"Torture Doesn't Work"

[The New California Republic]

Anyone else find it cute when a noted atheist suddenly finds the supernatural plausible?

The OP vehemently defending torture can take them down some very strange paths indeed, such as forcing them to say that the weird stories confessed by supposed "witches" might be true. To be honest the best thing would have been for the OP to admit they are wrong on this one, but they have refused to do that, preferring to continue their advocating and promoting of torture, despite over 18 pages of people disagreeing with them. It's absurd, it really is.

[Jebslund]

Anyone else find it cute when a noted atheist suddenly finds the supernatural plausible?

Nah, IM is just grasping at straws to avoid having to admit to being wrong.

[The South Falls]

Anyone else find it cute when a noted atheist suddenly finds the supernatural plausible?

Oh my... Is IM an atheist?

The same IM insisting that deals with the devil and Satanic breastfeeding mice was not to be discounted in the Salem witch trials (rather than false evidence being extracted under torture).

The entire Salem witch trials was torture. The Spanish Inquisition found false information under torture. Almost every classical example of torture proved now-disproved evidence.

[Petrasylvania]

Oh my... Is IM an atheist?

The same IM insisting that deals with the devil and Satanic breastfeeding mice was not to be discounted in the Salem witch trials (rather than false evidence being extracted under torture).

The entire Salem witch trials was torture. The Spanish Inquisition found false information under torture. Almost every classical example of torture proved now-disproved evidence.

They failed because the chairs were not comfy enough.

[The Free Joy State]

Oh my... Is IM an atheist?

The same IM insisting that deals with the devil and Satanic breastfeeding mice was not to be discounted in the Salem witch trials (rather than false evidence being extracted under torture).

The entire Salem witch trials was torture. The Spanish Inquisition found false information under torture. Almost every classical example of torture proved now-disproved evidence.

And the English witch trials, as mostly remembered because of the Witchfinder General, Matthew Hopkins.

Being British, I learned more about those trials, of course.

This is from the Wikipedia article about Hopkins and his methods:

Hopkins often used techniques such as sleep deprivation to extract confessions from his victims.[49] He would also cut the arm of the accused with a blunt knife, and if she did not bleed, she was said to be a witch. Another of his methods was the swimming test, based on the idea that as witches had renounced their baptism, water would reject them. Suspects were tied to a chair and thrown into water: all those who "swam" (floated) were considered to be witches. [...]Hopkins and his assistants also looked for the Devil's mark. This was a mark that all witches or sorcerers were supposed to possess that was said to be dead to all feeling and would not bleed – although in reality it was usually a mole, birthmark or an extra nipple or breast.[51] If the suspected witch had no such visible marks, invisible ones could be discovered by pricking, therefore employed "witch prickers" pricked the accused with knives and special needles, looking for such marks, normally after the suspect had been shaved of all body hair.[52][53]

Of course women, subjected to this treatment, would "confess" to anything.

There's a poem in a play called Vinegar Tom (I studied it at school). I forget the whole thing, but it begins:

"If you float you're a witch.
If you scream you're a witch
If you sink, then you're dead anyway.
If you cure you're a witch
Or impure you're a witch
Whatever you do, you must pay.
Fingers are pointed, a knock at the door,
You may be a mother, a child or a whore."

As soon as the finger was pointed, the accused was pretty much done for.

That's the way it is when people decide someone is guilty and decide to prove themselves right, no matter what it takes.

That's why torture can never work.

[Estanglia]

Each spoiler is a different post I'm quoting.

Here's some principles I think people should agree on:
Torture can work at least when all of these conditions are met:

1) The information can be immediately verified, such as a password to a computer, and there is a finite amount of info the torturer needs.
2) The personal cost to the individual of giving up this information is less than the personal cost of endless agony from torture.
3) The individual does not have reason to suspect the torturer also happens to be a sadist that will continue to torture them even after they've provided the verified information

1) They can provide the torturer with consistent false passwords. Then their only way of verifying the info becomes useless. Also they may simply not know.
2) Makes sense.
3)They do have a reason to suspect that. Two actually. 1) The very fact the torturer have resorted to torture
2) They have provided the torturer with valuable info, whats preventing them from
continuing the torture to see if they have any more info?

They wouldn't have to. Either the deadline passes, they die under torture, or the torturer gets bored and executes them. Nothing to lose by lying any way.

With modern technology it is very possible to keep someone alive and tortured indefinitely, I am sure that It’s part of the torture to communicate and demonstrate that very clearly to the person. Any torturer worth their salt can keep the person alive.

Eventually, the human body will break. We do not have an infinite pain threshold; even with the best healthcare we will still die from physical trauma. Even psychological torture carries the risk of the victim completely breaking down and becoming insane, and therefore useless.

The answer to your first question is obvious. The details/things can only practically be verified after you extract some parameters from the person tortured. For example, think of narrowing down a list of 10,000 suspects to five when you have a deadline or a list of infinite locations to two. This comes up in law enforcement all the time.

One problem: they can lie, not know or simply not tell you. That is something we've repeatedly pointed out, and you seem to still be incapable of accepting it.

You’re using a logical fallacy, it’s not a case of... “hey I can verify 100 percent of all possibilities practically without interrogation” or “I have nothing and I need 100 percent from the person.” And evidence gets verified all the time in investigation after it’s been extracted, happens all the time. This “if I have to verify it then I never needed to narrow down possibilities or even find the evidence to begin with” is bad logic.

