"Torture Doesn't Work"

[Caracasus]

Because the person being tortured will make up anything to get it to end, usually including lying and making everyone's lives and jobs harder.

The world isn't like GoT, torture is a notoriously bad way to collecting information.

Even in Game of Thrones it's not really used to collect information. It's used either as a punishment, to secure a "confession" or to satisfy the desires of some of the even more evil than usual characters to inflict intense amounts of agony on people and bend them to their will.

[Hydesland]

Wait him out. I have the most to gain and the least to lose that way. There's no more guarantee he won't kill me after getting the info than he will if I don't give it (ESPECIALLY if he wasn't threatening to kill me in the first place. That speaks of an unwillingness to kill. A weakness in this scenario), workman's comp and/or disability will handle the injuries and therapy (it is, after all, a workplace injury, sustained during the course of my duties), and, as you said, he's in a hurry. He doesn't have *time* to torture me at length for any reason, and not giving him the info means that, regardless of what happens to me, he can't get to the money unless someone else gives him access. It's more to his benefit to move on to someone more easily intimidated than to waste time on prolonged torture. The time constraint element works in my favor one way or another. And I get the satisfaction of watching his reaction when I call his bluff, or the peace of heaven. Either way, by keeping my mouth shut, I win, outright one way, pyrrhicly the other, with my integrity intact.

Sure you might be some noble hero in that scenario, I am certain the vast majority of others wouldn't be.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

You should see some of the nonsense people confessed to under torture in witch trials.

[Infected Mushroom]

where in the thread did I advocate it?

saying something works situationally is not the same as advocating it as a go-to strategy

Consistently defending it against any and all criticisms put forward by a whole host of people on this thread goes far beyond that. It is advocating torture as a legitimate means of getting information.

You are promoting torture. Sorry to break it to you, but you are. It isn't just me that has noticed it.

Just to note, you answered to the affirmative when asked if you should torture people some more -- even when they have no information -- if they give false information.

Sounds like promoting torture to me!

Yup. Infected Mushroom is promoting torture. Again, I am actually disturbed by that.

I have not been advocating for it though. Advocating for it would be something along the lines of:

"Torture should be state policy."

I've never said anything of the sort.

If you read carefully, all I have been doing is arguing against the idea that "Torture doesn't work" and explaining how it can be carried out with some success rate. There has been no advocation for torture.

[Caracasus]

Consistently defending it against any and all criticisms put forward by a whole host of people on this thread goes far beyond that. It is advocating torture as a legitimate means of getting information.

You are promoting torture. Sorry to break it to you, but you are. It isn't just me that has noticed it.


Yup. Infected Mushroom is promoting torture. Again, I am actually disturbed by that.

I have not been advocating for it though. Advocating for it would be something along the lines of:

"Torture should be state policy."

I've never said anything of the sort.

If you read carefully, all I have been doing is arguing against the idea that "Torture doesn't work" and explaining how it can be carried out with some success rate. There has been no advocation for torture.

You are suggesting that on some level torture works but have only suggested hypotheticals that don't really occur in real life - i.e. 24 style stuff.

You are using examples drawn from a popular fictional portrayal of medieval life and society - Game of Thrones - inferring some sort of link.

Torture was and is primarily used as a punishment, not a way of getting information.

As a way of getting information there are far more effective measures.

Torture doesn't work.

[Infected Mushroom]

I have not been advocating for it though. Advocating for it would be something along the lines of:

"Torture should be state policy."

I've never said anything of the sort.

If you read carefully, all I have been doing is arguing against the idea that "Torture doesn't work" and explaining how it can be carried out with some success rate. There has been no advocation for torture.

You are suggesting that on some level torture works.

You are using examples drawn from a popular fictional portrayal of medieval life and society - Game of Thrones - inferring some sort of link.

Torture was and is primarily used as a punishment, not a way of getting information.

As a way of getting information there are far more effective measures.

Torture doesn't work.

Except where it can be used to get information.

The efficiency of something is a separate question, it works if it can get the desired result. The invention of a firearm doesn't make knives "no longer work."

