Torture - For or Against? (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

In cases with murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, etc... Would you be in favor of torture or opposed?

 

[McGarnicle]

Against always.

 

[sbonomo]

against but pro death penalty.

 

[Chaka]

Tough guys gonna be all "HELL'S YEAH! YEEE-HAW!!! YIPPY-KAY-AY-AY-YAY MOTHER #######!!!"

So long as they are not the ones doing the actual torturing.

 

[Jeff Vader]

It's a selfish action and thus unjust.

It's been proven time and again that it's a failure as an interrogation tool. So really it's just sadism, the enjoyment of another person's pain. Which, when you break it down, is the heart beating in most violent criminals.

In other words, torture makes you (or the state) a criminal.

 

[17seconds]

Spring-loaded metal spikes up the ###### torture? or Justin Bieber tunes blasted at high volume torture?

 

[Jeff Vader]

Spring-loaded metal spikes up the ###### torture? or Justin Bieber tunes blasted at high volume torture?

I see little difference here.

 

[FUBAR]

I'm married, so pro.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I say that if the victims find the activity in any way cathartic that they ought to be allowed a single supervised torture session which would not be life endangering to the prisoner. State actors should not participate affirmatively, but should be in position to end sessions immediately. If the victim crossed the line the session should be immediately terminated.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I say that if the victims find the activity in any way cathartic that they ought to be allowed a single supervised torture session which would not be life endangering to the prisoner. State actors should not participate affirmatively, but should be in position to end sessions immediately. If the victim crossed the line the session should be immediately terminated.

And if the prisoner is subsequently found to be innocent, does he then get to reciprocate to those who tortured him?

 

[Treynwreck3]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I say that if the victims find the activity in any way cathartic that they ought to be allowed a single supervised torture session which would not be life endangering to the prisoner. State actors should not participate affirmatively, but should be in position to end sessions immediately. If the victim crossed the line the session should be immediately terminated.

And if the prisoner is subsequently found to be innocent, does he then get to reciprocate to those who tortured him?

Fine by me.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Tough guys gonna be all "HELL'S YEAH! YEEE-HAW!!! YIPPY-KAY-AY-AY-YAY MOTHER #######!!!"

So long as they are not the ones doing the actual torturing.

Yet here you are, every day, torturing us with your posts.

I'm against it.

 

[Dentist]

Always against.

Ending criminals lives in the most peaceful way possible, sign me up.

 

[Chaka]

Tough guys gonna be all "HELL'S YEAH! YEEE-HAW!!! YIPPY-KAY-AY-AY-YAY MOTHER #######!!!"

So long as they are not the ones doing the actual torturing.

Yet here you are, every day, torturing us with your posts.

I'm against it.

If I don't do it, how will you know that torture is wrong?

 

[timschochet]

Only small animals.

 

[timschochet]

Does this include my 13 year old daughter's music playlist?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Do unto others, just like Jesus would want it.

 

[Insein]

Torture as punishment? Why? Retribution? Pointless. Criminals should be removed from society. The length and severity of that removal depends on the crime.

Torture as an interrogation tool? If you need intel and the enemy wont hand it over, Id say there are levels of torture that are acceptable.

 

[jon_mx]

I am pro torture especially as a prelude to a sexual encounter.

 

[Insein]

I am pro torture especially as a prelude to a sexual encounter.

The safety word is banana.

 

[jon_mx]

I am pro torture especially as a prelude to a sexual encounter.

The safety word is banana.

Safe words are for sissies.

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm a vindictive ####### - somebody does something to my wife or one of my kids I'd be perfectly fine with them getting tortured daily for the rest of their lives.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

For information ....yes. Such as where did you hide the body Ted Bundy

 

[fantasycurse42]

I'm a vindictive ####### - somebody does something to my wife or one of my kids I'd be perfectly fine with them getting tortured daily for the rest of their lives.