See my point in the above spoiler.

The answer to your second question is that you would use standard law enforcement questioning and deduction to figure out if they are the contact or not. Hopefully, you tortured the first person because it was a relatively fast way to get to the second person and by narrowing down an otherwise unworkably large (potentially infinite) suspect list. [Emphasis Mine]

1) Hopefully? Really? Now you sound like you support torture. Lets hope you don't admit it....

But the Torturer cannot know how much the other person knows. What if they spout out random stuff to end the pain and admit to a whole host of falsehoods?

Do you go, verify the information is false, and torture them more? Even if you have gotten everything out of them?

something along those lines yes

Oops, looks like you did.
2) If you can use regular law enforcement techniques, whats the point of torturing in the first place?

Why do you think torture is ok?

I'm saying it can produce results

Getting a six year old to carry out an interrogation will produce results. Results aren't always useful.
In my example and in the torture scenario, there are far better tactics that produce better results and useful info, unlike torture.

On a more serious note: torture is kind of useless, because you run the risk of the one you torture for specific information forgetting said information.

there is no way I would forget the information; also, any competent torture administrator knows how to keep the person alive

this sounds unrealistic

When you are distracted by something, say, excruciating pain, you tend to forget things. Not forever, but still.

As generally applied torture doesn't work. If you don't know the extent of the information you're looking for then it's useless because even if they say something true they'll make shit up just to avoid more torture when they stop talking. If you're trying to ascertain guilt, it's useless because they'll say whatever. There are extremely few situations where torture is effective and there are none where it's appropriate.

which is why you have to emphasise to them that they should tell you the truth, nothing more nothing less and focus on that... just communicate your demands very clearly

I have been trying for ten minutes, I don't understand how you think that's a solution.

Communication is the key though. You have to let them know what you want from the get go. Its not about saying things that will make the authorities happy, its about the truth. Just say that from the start. Make it clear.

1) It is about saying what would make the authorities happy because, as we have pointed out MANY times, The torturer can't immediately verify the truth. If he can, the torture is pointless.
2) If you tell him that, why should he trust you? He knows you torture people. If that gets out, your organisation will be ruined. Why would you risk that?

And the torturer would know what the truth is how?

through physical confirmation generally

How can you prove the truth though? Don't just answer 'physical evidence', give me a concrete way to confirm it, i.e. an actual method. Up until now, you haven't provided one.

If the torturer knows enough to tell if what you are saying is true, they don't need to bother torturing you.

they know some of the information but not all of it, they need the person's information so they practically narrow down search parameters

What about lies and/or a lack of knowledge?

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."

Information isn't always useful, and torture, as we have pointed out many times, doesn't produce the desired result unless it is suffering you're after.

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?

Jesus, now you're saying ALL information from torture might be useful. I distinctly remember you saying the goal of torture isn't confession, and
yet here you are, saying a blatantly BS confession is plausible.

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 how do you stop the suffering? Tell them what they WANT to hear. Again, if they can immediately verify the info, then the torture is pointless. And they might be innocent. Another thing you haven't accepted.

Well, I don't deny that there can't be a problem with confirmation bias in some cases.

This is why its important psychologically for the torturer to remain as objective as possible and be open-minded. Confirmation bias is a problem in some cases but not all cases if the personnel are trained appropriately. For instance, there should be no confirmation bias for details such as "where did you hide the bomb"

That very question is confirmation bias because it assumes that they: 1) know of the bomb
2) know where it is
3) were the ones to plant it.

That is completely missing the fucking point. If you ask someone a question and "I don't know" gets them tortured then they won't say that, even if it's the truth.

but telling the truth is their only hope of getting out, so surely they will have to stick to that or go back to that eventually

is it not?

Nope. Its to tell the torturer what they want to hear. They won't accept 'I don't know' because that could be a lie, and they don't want to run the risk of releasing a person that might be of value.

(I used spoiler boxes because it makes the post a lot shorter. If you don't like that, blame timezone differences)

[Sovaal]

Anyone else find it cute when a noted atheist suddenly finds the supernatural plausible?

Oh my... Is IM an atheist?

The same IM insisting that deals with the devil and Satanic breastfeeding mice was not to be discounted in the Salem witch trials (rather than false evidence being extracted under torture).

Also plausible.

Maybe it's designed to be a self-proving thread?

IM knows torture is ineffective, and intends to torture us with these same arguments, wearing away our resistance until we - mentally wearied -- give in on one of our objections, which will conversely prove that torture does nothing except get people to say what you want them to say.

IM is his own thing. Honestly surprised that he hasn’t started advocating sacrificing people to R’hillor.

[Salandriagado]

Give him the information. But that was also the most rational move before the torture started.

Only if you judge the threat of torture to be credible enough to begin with, which implies torture (or a credible threat of such) does indeed work at least in that situation. But you might not initially judge the threat credible, you might doubt the robber would be willing to go through with it, in which case a bit of actual torture might be needed to prove his threats are credible.

Not at all: any threat works, torture or otherwise. There's a reason that every single bank's employee rules say "comply with everything the bank robber does", and it isn't because they're worried about torture.