Should toturing be allowed?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Life is very simple if one is honest. Complication is an unfortunate side effect of dishonesty.

If I were reasonably sure that a suspect knew information that could possibly save a great many lives, I would use any means to get that information and live with myself afterwards. You would stand by and watch a great many die and bask in your self righteousness and feel no guilt because you stood by and let a lot of people die. Life is simple.

There are always reasons to behave barbarically, the trick is to try to find ways to advance past barbarism, but perhaps once you are stuck with a no-win situation like you describe then your only choice is barbarism. Unfortunately when one has that level of violence at ready access there is no reason not to use it routinely. You would torture 2 to save a million if you had clear evidence that they were responsible, but as the numbers decrease and the clarity of evidence fades, where do you draw the line? Therein lies the problem because once you accept torture as a viable tool for doing God's work (think Inquistion) or at least good work, then why not use it all the time? Couldn't we benefit from torturing confessions out of murderers? Our court dockets are full to overflowing with long-winded trials where high-paid lawyers talk and talk in an attempt to win the argument with no interest in the actual truth. But along comes the Palerider's of the world, people who are willing to do anything to get the truth, shouldn't we use these people and ignore their techniques as long as they get the TRUTH? Child molesters could use torture couldn't they? We'd find out what they did, we'd find out who else they know of who is doing it, and with confessions in hand we won't have to waste a lot of time in court.

Where does it end? In times gone by people discovered to their dismay that there is no end, once torture is an accepted tool of discovery, then there is no reason to do all the other difficult work of discovery--research, investigation, and the like--it's just faster to round up the usual suspects and use torches to get the information we need quickly and efficiently.

Torture is a social evil and the fact that you have to use such egregious examples to make it seem reasonable in the first place makes my point for me. Torture cannot be controlled because it cannot be done in public, it always has to be hidden away in secret prisons and done by people with hoods over heads (at least metaphorical hoods) because would you want your daughter to be dating a torturer? Would you want one to come to your church to sing praises to Jesus alongside you? Would you let someone into your house who butchered living humans for a living?

 

[palerider]

Ironically...this may come back to bite me in the butt on abortion....

Since you see the glaring flaw in your logic, I will not hammer you with it at this time. You are growing if you can see the inconsistancies in your philosophy. Congratulations.

The real question is, what do you do about them? Once you realize that they are there, at some point, you will have to work them out.

 

[palerider]

There are always reasons to behave barbarically, the trick is to try to find ways to advance past barbarism, but perhaps once you are stuck with a no-win situation like you describe then your only choice is barbarism. Unfortunately when one has that level of violence at ready access there is no reason not to use it routinely. You would torture 2 to save a million if you had clear evidence that they were responsible, but as the numbers decrease and the clarity of evidence fades, where do you draw the line? Therein lies the problem because once you accept torture as a viable tool for doing God's work (think Inquistion) or at least good work, then why not use it all the time? Couldn't we benefit from torturing confessions out of murderers? Our court dockets are full to overflowing with long-winded trials where high-paid lawyers talk and talk in an attempt to win the argument with no interest in the actual truth. But along comes the Palerider's of the world, people who are willing to do anything to get the truth, shouldn't we use these people and ignore their techniques as long as they get the TRUTH? Child molesters could use torture couldn't they? We'd find out what they did, we'd find out who else they know of who is doing it, and with confessions in hand we won't have to waste a lot of time in court.

Where does it end? In times gone by people discovered to their dismay that there is no end, once torture is an accepted tool of discovery, then there is no reason to do all the other difficult work of discovery--research, investigation, and the like--it's just faster to round up the usual suspects and use torches to get the information we need quickly and efficiently.

Torture is a social evil and the fact that you have to use such egregious examples to make it seem reasonable in the first place makes my point for me. Torture cannot be controlled because it cannot be done in public, it always has to be hidden away in secret prisons and done by people with hoods over heads (at least metaphorical hoods) because would you want your daughter to be dating a torturer? Would you want one to come to your church to sing praises to Jesus alongside you? Would you let someone into your house who butchered living humans for a living?

Like I said. Life is simple if you are honest. You seem to have a very complicated philosophy. My bet is that it is rife with inconsistancies.

 

[Coyote]

Since you see the glaring flaw in your logic, I will not hammer you with it at this time. You are growing if you can see the inconsistancies in your philosophy. Congratulations.

