"Torture Doesn't Work"

[Infected Mushroom]

you find out what it is based on information you extract from the interrogation

then you verify as a form of confirmation

Again: you torture somebody. He gives you 200 different answers to your question. How do you verify which one (if any) is true, and why didn't you just do that first and skip the torture?

people don't have the pain tolerance to give hundreds of pieces of false information, each of which results in further torture... the truth is likely to come out within the first few replies

[The New California Republic]

And there we have it. You just admitted that torture is basically ineffective.

if you read the OP, its a given that people can't give information they don't have; but if they do have information, they are going to give it (perhaps with some other falsehoods but it will definitely be thrown out along with it)

I know that Trump eats Quaker Oats every morning.

There, I just gave you information that I don't have. It is called a lie.

[Dylar]

Again: you torture somebody. He gives you 200 different answers to your question. How do you verify which one (if any) is true, and why didn't you just do that first and skip the torture?

people don't have the pain tolerance to give hundreds of pieces of false information, each of which results in further torture... the truth is likely to come out within the first few replies

Right, and the Templar committed acts of blasphemy and sodomy...

[Jebslund]

The problem with verifying a story is that, if you have the means to immediately do so, you'd already be doing it. Otherwise, you're looking at hours, possibly even days, of wasted manpower barking up the wrong tree in a situation where your prisoner is only useful for a limited amount of time, a problem the CIA frequently ran into. It's not a matter of the leads being impossible to track down. It's a matter of the leads needing to be believed first, then needing to be tracked down, the latter part of which takes far more time than Hollywood lets on. During that time, if the victim of torture lied, you're wasting valuable time tracking down a false lead, even more because the lie was something you wanted to believe, while the other side adjusts plans based on that guy with important info who hasn't checked in in a while, or even carried out the attack you were hoping to stop.

you're verifying based on the information that has been extracted

for instance, if there are 130 possible bomb locations... you can get a specific location from the person and then go from there; much more feasible than just sending people to 130 locations assuming you don't have the resources

Okay. But the bomb is set to go off in 24 hours. The closest location is an hour away, the furthest is 13, and there are ten at each distance. You torture the guy. He tells you the bomb is in one of the locations that are 12 hours away. You check. It's not there. We'll be generous and say the guy you send calls back. it's not there. You torture him some more. this time one 6 hours away. You check. It's <u>not there</u>. Rinse and repeat. 4 hours. Not there. 2 hours. *was* there, but not anymore. Boom. The bomb goes off in a location 3 hours away from you and 1 hour from the last location given. Congratulations. You got 4 locations, and NONE of them were even remotely useful. Out of a possible 130.

[Infected Mushroom]

its in the OP dude

I know. But up until know, you've seemed certain that the person tortured: a) has info
b) will give it over eventually
and c) won't lie or at least the true information can be verified.
and in that post, you've appeared to accept c) is wrong.

where did I say that where torture has been used, the person tortured 100% has the information?

I never stood by that

[Infected Mushroom]

if you read the OP, its a given that people can't give information they don't have; but if they do have information, they are going to give it (perhaps with some other falsehoods but it will definitely be thrown out along with it)

I know that Trump eats Quaker Oats every morning.

There, I just gave you information that I don't have. It is called a lie.

but did you give it while tortured and under the threat of further torture?

I think not right?

[Infected Mushroom]

you're verifying based on the information that has been extracted

for instance, if there are 130 possible bomb locations... you can get a specific location from the person and then go from there; much more feasible than just sending people to 130 locations assuming you don't have the resources

Okay. But the bomb is set to go off in 24 hours. The closest location is an hour away, the furthest is 13, and there are ten at each distance. You torture the guy. He tells you the bomb is in one of the locations that are 12 hours away. You check. It's not there. We'll be generous and say the guy you send calls back. it's not there. You torture him some more. this time one 6 hours away. You check. It's <u>not there</u>. Rinse and repeat. 4 hours. Not there. 2 hours. *was* there, but not anymore. Boom. The bomb goes off in a location 3 hours away from you and 1 hour from the last location given. Congratulations. You got 4 locations, and NONE of them were even remotely useful. Out of a possible 130.

then tough luck?

I mean, that sounds like my last League of Legends match...

I mean, bad things happen?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

How do you know that? Seriously, I've asked many times and your answer can be boiled down to "they will".

because they want to make the torture permanently stop and telling the truth is their only hope for that to happen (anything else will just result in further torture) right?

Wrong. Telling the truth just results in more torture as well. They don't believe you when you tell the truth. Hence the problem. The tortured spout off hundreds of names, dates, locations, anything to try to get it to stop. 99% of it is bullshit because the 1% that isn't wasn't believed.

