Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TempAcc]

Torture needs to be analized contextually, since it goes beyond the scope of just physical pain, and the things that can completely traumatize one person can just be harmless to other people. The general consensus seems to be that succesful torture needs to be able to cause enough suffering to compel someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't.

One example of how torture can be different depending on the context is the coca cola bottle account. It refers to one (not sure if fictional or real) case in which a girl was completely terrified of coca cola bottles, and just showing one to her was enough to make her cry like a child. This happened due to the fact that, earlier in her life, she was brutally abused by a guy who used a coca cola bottle to do so, and as a result the mere sight of one caused her great suffering. To a normal person, a coca cola bottle would be inoquous, but to her it meant hell on earth.

[WealthyRadish]

Torture needs to be analized contextually, since it goes beyond the scope of just physical pain, and the things that can completely traumatize one person can just be harmless to other people. The general consensus seems to be that succesful torture needs to be able to cause enough suffering to compel someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't.

One example of how torture can be different depending on the context is the coca cola bottle account. It refers to one (not sure if fictional or real) case in which a girl was completely terrified of coca cola bottles, and just showing one to her was enough to make her cry like a child. This happened due to the fact that, earlier in her life, she was brutally abused by a guy who used a coca cola bottle to do so, and as a result the mere sight of one caused her great suffering. To a normal person, a coca cola bottle would be inoquous, but to her it meant hell on earth.

Valid, but for a piece of media like a movie, whether the torture is successful or not usually won't be up to interpretation, it'll just be shown or told in some way that it's working or isn't.

I think ultimately it's a question of whether torture is displayed as something that works or doesn't work that would influence impressionable viewers. People thinking that it's effective but we shouldn't use it because lol it's wrong seems a lot more dangerous to me than people thinking that it doesn't work. I mean, if they're getting their values from an action movie, how much additional convincing would it take to expand the margins of when torture is acceptable or not? It seems better to teach people that it's universally unacceptable, but I don't think the media reflects that.

[TempAcc]

Well, it depends on the media, me thinks. Glorification of torture is bad overall, but when its featured in a +18 movie, for example, then I don't think its the worst thing ever. Take Pasolini's Saló, for example, a movie that features gruesome sexual torture all around and will likely leave you in a pretty bad mood just from watching it. As media and an art piece, I think its ok, since its aimed at an audience that is qualified for being exposed to such media. The media should not dictate what people can watch or what directors should make, but it should be very careful about who's having access to certain things, like stuff depicting strong violence, torture, etc. Kids and teens shouldn't see torture in their media, but that doesnt mean torture should absolutely banned from being depicted in media altogheter. Artistic license and all that, and again, context is important.

I'm kinda biased on this matter though, since I'm all for AW YISS FREEDOMS, art included, even if its for shitty things, as long as it doenst harm anyone's rights.

[RedKing]

Torture also sometimes is used just to show that Evil Guy is Evil. I'm thinking of the scene in Empire Strikes Back where you hear Han Solo being tortured off screen, and when you see him again he says, "They never even asked me any questions..."

Problem being, people are all too readily inclined to look the other way about doing "bad things" to "bad people". Hell, just look at the discussion we just had about Maryland in the Civil War.

[mainiac]

Hell, just look at the discussion we just had about Maryland in the Civil War.

Your willful misconstruing of people's motives while certainly annoying doesn't actually rise to the level of torture.

[milo christiansen]

One thing I hate about people who are strongly anti-torture is the statement: "torture doesn't work, people will say anything to stop the pain".

"People will say anything to stop the pain"? Very true, and "anything" includes the truth.

If you have two subjects: Torture them separately until their stories match exactly, start with little weird details that are unconnected to what you want to know (so any prepared story is useless). Any inconsistency results in more pain for both until stories match, continue as needed and slowly work your way to the info you really want. By the time you are asking questions you care about they are too afraid of what will happen if they lie for them to even think about trying. Despicable, but works like a charm. For only one subject you need some other way to confirm what they say, this means that speculative torturing for information does not work well or at all for single subjects, you need at least two.

[Max™]

I feel comfortable invoking the 8th here.

[Neonivek]

One thing I hate about people who are strongly anti-torture is the statement: "torture doesn't work, people will say anything to stop the pain".

"People will say anything to stop the pain"? Very true, and "anything" includes the truth.

If you have two subjects: Torture them separately until their stories match exactly, start with little weird details that are unconnected to what you want to know (so any prepared story is useless). Any inconsistency results in more pain for both until stories match, continue as needed and slowly work your way to the info you really want. By the time you are asking questions you care about they are too afraid of what will happen if they lie for them to even think about trying. Despicable, but works like a charm. For only one subject you need some other way to confirm what they say, this means that speculative torturing for information does not work well or at all for single subjects, you need at least two.