The real question is, what do you do about them? Once you realize that they are there, at some point, you will have to work them out.

Quite true. But that is something that can not be done quickly.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Since you see the glaring flaw in your logic, I will not hammer you with it at this time. You are growing if you can see the inconsistancies in your philosophy. Congratulations.

The real question is, what do you do about them? Once you realize that they are there, at some point, you will have to work them out.

You don't have to work them out, life is simple according to you, Mr. Rider. My guess it denial is what makes life simple.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Like I said. Life is simple if you are honest. You seem to have a very complicated philosophy. My bet is that it is rife with inconsistancies.

I can't imagine what would make you think that my life is rife with inconsistencies. You bland statement that "life is simple if you are honest" is an appealing sound byte, but nothing more. Anybody can make a statement like that while at the same time ignoring the real issues that I politely raised in my thoughtful post to you. Real issues, Mr. Rider, that people who have trod the path you are advocating and have stumbled over.

You have not burdened us down with you "simple philosophy" though I would very much like to hear it. If you please? Mine is not so complex as you seem to think, "harm none". That's it, I practice that as best I can, it requires compromises and difficult decisions sometimes, but all in all it's pretty simple.

 

[palerider]

You don't have to work them out, life is simple according to you, Mr. Rider. My guess it denial is what makes life simple.

I doubt that you will find many inconsistencies in my personal philosophy Mare. Nor will you find denial. If I felt that torture were necessary, I would use it and live with myself and my actions afterward. You would not use it and deny to yourself that you had wronged the people who died because of your self righteousness. All the while, the ones who did the killing (which you have now become an accessory to) are laughing in your face and thanking you for the help.

Life is simple.

 

[palerider]

Mine is not so complex as you seem to think, "harm none". That's it, I practice that as best I can, it requires compromises and difficult decisions sometimes, but all in all it's pretty simple.

By not torturing the two in an attempt to find and stop the device from going off, you have harmed thousands, perhaps millions. This is a glaring inconsistancy, actually worse than an inconsistancy, it is a paradox in your philosophy. And yet, you deny that you have harmed anyone. Your philosophy has failed on a grand scale and you blithely deny it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I doubt that you will find many inconsistencies in my personal philosophy Mare. Nor will you find denial. If I felt that torture were necessary, I would use it and live with myself and my actions afterward. You would not use it and deny to yourself that you had wronged the people who died because of your self righteousness. All the while, the ones who did the killing (which you have now become an accessory to) are laughing in your face and thanking you for the help.

Life is simple.

Well, some people are simple anyway. I'm not sure that having standards by which one guides one's life is "self-righteous" as you always phrase it.

I think that your hypothetical example is pretty badly flawed in that you are trying to make an evil act by others my responsibility because I won't presume guilt (as you are so willing to do) and tear them limb from limb in the hope that useful information can be gained thereby.

Living your life with only Might is Right as your standard probably does make your life simple. Be happy in the simple life you have chosen, Mr. Rider.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

By not torturing the two in an attempt to find and stop the device from going off, you have harmed thousands, perhaps millions. This is a glaring inconsistancy, actually worse than an inconsistancy, it is a paradox in your philosophy. And yet, you deny that you have harmed anyone. Your philosophy has failed on a grand scale and you blithely deny it.

You're pretty funny, Mr. Rider. You have whipped up a semantic fluff and are trying to use it to browbeat me and make me feel guilty. How did it become my responsibility? Bad people do bad things all the time, are you claiming that it's my responsibility to torture them so that justice will prevail? And that I am responsible for the deaths and suffering of victims everywhere because I think that torturing people is cruel, stupid, and morally indefensible?

In all of human history there has never been a case like you postulated and yet you are giving me no end of feces because I won't rubberstamp your violent and un-Constitutional use of torture. People who have to resort to those kinds of tactics are pathetic. I'm not interested in your twisted violence or your hideous physical abuses of people you have condemned without due process in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution, I'm ashamed that people like you have sway over the actions of our government.

The people who wrote and signed the Geneva Convention did so after a war that demonstrated too clearly what torture did to people, it's shameful and pathetic that so few years later people like you are ready--eager even--to go back and make the same ghastly mistakes over again just because you are afraid.

