Torture Museum

[Washington Resistance Army]

Torture is little more than meaningless sadism, imo. It won't bring back anyone I've loved.

Plus I could buy a bunch of movies or some books for $100.

Ok but r e v e n g e

I probably don’t have the $100 anyway.

The subject is already dead in the scenario, revenge has been had.

[Pacomia]

I seem to be the only one willing to admit I might actually do this if the mustered had killed one of my family/friends. Am I just the only horrible person, or are y’all just unwilling to admit it?

It’s not your fault to vent your anger into that person. But I’d suggest you take a second to compare what you’re doing to the murderer. Life is valuable—everyone should appreciate theirs and others, so with that principle in mind, I’d say to ignore the murderer. After all, you’d be stopping down to his/her level.

To be honest, I’m not entirely ashamed of that. I’ve always believed in “an eye for an eye”, and damned if I’m going to go back on that now.

EDIT: Upon further consideration, y’all are right. Torture won’t do anything.

[Conserative Morality]

I seem to be the only one willing to admit I might actually do this if the mustered had killed one of my family/friends. Am I just the only horrible person, or are y’all just unwilling to admit it?

Inflicting unnecessary pain on an unwilling subject for one's own gratification is never moral, but I can see the appeal... in the heat of the moment. If someone shot a man in the gut and let him bleed out in agony as opposed to the head for, say, executing the shooter's family, I wouldn't regard it as moral, but I could understand it.

This? This is cold-blooded torture. There's no cause, no desirable further outcome. You are looking at a creature being tortured for all eternity. In a hundred years there will be nothing of him left but an empty shell. It's sickness, and nothing else.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, taking into account that 70% of the world -- as Bombadil said -- earn less than $10 a day, and won't save, forgoing food and shelter in the process, for this kind of nonsense, there are very few people I can see actively seeking out chances to torture someone.

While people can behave cruelly in given circumstances (the whole "banality of evil" thing, and the point of the Milgram test -- although many participants showed reluctance, and attempts to repeat the test have shown poor replicability), I really doubt many people would deliberately seek opportunities to torture a human being.

I'd say only a few percent. Not even 10%; probably less than 5%. (taking into account both lack of affordability and that I don't see many people actively seeking out a human being to physically torture)

[Bluelight-R006]

It’s not your fault to vent your anger into that person. But I’d suggest you take a second to compare what you’re doing to the murderer. Life is valuable—everyone should appreciate theirs and others, so with that principle in mind, I’d say to ignore the murderer. After all, you’d be stopping down to his/her level.

To be honest, I’m not entirely ashamed of that. I’ve always believed in “an eye for an eye”, and damned if I’m going to go back on that now.

If you do something bad to that guy, something bad will happen to you too, if it’s “an eye for an eye.” It’s a never ending cycle of badness, better to stop it now.

[Infected Mushroom]

Well, taking into account that 70% of the world -- as Bombadil said -- earn less than $10 a day, and won't save, forgoing food and shelter in the process, for this kind of nonsense, there are very few people I can see actively seeking out chances to torture someone.

While people can behave cruelly in given circumstances (the whole "banality of evil" thing, and the point of the Milgram test -- although many participants showed reluctance, and attempts to repeat the test have shown poor replicability), I really doubt many people would deliberately seek opportunities to torture a human being.

I'd say only a few percent. Not even 10%; probably less than 5%. (taking into account both lack of affordability and that I don't see many people actively seeking out a human being to physically torture)

I hear that many of those who are poor spend a disproportionate amount of income (often unwise amounts) on alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes. And those things are not cheap.

Perhaps they'd see it fit to skip out on a bottle or two in exchange for an experience like this? A lot of them have a lot of hatred towards the system and their overlords. Here's a convenient person to take it out on...

what I mean is that even those of the lowest income have a way of somehow coming up with the money to feed their base desires

[Heloin]

Well, taking into account that 70% of the world -- as Bombadil said -- earn less than $10 a day, and won't save, forgoing food and shelter in the process, for this kind of nonsense, there are very few people I can see actively seeking out chances to torture someone.

While people can behave cruelly in given circumstances (the whole "banality of evil" thing, and the point of the Milgram test -- although many participants showed reluctance, and attempts to repeat the test have shown poor replicability), I really doubt many people would deliberately seek opportunities to torture a human being.

I'd say only a few percent. Not even 10%; probably less than 5%. (taking into account both lack of affordability and that I don't see many people actively seeking out a human being to physically torture)

I hear that many of those who are poor spend a disproportionate amount of income (often unwise amounts) on alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes. And those things are not cheap.

Perhaps they'd see it fit to skip out on a bottle or two in exchange for an experience like this? A lot of them have a lot of hatred towards the system and their overlords. Here's a convenient person to take it out on...

what I mean is that even those of the lowest income have a way of somehow coming up with the money to feed their base desires

I think torturing people is only your base desire.

[The Free Joy State]

Well, taking into account that 70% of the world -- as Bombadil said -- earn less than $10 a day, and won't save, forgoing food and shelter in the process, for this kind of nonsense, there are very few people I can see actively seeking out chances to torture someone.