This... I bet a lot of people who said no would change their opinion if something happened to their spouse, child, parents, etc.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain out of that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

 

[Insein]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

 

[timschochet]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

 

[AAABatteries]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

 

[timschochet]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

Of course I would. But in such an instance I could not be trusted to make rational decisions.

 

[fantasycurse42]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

I think he is saying he would make this individual read all 74,095 of his posts.

 

[timschochet]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

I think he is saying he would make this individual read all 74,095 of his posts.

That's the OPPOSITE of torture, guy.

 

[Jim11]

Buncha girly-men.

 

[Insein]

The question is flawed. Like many things, it depends on the situation. Torture as a means of punishment is draconian and something Id expect from a third world society.

 

[jon_mx]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Oh, the irony.

 

[jon_mx]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

I think he is saying he would make this individual read all 74,095 of his posts.

Thank God Obama outlawed the brutallly inhumane act of Tim-boarding when he first entered office.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

Of course I would. But in such an instance I could not be trusted to make rational decisions.

But if I followed your responses correctly in the death penalty thread you are against killing them...

 

[fatness]

Buncha girly-men.

Jim11 has tortured 3,565 people to date.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm a vindictive ####### - somebody does something to my wife or one of my kids I'd be perfectly fine with them getting tortured daily for the rest of their lives.

This... I bet a lot of people who said no would change their opinion if something happened to their spouse, child, parents, etc.

Well I say no and no it wouldn't. The state has no place killing citizens much less torturing them. Especially since we get it wrong.

 

[AAABatteries]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

Of course I would. But in such an instance I could not be trusted to make rational decisions.

Doesn't that mean you are in favor of torture under certain circumstances then? If you would want that person tortured I don't see how you can say you are against torture.

 

[NCCommish]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

Of course I would. But in such an instance I could not be trusted to make rational decisions.

Doesn't that mean you are in favor of torture under certain circumstances then? If you would want that person tortured I don't see how you can say you are against torture.

Really? You can't see a father saying in the heat of the moment I want to kill that guy or use a blow torch on him or whatever and then when he calms down not really wanting to do either? Really?

 

[timschochet]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

Of course I would. But in such an instance I could not be trusted to make rational decisions.

Doesn't that mean you are in favor of torture under certain circumstances then? If you would want that person tortured I don't see how you can say you are against torture.

I am opposed to torture as a rational human being. If you create circumstances that makes me irrational, who knows what I would then support?

 

[AAABatteries]

I'm a vindictive ####### - somebody does something to my wife or one of my kids I'd be perfectly fine with them getting tortured daily for the rest of their lives.

This... I bet a lot of people who said no would change their opinion if something happened to their spouse, child, parents, etc.

Well I say no and no it wouldn't. The state has no place killing citizens much less torturing them. Especially since we get it wrong.

This at least seems consistent. I know myself well enough to know that under those circumstances I'd be ok with the person being tortured. I'm no iToughGuy though - I doubt I could do it but I'd be ok with someone else doing it. To your point about getting it wrong - that's a good point and I would only be in favor of that if the person confessed or there was some incontrovertible evidence.

 

[AAABatteries]

On the most basic level of human nature, torture is wrong. I am all in favor of punishment to fit the crime, but the act of torture is reducing oneself to a sub-human level, and therefore no better than the criminal.

I can't be that good. If someone murdered, raped, etc. my children or wife - I would want that person brought to me to be able to personally extract as much excruciating pain for that person for as long as possible.

This won't be a popular position and I won't argue that it somehow is the righteous and/or moral position. But it is an honest response.

This is why justice is not dispensed by the victims.

Exactly. It's the same argument that was made recently in the death penalty thread: someone wrote, "what if it was YOUR family?" Our laws have to be based on reason, not on emotion.

Are you saying you would be in favor of torturing a person who rapes and murders your daughter?

Of course I would. But in such an instance I could not be trusted to make rational decisions.

Doesn't that mean you are in favor of torture under certain circumstances then? If you would want that person tortured I don't see how you can say you are against torture.