 

[palerider]

In all of human history there has never been a case like you postulated

Are you sure? Can you prove that? We acted on information gathered in unpleasant ways in vietnam and very often saved lives because we were able to stay ahead of the NVA. All information gathered by such means is not accurate, but if the people you have in custody know what you need to know, it is.

Your personal philosophy of harn no one has a paradox within it rendering it useless. You can't see it even when it is pointed out to you. A philosophy must be able to withstand the hypothetical as well as the here and now if it is to have any worth at all.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Are you sure? Can you prove that? We acted on information gathered in unpleasant ways in vietnam and very often saved lives because we were able to stay ahead of the NVA. All information gathered by such means is not accurate, but if the people you have in custody know what you need to know, it is.

Your personal philosophy of harn no one has a paradox within it rendering it useless. You can't see it even when it is pointed out to you. A philosophy must be able to withstand the hypothetical as well as the here and now if it is to have any worth at all.

You postulated a hidden atomic weapon and finding 2 people with nuclear contamination on their hands. I can't prove that it never happened, even you should be able to understand that a person cannot prove a negative, but since you are the one with the wild scenario it's up to you to prove that it did. And did the torture solve the problem?

Because of your willingness to resort to violence I doubt that we really have anything to discuss. Your whole paradigm seems to be antithetical to my own. So explaining to you is probably impossible since we have no common ground from which to begin.

There is an interesting book called ISHMAEL (that has nothing to do with the Ishmael of the Bible) which notes the fact that humans have been using violence to try to solve their problems for about 10,000 years now with little success. The author suggests that perhaps another approach may be in order. I agree, you do not--what's to discuss? People like you seem to be in the majority, people like you kill people like me--I don't like that very much but it's better than the alternative. Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many other peaceful people have been killed by the people who cannot see any alternative to violence. If I am to be another one of those people, so be it. Have a nice day and if you do your riding in the Sun, you can stop being such a pale rider.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't think Mr. Rider will be posting on this thread again so this is addressed to Phenom, rokin 91, FellowCitizen, Beatleworld, and anyone else who thinks torture is acceptable because I am curious about something. One of the problems I have with the death penalty is that there is no way to take it back if you discover that you've made a mistake--and a LOT of them have been made.

Similarly, if one sets out to torture a person for whom guilt is seemingly "obvious", but yet they continue to claim innocence despite your best efforts. At what point do you stop torturing them, assume they are telling the truth, and go back to looking for the real guilty party?

My guess is that you cannot stop torturing them until they are dead because you and I both know that some people will never give up even under the worst abuse that one human can visit on another--so won't you have to assume that the person you are torturing is one of those people and keep trying until you have torn them to death? If not, what line of reasoning would you use to justify stopping the torture?

 

[ArmChair General]

I don't think Mr. Rider will be posting on this thread again so this is addressed to Phenom, rokin 91, FellowCitizen, Beatleworld, and anyone else who thinks torture is acceptable because I am curious about something. One of the problems I have with the death penalty is that there is no way to take it back if you discover that you've made a mistake--and a LOT of them have been made.

Similarly, if one sets out to torture a person for whom guilt is seemingly "obvious", but yet they continue to claim innocence despite your best efforts. At what point do you stop torturing them, assume they are telling the truth, and go back to looking for the real guilty party?

My guess is that you cannot stop torturing them until they are dead because you and I both know that some people will never give up even under the worst abuse that one human can visit on another--so won't you have to assume that the person you are torturing is one of those people and keep trying until you have torn them to death? If not, what line of reasoning would you use to justify stopping the torture?

Torture, its only needed when your in the wrong. Like Vietnam, like Iraq 2, we were and are in the wrong. But that doesn't make it any less useful to the people who are there, trying to save their own lives and the lives of their buddies.

Don't listen to empty heads like Palerider who are too ignorant to see the whole picture.

Torture is wrong, in any circumstance. But all I'm saying, is that you can't blame the folks who use it in ****ty circumstances. Blame the politicians who put them there in the first place.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

 

[Coyote]

Torture, its only needed when your in the wrong. Like Vietnam, like Iraq 2, we were and are in the wrong. But that doesn't make it any less useful to the people who are there, trying to save their own lives and the lives of their buddies.

Don't listen to empty heads like Palerider who are too ignorant to see the whole picture.

Torture is wrong, in any circumstance. But all I'm saying, is that you can't blame the folks who use it in ****ty circumstances. Blame the politicians who put them there in the first place.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

Actually...it does...