Don't forget to bring a sports almanac for your parents/grandparents (whichever is relevent to the time period).Mcoffey said:
So. Torture.
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So trainee interrogators can do it properly when theyre doing it on a prisoner. Come on, be patriotic and take one for the team.Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
To see if you understand how dangerous and traumatic even the most 'minor' or 'mild' forms of torture are. People used to say the same sort of thing about Stress Positions despite the fact that certain stress positions can kill in a matter of hours.Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
If you're aware of all that then consider the matter at an end.
In this magic scenario where I know it will work, that the attack will occur and that this is the only way to find out then yeah, I would. Seeing as the torture is guaranteed to work no matter what I could torture them in any way I want, like making them play Sonic 2006. Might just do that.Queen Michael said:
Of course this kind of hypothetical scenario doesn't exist...
How about making them attend an under 5s violin class recital? They can break even the strongest man (a former SASR trooper begged me for my soundgated ear plugs in order to attend his daughter's violin recital).Knight Captain Kerr said:
Both. And I take their shoes and socks and cover the floor in loose Lego bricks.RhombusHatesYou said:
My god, I've become a monster.
Not okay, Kerr. Not. Okay. There are things you just don't do, no matter what.Knight Captain Kerr said:
This sounds like a case of the Ticking time bomb scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario
The answer of course is yes. Since you have to weigh up the number of lives saved, for arguments sake you can just keep increasing the size of the attack.
What if it's a single life?
What if it's ten?
What if it's an entire town?
What if it's an state?
What if it's all life in the known universe? Maybe they have some kind of hypothetical doomsday device that will collapse the sun.
Since it was specified that it's a 9/11 scale attack, i would still say yes, in this hypothetical scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario
The answer of course is yes. Since you have to weigh up the number of lives saved, for arguments sake you can just keep increasing the size of the attack.
What if it's a single life?
What if it's ten?
What if it's an entire town?
What if it's an state?
What if it's all life in the known universe? Maybe they have some kind of hypothetical doomsday device that will collapse the sun.
Since it was specified that it's a 9/11 scale attack, i would still say yes, in this hypothetical scenario.
It's also a very biased scenario because "bad guy is bad" let's people avoid the whole moral and ethic dilema because "bad guys deserve everything they get".FirstNameLastName said:
Might as well ask people if they'd personally torture a 'known' terrorist for a free cheeseburger... or even just for shit and giggles.
Since when did i say anything about it being justified as a means of punishment? Or for some kind of sick thrill?RhombusHatesYou said:
Even though you didn't specifically say that i said that, it seems implied. If that's not what you meant, then what?
The fact that they did it over 100 times to one of the Al-Queda leader and it still didn't break him would indicate to me that water-boarding probably isn't the most efficient method of torture.Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
BTW has anyone seen the movie 'Unthinkable'? That really makes you think about torture and how far you might go.
Good movie... although the ending might as well just be a torture apologists' circle jerk.Programmed_For_Damage said:
You didn't. However, when talking about people in general, the basic psychology is the same. You tell people that the victim/target is a provably 'bad' person and the cognitive dissonance for most actions taken against them resolves itself pretty damned quick (exactly how much and what actions depends on the individual), especially when stacked against "saving innocents".FirstNameLastName said:
Yes, my second sentence was unnecessary hyperbole that muddied my point... although I could probably dig up some studies to back that silliness up if it was worth the effort.
If torturing one person guilty of crimes was the only way to save several thousand innocent people, then the answer should be pretty obvious to everyone. I'm a very left-leaning guy myself, but to think everything can be overcome without getting one's hands dirty is incredibly naive.
So in a, admittedly purely fantastic, case like this I'd say torture for essential information would be justified if said information was known to be accurate.
So in a, admittedly purely fantastic, case like this I'd say torture for essential information would be justified if said information was known to be accurate.