Torturing Mega-Hitler

[SirPlindington]

Alright, I had a lot of cutesy ideas for this thread, but fuck it, writing is too much effort. Let's get down to what this thread is about.

Imagine a man named Mega-Hitler. He is the worst sapient being who will ever walk the Earth. He has committed every possible atrocity and abhorrent action, and a few that aren't possible. His very piss is so malevolent that if anything pure and innocent gets within a thousand miles of it, they instantly die. He is literally the worst possible thing that can exist.

Does that make it OK to torture him?

There is nothing anyone can possibly gain from the torture aside from the satisfaction of seeing the fucker bleed. No lives can be saved, no homes fixed, nothing tangible gained. But he's also evil incarnate. Is it morally right? And even if it isn't, would you do it anyway?

Personally, I wouldn't. I don't think it's morally right, and no matter what the big H'd done, I doubt I could bring myself to really hurt him. But I can't say I'd put up a really spirited resistance if someone else were to have a go.

 

[Heronblade]

I actually am willing to sanction torture when there is purpose to it. But solely for personal satisfaction? never

 

[Zhukov]

What for?

Just shoot him and be done with it. Have a trial first if you're into that.

Personally I doubt I'd have the stomach to torture anyone, no matter how evil, even if I personally hated them.

 

[Caiphus]

I, what? If he urinates he instantly kills everyone within a thousand mile radius?
Tremendous. I laughed.

I'm not sure how it would be even possible to torture/kill him. You'd have to bomb him from orbit.

Unless you don't count other humans as pure/innocent, I guess.

 

[SirPlindington]

I, what? If he urinates he instantly kills everyone within a thousand mile radius?
Tremendous. I laughed.

I'm not sure how it would be even possible to torture/kill him. You'd have to bomb him from orbit.

Unless you don't count other humans as pure/innocent, I guess.

We keep him on a strict low-liquid diet, and his bladder is hooked up to a lead lined tube leading into the sun. We've got all our bases covered.

 

[Quaxar]

I actually am willing to sanction torture when there is purpose to it. But solely for personal satisfaction? never

Well yeah, even though it's an incredibly unreliant and cruel way of extracting information at least if you're cutting off fingers to find a bomb in a school you're at least kind of doing something with it.
But if you're employing it just because someone is a bad person maybe you should strap yourself in with them right away.

 

[Abomination]

I actually am willing to sanction torture when there is purpose to it. But solely for personal satisfaction? never

Pretty much my take on things.

I always advocate doing what is practical over what is emotional.

Bullet to the head from 3 feet is a good method of removing someone. Bullets are cheap and finding someone to pull the trigger is likely to be something you could actually have up for auction.

I can only justify torture being used as a tool to extract emergency and vital information. Any other application of it for any other reason - especially one without a practical benefit - is abhorrent.

 

[game-lover]

Nope. That is to say I'd never do it. Not sure I have what it takes to torture.

Even so, I don't believe in torture for the sake of it.

 

[Silvanus]

Reading the (imaginative!) description of Mega-Hitler, I couldn't help but think of Ramsay Snow.


Mega-Ramsay deserves a good beating, but that's all.

 

[M0rp43vs]

I'd like to say I won't because I like to believe I'm a pacifist(pussy) but easier said than done.

Maybe "Righteous fury" will overcome me. Maybe he did something personal, like his piss caught my pet cat and her litter of kittens.

I won't know till I'm standing above him with his life in my hands

 

[Mr.Mattress]

I think if we already had Mega-Hitler locked up (Somehow, based on your description, I highly doubt we could), I think just straight up killing him (It?) would be the best thing to do, before it gets enough pee to melt the lead pipes (Which I can imagine it's wizz will eventually do).

Funny thread though! I approve.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Torture for the sake of torture? No.

There might be a grey area about torturing people for a reason. Personally, I don't think there is, and the purpose of torture is torture, but I can understand the idea.

But simply causing pain for it's own sake is wrong.

 

[Headsprouter]

I don't know. Seems a bit mindless, to be honest. There'd be no purpose to it, by the sounds of things this person is irredeemable, irretrievably evil. I think I'd get more satisfaction from just offing him. Maybe restraining him first to have a conversation with him to try and work out how he ticks. Or IF he ticks. That is, provided I can stand the sight of him. Even then, he'd probably lie and deceit me, try to get me on his side so he could stab me and the back. And to be able to do the things you've said he's done he'd have to be DAMN good at it. Best to just end him. It would be the safest way.

 

[Akytalusia]

i wouldn't for a few reasons. 1. i'm not a demon. and 2. he'd piss himself and kill everyone in 1000 miles. -.-

 

[Laser Priest]

Torture seems pointless to me. Even if I don't approve of torturing people for information or something of the sort, at least that has a purpose. The only line of questioning I could think of here is "How'd you get to be such an ass, Mega-Hitler?" and I doubt we'd get any useful information through that.

I think it's best to dispose of him and his Urine of Mass Destruction. Launch him into the sun or something.

 

[Risingblade]

Is doing something bad for the sake of your own pleasure bad?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Torture, no matter how satisfying it may seem is wrong. It would make whoever deems it "right" just as bad as anyone else who's committed atrocities against humanity. The only thing I could think of to do with a destructive being such as this "Mega Hitler" would be to mercifully end its life since it could never understand joy, happiness or love.
Compassionate mercy is the only way to deal with an "evil" such as that.
But torture? There is never a call for that. Not ever. Ends do not justify the means, and once hands have been sullied in such a way they can never again be clean.
Good example, a rabid dog is an animal in massive pain and must be put down out of compassion, a human deserves no less a treatment no matter how fucked up.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Hitler got a megalution? I wonder what his new ability is? Plus I assume he got a huge white tuft of hair, or got pointier in some way.

Poke-jokes aside, I have no strong feelings about a real torture debate. I would hate to torture someone, but if there was something really really REALLY good to come from it, I may reconsider. That being said, if I had the choice between torturing mega Hitler or killing him to stop his hypothetical rampage of evil, I would probably just kill him. Torturing someone just because I can would be messed up.

 

[Kanova]

He has done everything, including torture kittens. Drown them, spike them, disembowel them. Yeah, I would make him suffer for many years. I could go into detail of making an awful torture, involving needles and the underneath of nails, but I won't.

 

[Smiley Face]

It's certainly not morally right. It's probably morally wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, not by a great margin. Frankly, I'd be against the idea, because getting satisfaction from the suffering of another isn't something that I think should be encouraged, much less by a government. If the only benefit we get is that short-term catharsis, then it doesn't outweigh the costs.