[The Free Joy State]

You should see some of the nonsense people confessed to under torture in witch trials.

Here's one of the "confessions", which would have been extracted under torture.

A widow named Mary Bush confessed this to witchfinder John Stearne in 1645

[T]he Devil appeared to her in the shape of a young black man, Winding, by her bed side, which spoke to her with a hollow voice, and came into bed to her, and had the use of her body, and asked her to deny God and Christ…she said he was colder then [sic] man, and heavier, and could not perform nature as man, and that soon after she had consented to the Covenant and given her blood, there came two things more like mice, which used to suck her [edited in: refers to breastfeeding] about twice a week.

I'll leave it to others to judge how plausible it is.

[Infected Mushroom]

You should see some of the nonsense people confessed to under torture in witch trials.

Here's one of the "confessions", which would have been extracted under torture.

A widow named Mary Bush confessed this to witchfinder John Stearne in 1645

[T]he Devil appeared to her in the shape of a young black man, Winding, by her bed side, which spoke to her with a hollow voice, and came into bed to her, and had the use of her body, and asked her to deny God and Christ…she said he was colder then [sic] man, and heavier, and could not perform nature as man, and that soon after she had consented to the Covenant and given her blood, there came two things more like mice, which used to suck her [edited in: refers to breastfeeding] about twice a week.

and has it occurred to you that that might be true?

[The Free Joy State]

Here's one of the "confessions", which would have been extracted under torture.

A widow named Mary Bush confessed this to witchfinder John Stearne in 1645

[T]he Devil appeared to her in the shape of a young black man, Winding, by her bed side, which spoke to her with a hollow voice, and came into bed to her, and had the use of her body, and asked her to deny God and Christ…she said he was colder then [sic] man, and heavier, and could not perform nature as man, and that soon after she had consented to the Covenant and given her blood, there came two things more like mice, which used to suck her [edited in: refers to breastfeeding] about twice a week.

and has it occurred to you that that might be true?

Satanic mice breatfeeding twice a week?

Are you shitting me?

I'm really asking, because at this point I can't tell if you're joking.

[Alvecia]

Here's one of the "confessions", which would have been extracted under torture.

A widow named Mary Bush confessed this to witchfinder John Stearne in 1645

[T]he Devil appeared to her in the shape of a young black man, Winding, by her bed side, which spoke to her with a hollow voice, and came into bed to her, and had the use of her body, and asked her to deny God and Christ…she said he was colder then [sic] man, and heavier, and could not perform nature as man, and that soon after she had consented to the Covenant and given her blood, there came two things more like mice, which used to suck her [edited in: refers to breastfeeding] about twice a week.

and has it occurred to you that that might be true?

Hold on boys and girls, we're going deep into the rabbit hole this time

[The New California Republic]

Consistently defending it against any and all criticisms put forward by a whole host of people on this thread goes far beyond that. It is advocating torture as a legitimate means of getting information. You are promoting torture. Sorry to break it to you, but you are. It isn't just me that has noticed it.

I have not been advocating for it though. Advocating for it would be something along the lines of:

"Torture should be state policy."

I've never said anything of the sort.

If you read carefully, all I have been doing is arguing against the idea that "Torture doesn't work" and explaining how it can be carried out with some success rate. There has been no advocation for torture.

You have consistently defended the use of torture to extract information at every single turn, that makes you a torture advocate. And when asked if someone should be tortured in a certain situation, you responded in the affirmative. That makes you an advocate/promoter of torture. It all adds up to a pattern of behavior on your part that can only be interpreted as advocating or promoting torture. Deny it all you want. The evidence in plain for all to see. And, like I said, I am more than a little bit disturbed by it.

[Infected Mushroom]

and has it occurred to you that that might be true?

Satanic mice breatfeeding twice a week?

Are you shitting me?

I'm really asking, because at this point I can't tell if you're joking.

Have we ruled out the existence of the supernatural?

Then I don't see why Satanic covenants should be dismissed out of hand.

[The New California Republic]

Here's one of the "confessions", which would have been extracted under torture.