[The South Falls]

I know that Trump eats Quaker Oats every morning.

There, I just gave you information that I don't have. It is called a lie.

but did you give it while tortured and under the threat of further torture?

I think not right?

Right, but people aren't calm and logical under torture. They'll just say whatever pops into their head, no matter how untrue and sensationalist. In fact, it'll be overblown, as the torturer wants something to be said.

[Dylar]

I know that Trump eats Quaker Oats every morning.

There, I just gave you information that I don't have. It is called a lie.

but did you give it while tortured and under the threat of further torture?

I think not right?

But had he been under torture, the torturer would not take "I don't know!" for an answer if he'd tell the truth that he doesn't know.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I know that Trump eats Quaker Oats every morning.

There, I just gave you information that I don't have. It is called a lie.

but did you give it while tortured and under the threat of further torture?

I think not right?

He still wouldn't know what Trump eats every morning even if you tortured him, just like you wouldn't know what Russia's nuclear launch codes are even if I let a pack of starving dogs attack you. Torture is useless because more often than not people being tortured don't have any worthwhile information and if you know they have the information you also probably have a good idea of what it is already.

[Sovaal]

but did you give it while tortured and under the threat of further torture?

I think not right?

But had he been under torture, the torturer would not take "I don't know!" for an answer if he'd tell the truth that he doesn't know.

^

[Vistulange]

I know that Trump eats Quaker Oats every morning.

There, I just gave you information that I don't have. It is called a lie.

but did you give it while tortured and under the threat of further torture?

I think not right?

Yes, thanks for helping out.

We don't know for certain what Donald Trump eats every morning. Therefore, no matter how much you torture us, we can't tell you what Donald Trump eats every morning, or any morning, save for a lucky guess.

[The New California Republic]

I know that Trump eats Quaker Oats every morning.

There, I just gave you information that I don't have. It is called a lie.

but did you give it while tortured and under the threat of further torture?

I think not right?

And people can't lie during torture? Are you serious?

Have you answered the following question yet. I think not, right?

OK. I'll play this game. The torturer wants to know where my meeting with a contact will be on a certain day. I tell the torturer that the meeting will be on the bench at the entrance to the local park. The actual meeting place is out of town, in a cafe. How will the torturer know that I am telling the truth?

That has future ramifications and can be verified eventually by the person being at the meeting place or not. What say you?

[Estanglia]

How do you know that? Seriously, I've asked many times and your answer can be boiled down to "they will".

because they want to make the torture permanently stop and telling the truth is their only hope for that to happen (anything else will just result in further torture) right?

Again, another "they will" answer.
Some questions that I want you to answer honestly:
1) How will you know the victim actually knows anything?
2) How do you know that telling the truth is the only way to stop torture?
3) How will you verify the info?
4) Why should the victim trust that the torture will stop once they hand over the info and they won't be killed/made to disappear post-torture?

[Infected Mushroom]

because they want to make the torture permanently stop and telling the truth is their only hope for that to happen (anything else will just result in further torture) right?

Wrong. Telling the truth just results in more torture as well. They don't believe you when you tell the truth. Hence the problem. The tortured spout off hundreds of names, dates, locations, anything to try to get it to stop. 99% of it is bullshit because the 1% that isn't wasn't believed.

It could be that telling the truth actually results in further torture.

However, when you are tortured continuously and then told that only by telling the truth will you permanently put a stop to it... you will end up believing it because its your only hope

you have no other hope... and when you are being tortured, you need the hope that it can stop; you know that telling lies or refusing to talk will make things worse. So your only chance is to buy what the torturer is saying, that it ends when you tell the truth and hope it is the case.

[United Muscovite Nations]

"Torture doesn't work" doesn't mean that it doesn't get people to talk, it means that it works too well, so well that people tell you false information that they're making up on the spot just to get you to stop. What if the person you're torturing really doesn't know anything? Just torture him until he dies?

[Sovaal]

Wrong. Telling the truth just results in more torture as well. They don't believe you when you tell the truth. Hence the problem. The tortured spout off hundreds of names, dates, locations, anything to try to get it to stop. 99% of it is bullshit because the 1% that isn't wasn't believed.

It could be that telling the truth actually results in further torture.

However, when you are tortured continuously and then told that only by telling the truth will you permanently put a stop to it... you will end up believing it because its your only hope

you have no other hope... and when you are being tortured, you need the hope that it can stop; you know that telling lies or refusing to talk will make things worse. So your only chance is to buy what the torturer is saying, that it ends when you tell the truth and hope it is the case.

Tell me, how many times have you been tortured for information? What exactly is your qualification and expertise here?