While people can behave cruelly in given circumstances (the whole "banality of evil" thing, and the point of the Milgram test -- although many participants showed reluctance, and attempts to repeat the test have shown poor replicability), I really doubt many people would deliberately seek opportunities to torture a human being.

I'd say only a few percent. Not even 10%; probably less than 5%. (taking into account both lack of affordability and that I don't see many people actively seeking out a human being to physically torture)

I hear that many of those who are poor spend a disproportionate amount of income (often unwise amounts) on alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes. And those things are not cheap.

Perhaps they'd see it fit to skip out on a bottle or two in exchange for an experience like this? A lot of them have a lot of hatred towards the system and their overlords. Here's a convenient person to take it out on...

what I mean is that even those of the lowest income have a way of somehow coming up with the money to feed their base desires

Wow, this is some classist bullshit.

Firstly, people on less than $10 a day can barely afford to eat, let alone buy luxuries or waste money torturing people.

Second, I don't know how expensive you think alcohol is, but skipping a bottle or two does not save $100.

Third, citation needed that poor people hate the system and want someone to take it out on.

Fourth, there are no "overlords" in a democracy -- which is why democracy is a great system (but I digress).

Fifth, seeking out a person to torture to within an inch of their life is not a desire most people have. And, again, people struggling to eat do not have that kind of money spare.

[Luziyca]

If I could afford it, and that person killed some of my friends and/or family, then I'd probably be willing to have a go at it, but otherwise, I wouldn't go out of my way to torture them. If the prices were a bit lower, and the impact of that murderer was more substantial (e.g. that mass-murder was Thanos), then maybe I could see at least 60% being willing to do this at least once. But as it stands right now, I reckon no more than 5% of the world population would be willing to do such a thing.

[Samudera Darussalam]

I'm not going to give a go for torture, even if said person has harmed my loved ones. There are better things that I can do with that money.

[Bluelight-R006]

I'm not going to give a go for torture, even if said person has harmed my loved ones. There are better things that I can do with that money.

Like help other people, sometimes recovering from depression.

[Samudera Darussalam]

I'm not going to give a go for torture, even if said person has harmed my loved ones. There are better things that I can do with that money.

Like help other people, sometimes recovering from depression.

Yes. Charity seems great, or as a Muslim, save it for hajj, one day.

[Klorgia1]

How do you get to the Museum?

[Bluelight-R006]

Like help other people, sometimes recovering from depression.

Yes. Charity seems great, or as a Muslim, save it for hajj, one day.

We should be giving money for those who/things that deserve it and not things that don’t deserve our recognition.

[Samudera Darussalam]

Yes. Charity seems great, or as a Muslim, save it for hajj, one day.

We should be giving money for those who/things that deserve it and not things that don’t deserve our recognition.

Well, charity is my number one option.

[First American Empire]

It costs a hundred dollars. The vast majority of people can't afford to do that casually, so the only people who would pay that much to torture the mass murderer would be rich sociopaths and middle-class people directly harmed by him.

Even if it was literally Hitler being tortured, the cost would be prohibitive enough that only around 5% of people would spend money to torture him.

[Kowani]

I could buy some decent stuff with 100$, so I’m out. ‘Sides, most of the world couldn’t afford it, much less the travel costs, time away from work, etc.

[Bombadil]

The truth is what you answer on the poll says far more about you than anything about the general population. In psychology it's called transference.

[Neanderthaland]

I instead spend the hundred dollars to have a buxom woman in latex torture me.

[Kowani]

I instead spend the hundred dollars to have a buxom woman in latex torture me.

It really is the world’s oldest profession…

[Raider Clans]

That doesn't sound like something a healthy person would do. Or write about.

[Mertelistan]

100$ for only 5 minutes of inflicting torture on an unwilling individual who supposedly is a mass murderer iv’e probably never met does not sound moral.It would not bring the dead back to life. If he was directly involved with the murder of a friend or family member who was close to me,things might be different.

If I was poor 100$ would be a lot of money.It would be good to buy food to keep from starving,
or if things were decent,an affordable date for me and a girlfriend,or a trip to the movies.

[Chan Island]

No, why the hell would I even want to torture someone? That's messed up. And this person is technically dead, so what's the point of going after them in this sadistic way anyway?

The only real solution is to try and get this place shut down. This god we're dealing with is obviously a psychopath and frankly, I am not OK with living in the same universe as a psychopathic deity.

[Cul-Ed-Sac]

Maybe close to 25%. Guesswork. Some might do it for revenge, stress relief, curiosity, or learning purposes if it's sensible. Wasn't there some psychological experiment on electrocution anyway? This hypo reminded me of that experiment.

Makes me wonder, what's the god gonna do with all the money?

[Skyhooked]

The heck? I ain't wastin' 100$ just to torture someone. First - this is just wrong, even if tortured person is a serial killer. He deserves clean and quick death. Second, in Ukraine, that's some pretty pretty big chunk of money. I'd rather buy some booze and nice and tasty food.

As for percentage... I'll assume, that's the percentage of people, who can easily afford this. I guess that wouold be between 10 and 25%. OP said things about human nature, but I don't belive them. If humans were as dark as he claims, we'd be all dead and there wouldn't be any civilization in first place.

Human nature can be egoistical, but dark? That's not the defining quality.