A widow named Mary Bush confessed this to witchfinder John Stearne in 1645

[T]he Devil appeared to her in the shape of a young black man, Winding, by her bed side, which spoke to her with a hollow voice, and came into bed to her, and had the use of her body, and asked her to deny God and Christ…she said he was colder then [sic] man, and heavier, and could not perform nature as man, and that soon after she had consented to the Covenant and given her blood, there came two things more like mice, which used to suck her [edited in: refers to breastfeeding] about twice a week.

and has it occurred to you that that might be true?

ROFL. And with that statement all of your credibility just evaporated, completely and irrevocably.

[The Holy Therns]

Here's one of the "confessions", which would have been extracted under torture.

A widow named Mary Bush confessed this to witchfinder John Stearne in 1645

[T]he Devil appeared to her in the shape of a young black man, Winding, by her bed side, which spoke to her with a hollow voice, and came into bed to her, and had the use of her body, and asked her to deny God and Christ…she said he was colder then [sic] man, and heavier, and could not perform nature as man, and that soon after she had consented to the Covenant and given her blood, there came two things more like mice, which used to suck her [edited in: refers to breastfeeding] about twice a week.

and has it occurred to you that that might be true?

Are you at war with the notion of people taking you seriously?

[The Free Joy State]

Satanic mice breatfeeding twice a week?

Are you shitting me?

I'm really asking, because at this point I can't tell if you're joking.

Have we ruled out the existence of the supernatural?

Then I don't see why Satanic covenants should be dismissed out of hand.

I don't know if your mother ever told you this, but I think it's time:

Rosemary's Baby was just a movie.

Also, the suspicious similarity of the confessions extracted in all the witch trials should be a clue that suggestions were implanted under torture.

[Caracasus]

You are suggesting that on some level torture works.

You are using examples drawn from a popular fictional portrayal of medieval life and society - Game of Thrones - inferring some sort of link.

Torture was and is primarily used as a punishment, not a way of getting information.

As a way of getting information there are far more effective measures.

Torture doesn't work.

Except where it can be used to get information.

The efficiency of something is a separate question, it works if it can get the desired result. The invention of a firearm doesn't make knives "no longer work."

Not a matter of if it gets information, it has never been that throughout this entire thread.

It's about the quality of the information. No-one has argued that torture doesn't get people to talk - obviously if you hurt someone badly enough they will give you information.

So what do we mean by works? On a fundamental level, yes - torture works. You can hurt someone until they tell you what they think you want to hear. No-one has debated that.

However, most reasonable people would assume that by "works" in this context, and by the way you have very strongly inferred links between information and torture, it means that torture yields good quality information that can be used by the torturer.

It doesn't - aside from episodes of 24. It yields information that you can't trust on any real level and often obscures an issue or question more than it leads to answers.

As I've said - torture's main purpose throughout all of human history has been to punish. I cannot imagine how anyone with any knowledge of history of that period would argue otherwise.

[Alvecia]

Satanic mice breatfeeding twice a week?

Are you shitting me?

I'm really asking, because at this point I can't tell if you're joking.

Have we ruled out the existence of the supernatural?

Then I don't see why Satanic covenants should be dismissed out of hand.

Hypothetically, how would you verify such claims?

[Jedi Council]

Here's one of the "confessions", which would have been extracted under torture.

A widow named Mary Bush confessed this to witchfinder John Stearne in 1645

[T]he Devil appeared to her in the shape of a young black man, Winding, by her bed side, which spoke to her with a hollow voice, and came into bed to her, and had the use of her body, and asked her to deny God and Christ…she said he was colder then [sic] man, and heavier, and could not perform nature as man, and that soon after she had consented to the Covenant and given her blood, there came two things more like mice, which used to suck her [edited in: refers to breastfeeding] about twice a week.

and has it occurred to you that that might be true?

And with that I can no longer take anything you say seriously.