[Estanglia]

Wrong. Telling the truth just results in more torture as well. They don't believe you when you tell the truth. Hence the problem. The tortured spout off hundreds of names, dates, locations, anything to try to get it to stop. 99% of it is bullshit because the 1% that isn't wasn't believed.

It could be that telling the truth actually results in further torture.

However, when you are tortured continuously and then told that only by telling the truth will you permanently put a stop to it... you will end up believing it because its your only hope

you have no other hope... and when you are being tortured, you need the hope that it can stop; you know that telling lies or refusing to talk will make things worse. So your only chance is to buy what the torturer is saying, that it ends when you tell the truth and hope it is the case.

What if you've already told the truth and wasn't believed? Then you have no hope either way.

[Jebslund]

OK. I'll play this game. The torturer wants to know where my meeting with a contact will be on a certain day. I tell the torturer that the meeting will be on the bench at the entrance to the local park. The actual meeting place is out of town, in a cafe. How will the torturer know that I am telling the truth?

That has future ramifications and can be verified eventually by the person being at the meeting place or not. What say you?

I don't think that's realistic since if you say that... you KNOW that you will be tortured past the "certain day" when it turns out to be a falsehood, so you really have no self-interest in doing that

Why? Why would the torture continue if it's no longer useful to the torturers? Either they will stop and, on the certain day, prosecute/execute you, or they won't stop, and wouldn't have even if you had told the truth. Putting the knowledge that the torture isn't being done purely through utility makes all incentive to be truthful fly out the window. At that point, they're just doing it for fun/pettiness, so all you accomplish by telling the truth is being a traitor in addition to being tortured. There's no longer any guarantee telling the truth will result in the torture ending.

[Sodoran Alesia]

Wrong. Telling the truth just results in more torture as well. They don't believe you when you tell the truth. Hence the problem. The tortured spout off hundreds of names, dates, locations, anything to try to get it to stop. 99% of it is bullshit because the 1% that isn't wasn't believed.

It could be that telling the truth actually results in further torture.

However, when you are tortured continuously and then told that only by telling the truth will you permanently put a stop to it... you will end up believing it because its your only hope

you have no other hope... and when you are being tortured, you need the hope that it can stop; you know that telling lies or refusing to talk will make things worse. So your only chance is to buy what the torturer is saying, that it ends when you tell the truth and hope it is the case.

And what happens when you tell the truth but the torturer doesn't believe you and tortures you even more because they think you know more but are hiding it? Sounds like you're gonna lose hope and sanity pretty fast, and when that happens, you start telling lies to make the pain stop.

[Salandriagado]

Again: you torture somebody. He gives you 200 different answers to your question. How do you verify which one (if any) is true, and why didn't you just do that first and skip the torture?

people don't have the pain tolerance to give hundreds of pieces of false information, each of which results in further torture... the truth is likely to come out within the first few replies

No it isn't. The answer they think is most likely to be believed is going to come out early. The truth, if it isn't something you already knew, isn't going to come out any time soon.

[San Lumen]

Wrong. Telling the truth just results in more torture as well. They don't believe you when you tell the truth. Hence the problem. The tortured spout off hundreds of names, dates, locations, anything to try to get it to stop. 99% of it is bullshit because the 1% that isn't wasn't believed.

It could be that telling the truth actually results in further torture.

However, when you are tortured continuously and then told that only by telling the truth will you permanently put a stop to it... you will end up believing it because its your only hope

you have no other hope... and when you are being tortured, you need the hope that it can stop; you know that telling lies or refusing to talk will make things worse. So your only chance is to buy what the torturer is saying, that it ends when you tell the truth and hope it is the case.

It still does not make torture right. No matter the circumstances it is wrong. Ramsey Bolton is a horrible example to use.

[Vistulange]

Wrong. Telling the truth just results in more torture as well. They don't believe you when you tell the truth. Hence the problem. The tortured spout off hundreds of names, dates, locations, anything to try to get it to stop. 99% of it is bullshit because the 1% that isn't wasn't believed.

It could be that telling the truth actually results in further torture.

However, when you are tortured continuously and then told that only by telling the truth will you permanently put a stop to it... you will end up believing it because its your only hope

you have no other hope... and when you are being tortured, you need the hope that it can stop; you know that telling lies or refusing to talk will make things worse. So your only chance is to buy what the torturer is saying, that it ends when you tell the truth and hope it is the case.

And to appease the torturer, you tell him what he wants to believe, or wants to hear. Even if you don't know the truth at all. You're not lying, you don't know. Obviously, "I don't know" is not satisfactory, so you spout bullshit you think the man wants to hear.

[Vassenor]

But if you have the information needed to be sure that what they've told you is true, why do you need to torture them?