Torturing Mega-Hitler
- Thread starter SirPlindington
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No. That would make me barbaric. I won't deny that torture does have its uses and there are situations where it could be applied both strategically AND morally, in my mind. This however, is the furthest away from that. I don't fall in line with sheep who scream blindly for revenge and justice. So to torture someone for things he did just for sick satisfaction? No man. If he has to die, then just execute him right there and then. Prolonged torture is useless and extremely barbaric in that situation and for that reason.
Torture can be awesome in fiction and sex though, no doubt about it there.
Torture can be awesome in fiction and sex though, no doubt about it there.
The only possible reason I could think of torturing someone like Hitler is to try to make them understand the pain they inflicted upon others. But the thing is - they won't understand that what they did was wrong. They'll never understand. If you torture a bad man, they'll never, ever have the sudden realization of "Hey, I don't like this, maybe it was wrong to do it to others!". All they'll think of is "It is wrong for you to do this to ME". People like Hitler have no empathy for others, so torturing them isn't going to get them to suddenly empathize with their victims. They'll never be sorry for what they did - they'll only be sorry that they're getting punished.
So what's the point? There is none. If they are that bad and they are a threat, kill them and be done with it. Torture also has an effect on the torturer. Even if they "deserve" it, if you torture people long enough you'll start to become someone you don't want to be.
So what's the point? There is none. If they are that bad and they are a threat, kill them and be done with it. Torture also has an effect on the torturer. Even if they "deserve" it, if you torture people long enough you'll start to become someone you don't want to be.
I wouldn't be able to. I'm so nice and loveable that the piss inside his bladder would kill me stone dead.
Torturing this man for any reason, be it for information, or just for personal pleasure, is abhorrent. You will become who you are torturing.SirPlindington said:
If I've witnessed his atrocities first-hand, probably. It's harder to be mad at someone when you just hear about what they've done, and then only see a man in front of you. I'm not interested in torturing a man, but I'd consider doing it for a monster.
What would it achieve??? Death is the final punishment anyway, waiting for us all.
Also torture without purpose is just pointless.
So no.
Also torture without purpose is just pointless.
So no.
If there is no life to be saved, then I do not think that torture is okay.
One thing that some people might forget: a mass-murdering psychopath will still look, sound and suffer exactly like any other human being, and therefore torturing him will likely feel very similar to torturing a normal person - They will bleed, suffer, beg and scream in the same manner.
There is also the identifiable victim effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifiable_victim_effect] to be aware of. We have a tendency to be much more eager to mete out punishments when the perpetrator is one specific, identifiable individual.
One thing that some people might forget: a mass-murdering psychopath will still look, sound and suffer exactly like any other human being, and therefore torturing him will likely feel very similar to torturing a normal person - They will bleed, suffer, beg and scream in the same manner.
There is also the identifiable victim effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifiable_victim_effect] to be aware of. We have a tendency to be much more eager to mete out punishments when the perpetrator is one specific, identifiable individual.
The problem with the whole "ticking time-bomb" scenario justifying torture is that it's become such a ubiquitous justification that it makes it literally the worst condition under which to torture someone. It's basically telling them that they have you by the balls and you need to pull out all the stops to prevent whatever it is that's going down, which gives them a reason to hold out just long enough for the bomb to go off.
There are, of course, more efficient ways of torturing someone, but that basically puts you on the same moral ground as Mega-Hitler. So really, just shoot the fuck.
There are, of course, more efficient ways of torturing someone, but that basically puts you on the same moral ground as Mega-Hitler. So really, just shoot the fuck.
There's never a purpose for torture, and you gave it in your first sentence: it's unreliable, incredibly so. After a while, torture victims will admit to or make up absolutely anything, and I mean /anything/ to get the pain to stop. That anything, however, is not the real truth, it's the truth they think the torturer wants to hear. All that torture that was done for the war on terror? None of it ever gave any good results. All of the information taken from captured terrorists was done with the kinder, gentler methods of earning their trust, getting them comfortable, and otherwise waiting for them to slip up.Quaxar said:
As far as executing this "Mega-Hitler," I'd only condone it for one reason: the fact that his urine is literally a chemical weapon. At that point you're not talking about killing a human being as punishment, you're talking about killing a literal monster to stop the damage it does simply by existing.