is that a fair summary of your position?

If so, my point is that such reasoning would make hypocrites of us all. Pick any person and I will guarantee that there are things that they will not do personally that are nevertheless necessary for a properly functioning society. See the examples I outlined for myself in my "off topic" post.

My post was not off topic. I was merely trying to show the absurd conclusions your reasoning would lead to.

And, you do seem to be misreading my posts, but I'm trying to take this in baby steps. I'd be interested to hear why your contingent morality is okay, but Darat's contingent morality means he actually has no morality at all.

You are drawing an equality between torture and a prison guard.

You don't mind the drawing of the blood but you don't want to hold the knife.

[fuelair]

I know it's English but it does not make sense.

Put the scalpel down and face the microphone.
Sorry, I re-read it, it makes perfect sense to me, just info-dense.

[tsig]

Sorry, I re-read it, it makes perfect sense to me, just info-dense.

I am done with all you wantabes If you do not have enough sense to not harm a defenseless individual then ...

[quarky]

I'll never read my poems to a girlfriend again. I plan not to cut off someone's head and eat their flesh. Torture is totally not on my 'things to do' list.

[DDWW]

[QUOTE=tsig;4774285]If you kill another human you are in fact a murderer. So it would then be ok if I killed you after you became a murderer?

No, The law recognizes the use of lethal force in some instances. It is not then murder.

Yes, I would use torture to save my wife and children.

And I really would not care what others think of me.

DD (Red is positive, black is negative) WW

[boooeee]

You are drawing an equality between torture and a prison guard.


I'll try again. I am not drawing an equality between administering torture and being a prison guard. I am saying that they are both tasks that most people would find personally unpleasant. Using your argument in the OP, if I'm not willing to [personally waterboard a suspect/be a prison guard], then I can't support [waterboarding as an official method of interrogation/the incarceration of dangerous criminals].

If your argument can be used to support a ridiculous position, then maybe you should revisit your argument.

You don't mind the drawing of the blood but you don't want to hold the knife.


Apparently I haven't been using the proper font size.

I am against torture as a matter of policy, and that includes waterboarding.

[Darat]

Sorry you don't know yourself well enough to simply say "no".

If your morality is contingent on the situation then I don't see that you have any.

I'm just a human being, I claim no supernatural powers.

[Darat]

If you accept tsig's logic. Which I don't, and which is rather my point. Context matters. Goals matter. Consequences matter. And available alternatives matter. But none of these things receive any consideration by tsig.

tsig also seems to want to ignore what we know about human behaviour and believes some humans do not behave like humans!

[fuelair]

I suspect tsig was assuming no one would admit being willing to torture - with possibly also an assumption that some would be ok with it if they didn't but someone else did - thus letting him attack the people who would let someone else, but would not themselves as hypocrites.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And would a serial killer somehow be less culpable if he armed his victim and let them fight back before killing them?

I can answer that: yes, a person who is not a serial killer (someone who kills an armed victim) is less culpable than a person who is a serial killer. You see, you can't still be a serial killer and not a serial killer at the same time. Being a soldier in a battle is NOT the same thing as committing torture. I can cite you the definition of torture again, but I think you've read it by now.

By believe I mean that you think pain will induce truth.
This seems at odds with your OP where you asked if it's something you would be willing to do. In other words, there are people who think torture can draw out true intelligence but who are still opposed to it. I would say "believing in" torture means that you believe it is justified in some circumstances.

ETA: Compare this to the question, "Do you believe in abortion?" or "Do you believe in capital punishment?" These are usually questions that go beyond belief in the effectiveness of the thing (although disbelief in the effectiveness of either in addressing one problem or another might be part of the reason for holding a certain position). They usually mean something like, "Do you condone it or think it's justified?"


...but that's why the decision to do so should not be made by me in that situation. It should be made by someone who has his head on straight.
Exactly! That's why most nations in the world agreed to the Convention Against Torture.

It's a decision that should be made away from the passion of the moment. (And, BTW, it's a decision we already made, contrary to the notion I keep seeing that it's some controversy that's still up in the air yet to be settled.)

That's also another reason why there must be no exception (even if you really think it's justifiable in some rare circumstance) because allowing rare exceptions would put the decision back into the hands of people in the heat and pressures of the moment.

[Ziggurat]

I can answer that: yes, a person who is not a serial killer (someone who kills an armed victim) is less culpable than a person who is a serial killer.

Um... that's got nothing to do with the definition of a serial killer. And even if it did, why would the label alone change culpability? What about arming your victim before killing them makes killing them any less immoral?