Here is the problem with torture beyond "People will say anything to make it stop"
1) You have to assume the person you have is the right person
2) You have to assume the person you have has the information you want/need.
3) Torture is a great way to make people forget and misremember details.
4) People don't have great memories as it is... Yet alone under duress.

So your method doesn't even work especially because of #3 and #4...

If you asked me where my University is... I wouldn't know. Yet I go there, how would I not? So why don't you just keep torturing me until I tell you?

[Strife26]

Hypothetically, that doesn't particularly apply to noncitzens. Non-hypothetically, we already live in a world where assassinating US citizens without trial is cool and you can do absolutely anything to someone as long as you call it "regulatory" instead of "punitive" in nature.

[mainiac]

One thing I hate about people who are strongly anti-torture is the statement: "torture doesn't work, people will say anything to stop the pain".

"People will say anything to stop the pain"? Very true, and "anything" includes the truth.

If you have two subjects: Torture them separately until their stories match exactly, start with little weird details that are unconnected to what you want to know

What you are describing is called interrogation you are just adding a layer of bad information in that you are making the interrogators shift through...

Interrogators make use of leverage among other things.  Torture is just a shitty form of leverage.  Much better are things like actual human connection or making credible promises (something that's hard after you torture.)

[milo christiansen]

Actually those issues are less of a problem than you may expect. Sure, you won't get perfect information, but it is more than you had to start with. #1 and #2 are not a problem for anyone willing to torture in the first place. #3 and #4 are perfectly true, but anyone that requires you to go that far would never tell you anything without resorting to "sterner measures".

I feel comfortable invoking the 8th here.

I wasn't saying it should be done, just that it does work, and trying to say otherwise is pretty stupid.

In other words: Thank god for the 8th!

What you are describing is called interrogation you are just adding a layer of bad information in that you are making the interrogators shift through...

Interrogators make use of leverage.  Torture is just a shitty form of leverage.

Unless you have no leverage, then torture is the only real way to create it.

[Neonivek]

What I find interesting is you know who are the people who almost unanimously agree that torture is nearly useless for information gathering?

Torturers.

You know who is advocating torture? People who don't torture.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That also isn't how it actually works.

Torture doesn't work for a variety of reasons, but for this specific one it's even worse for gaining information than you're making it out to be. Not everybody who is tortured is going in with the same mindset, so your verification idea doesn't work. Some people are wholly resistant and will never give you anything. Some will tell you the truth right off the bat and then start making shit up when you inevitably don't believe them. Some will give you only malformed truth intended to fuck you over by being too incomplete to be usable. Some will, of course, lie. Some will only crack in the face of very specific things that you cannot predict but will otherwise be unbreakable. It isn't like you really know what you're looking for in the first place when you start torturing people for information, otherwise you wouldn't be doing that, and as a result comparative verification under these circumstances is impossible.

Here is the conceit that all people considering torture or interrogation must understand: You don't have the power. You don't actually have a single iota of the power, even if you cut your subject to ribbons and make them eat their own dick or whatever. You don't have the power because the objective for both parties is to have the important information. Now, who has the information? The person being interrogated.

If they're actually a hardened terrorist/criminal or just kind of clever, they are going to understand that. Any torment becomes a lot less threatening once you've make this realization, if only from knowing the people who have you tied to the wall are the ones actually in a position of weakness. The objective of interrogation is to either use psychology to get the target to forget about all that and/or to provide them with a positive incentive that they'll surrender the information for.

I recommend everybody watch these: How To Make A Terrorist Cry, Three Torture Myths

Hypothetically, that doesn't particularly apply to noncitzens. Non-hypothetically, we already live in a world where assassinating US citizens without trial is cool and you can do absolutely anything to someone as long as you call it "regulatory" instead of "punitive" in nature.

Hypothetically, most forms of legal interpretation do apply the Constitutional rights universally instead of by citizenship. Non-hypothetically, yeah.

What I find interesting is you know who are the people who almost unanimously agree that torture is nearly useless for information gathering?

Torturers.

You know who is advocating torture? People who don't torture.

That's because the fantasy of hurting the enemy gets them hard.

[mainiac]

Unless you have no leverage, then torture is the only real way to create it.

Read a few accounts of interrogators.  The idea that you can't get leverage is more absurd then the 24 scenario with a ticking clock.

[nenjin]

Leverage is easy to get, if you're willing to threaten the livelihood of someone else other than the detainee.