Really? You can't see a father saying in the heat of the moment I want to kill that guy or use a blow torch on him or whatever and then when he calms down not really wanting to do either? Really?

Tim's not in the heat of the moment and has said he would want that. I'm saying the same. I do think some folks who currently aren't in favor of that would change their mind in the moment but I'm talking about my stance now (and others). I guess I'm just saying I think there needs to be more poll options. I think 99.999% of the time I'm against it but there's certain circumstances where I would be in favor of it - based on that I don't know how to vote.

 

[timschochet]

The best argument for torture I have heard is the ticking bomb- Jack Bauer confronts the terrorist, and there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in a major city, so Jack starts breaking fingers to learn where the bomb is.

Although this scenario is extremely unlikely in real life, it could present, at least IMO, the one set of circumstances in which torture is not only justified but a moral necessity.

 

[AAABatteries]

The best argument for torture I have heard is the ticking bomb- Jack Bauer confronts the terrorist, and there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in a major city, so Jack starts breaking fingers to learn where the bomb is.

Although this scenario is extremely unlikely in real life, it could present, at least IMO, the one set of circumstances in which torture is not only justified but a moral necessity.

So, now you have two scenarios where you are ok with torture - are you still voting that you are against? I'm just saying it seems inconsistent. I understand your comment about being irrational in the moment but right now no one is doing anything to our families and I think we both agree we would be in favor - i don't see how that's a vote for "Against".

 

[avoiding injuries]

The best argument for torture I have heard is the ticking bomb- Jack Bauer confronts the terrorist, and there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in a major city, so Jack starts breaking fingers to learn where the bomb is.

Although this scenario is extremely unlikely in real life, it could present, at least IMO, the one set of circumstances in which torture is not only justified but a moral necessity.

So, now you have two scenarios where you are ok with torture - are you still voting that you are against? I'm just saying it seems inconsistent. I understand your comment about being irrational in the moment but right now no one is doing anything to our families and I think we both agree we would be in favor - i don't see how that's a vote for "Against".

I agree with both hypothetical situations and there are probably many more you could come up with that I would agree on too. I guess I'm for.

 

[jon_mx]

The best argument for torture I have heard is the ticking bomb- Jack Bauer confronts the terrorist, and there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in a major city, so Jack starts breaking fingers to learn where the bomb is.

Although this scenario is extremely unlikely in real life, it could present, at least IMO, the one set of circumstances in which torture is not only justified but a moral necessity.

So, now you have two scenarios where you are ok with torture - are you still voting that you are against? I'm just saying it seems inconsistent. I understand your comment about being irrational in the moment but right now no one is doing anything to our families and I think we both agree we would be in favor - i don't see how that's a vote for "Against".

Oh come on. If there is one thing about tim, it is his being very consistent (at being inconsistent).

 

[timschochet]

The best argument for torture I have heard is the ticking bomb- Jack Bauer confronts the terrorist, and there is a nuclear bomb about to go off in a major city, so Jack starts breaking fingers to learn where the bomb is.

Although this scenario is extremely unlikely in real life, it could present, at least IMO, the one set of circumstances in which torture is not only justified but a moral necessity.

So, now you have two scenarios where you are ok with torture - are you still voting that you are against? I'm just saying it seems inconsistent. I understand your comment about being irrational in the moment but right now no one is doing anything to our families and I think we both agree we would be in favor - i don't see how that's a vote for "Against".

True, but the scenario I just came up with, while omnipresent in fiction, has never happened in real life to the best of my knowledge. Nor has my family been affected. So I can assert with 100% conviction that there is no ACTUAL example of torture which I am aware of, throughout human history, which I would approve of.

 

[NCCommish]

The ticking time bomb thing is such a stupid example. Those situations simply don't occur very often, if ever. It's just a way to sneak the camels nose under the tent. And even if it did occur why would a guy not give you the wrong info? You stop and he gains just enough time while you run down his story for it to actually go off. This isn't hack writing 101 it's real world stuff.