[Jebslund]

Wait him out. I have the most to gain and the least to lose that way. There's no more guarantee he won't kill me after getting the info than he will if I don't give it (ESPECIALLY if he wasn't threatening to kill me in the first place. That speaks of an unwillingness to kill. A weakness in this scenario), workman's comp and/or disability will handle the injuries and therapy (it is, after all, a workplace injury, sustained during the course of my duties), and, as you said, he's in a hurry. He doesn't have *time* to torture me at length for any reason, and not giving him the info means that, regardless of what happens to me, he can't get to the money unless someone else gives him access. It's more to his benefit to move on to someone more easily intimidated than to waste time on prolonged torture. The time constraint element works in my favor one way or another. And I get the satisfaction of watching his reaction when I call his bluff, or the peace of heaven. Either way, by keeping my mouth shut, I win, outright one way, pyrrhicly the other, with my integrity intact.

Sure you might be some noble hero in that scenario, I am certain the vast majority of others wouldn't be.

Noble hero? That's flattering, really, but "spiteful asshole" is closer to the truth. Some people just love to see the kind of trash who think they can intimidate everyone into doing what they want be denied, even if it costs them dearly, and I happen to fall into that category. That's not to say I don't have *some* nobility, but I'd be lying if I said it was that, not spite, driving me. Plus, it would neither be the first time I've broken a bone, nor the first time someone's used beatings to try to get what they want from me. Then there's the fact that anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that, when the cops are on their way, time is on their side, not that of the robbers. Threats of prolonged torture are empty in that scenario, as there's a limited window of time for the robbers to get their money and scram. Nobody who's just after money is going to sit there torturing someone until the cops come. Eventually, they have to stop, one way or another, and get gone before the cops get there if they want to get away with their crime.

[Infected Mushroom]

Have we ruled out the existence of the supernatural?

Then I don't see why Satanic covenants should be dismissed out of hand.

Hypothetically, how would you verify such claims?

I feel that this is moving outside of the scope of discussion. Suffice to say, supernatural happenings should not be dismissed out of hand.

[Alvecia]

Hypothetically, how would you verify such claims?

I feel that this is moving outside of the scope of discussion. Suffice to say, supernatural happenings should not be dismissed out of hand.

Quite the opposite actually.

[Infected Mushroom]

Except where it can be used to get information.

The efficiency of something is a separate question, it works if it can get the desired result. The invention of a firearm doesn't make knives "no longer work."

Not a matter of if it gets information, it has never been that throughout this entire thread.

It's about the quality of the information. No-one has argued that torture doesn't get people to talk - obviously if you hurt someone badly enough they will give you information.

So what do we mean by works? On a fundamental level, yes - torture works. You can hurt someone until they tell you what they think you want to hear. No-one has debated that.

However, most reasonable people would assume that by "works" in this context, and by the way you have very strongly inferred links between information and torture, it means that torture yields good quality information that can be used by the torturer.

It doesn't - aside from episodes of 24. It yields information that you can't trust on any real level and often obscures an issue or question more than it leads to answers.

As I've said - torture's main purpose throughout all of human history has been to punish. I cannot imagine how anyone with any knowledge of history of that period would argue otherwise.

Where we disagree is that you seem to think people are regularly capable of resisting torture for weeks and months making up unworkable mountain piles of lies... while I think that in the vast majority of cases, the truth would come out within minutes because PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SUFFER.

And yes, there are historical examples of people holding out, but its not the standard response.

[Infected Mushroom]

I feel that this is moving outside of the scope of discussion. Suffice to say, supernatural happenings should not be dismissed out of hand.

Quite the opposite actually.

Only from a fanatically atheistic starting point...

[Alvecia]

Quite the opposite actually.

Only from a fanatically atheistic starting point...

From a logical standpoint.

[Infected Mushroom]

Have we ruled out the existence of the supernatural?

Then I don't see why Satanic covenants should be dismissed out of hand.

I don't know if your mother ever told you this, but I think it's time:

Rosemary's Baby was just a movie.

Also, the suspicious similarity of the confessions extracted in all the witch trials should be a clue that suggestions were implanted under torture.

or that there is a repeating pattern of supernatural occurrences...