I thought about this and it’s sadly not true. If we’re talking about “gods” and not a monotheistic, all-powerful being, evil was already in them, so in a way they did create evil. Look up what e.g. the Greek gods did, there’s some vile stuff.
And if we’re talking a singular god, that one is omnipotent and by definition created evil, too. If just for balance reasons. In other words, humans never had a chance.
Thats a very interesting viewpoint you have there Sam. But I’m willing to bet the ones doing the torturing wouldn’t agree. And besides, if you’re willing to have that person killed for that, what makes you any better? I also don’t like the assumption that torture immediately makes a person ‘evil’ – I’m not for a second suggesting that I think it’s GOOD, but a lot of the time it’s simply a means to an end. Torture wouldn’t usually be carried out just for its own sake, but to get information or something similar out of a person. ‘Evil’ suggests performing the act out of some sadistic urge to cause pain simply for pain’s sake, and while this might sometimes be the case, more often than not it serves a purpose.
Once again, not saying that I actually agree with it or would wish that on any person, just that you should not be so quick to condemn others.
Information received from torture is almost always what the torturer expects, as nothing else would be accepted as the truth. There is never a good reason for torture, and it never serves a purpose except to get someone to say what you want them to.
Calaros:
Torture to get information is delusional, anyone who thinks that works and plans to use it should be forcibly committed as we do with other delusional people who plan to harm others.
Know about the Nazis? You know the ideologues who were willing to wipe out 150 million people as a justification of them being scapegoated by the Nazis?
Their best interrogators made friends to get information. To the point that when the best known of this group (Hanns Scharff) was convinced to publish part of his memoirs it was titled: ‘Without torture’.
This in stark contrast complete lack of results whenever the Gestapo tried to get information and decided they needed to use enhanced interrogation (Oh yes it isn’t the first time the fanatics used that euphemism for torture) techniques.
Lets stop beating about the bush. You seem to approve of torture. This is seen in your I say so claim that torture more often then not serves a purpose that isn’t causing pain. This is subjective. If I think that car mirrors are gateways to hell and to prevent people from getting sucked in I smash all that I see my purpose is not vandalism but the objective result is (also note that this is no less delusional then thinking torture works).
If you want to legitimize torture as a valid technique you need to prove a whole slew of things instead of your vague assertion it is so.
You’ll need to prove that you can only get said info with torture. Oops you lose I just pointed out that the person who didn’t bother using torture techniques could & did get more info out of prisoners then the Gestapo when that bunch of fanatics thought they could get away with torture.
Then there is the little gem of a war crime trial (based on the Nuremberg standard) in Norway where those Gestapo methods were used. 3 out of 3 convictions for war crimes because they used enhanced interrogation techniques, most of the time on people who didn’t have the information that the tortures wanted to hear.
If that doesn’t convince you I suggest you try to prove that you can find the relevant information from the verbal diarrhea your victim will suffer from when finally breaking or pretending to break (and find the relevant info faster then when it would be provided voluntarily with normal techniques). You need to also take into account costs (ethical, mental, moral, political) and prove that they are less then the damage of not getting the information at all (unlikely since a good interrogator can get it without harm) or the possible extra time it takes for a normal interrogation. Giving you the unproven assertion that torture is faster to prevent you from having a guaranteed Sisyphean task of proving a series of unprovables.
I think the point Calaros was trying to make is that the people expect to get results, i.e. good information, loyalty through fear etc. from the torture. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that people spoke the most truthfully under duress. The fact that they were wrong on all, or nearly all counts is beside the point. They tortured because they believed they could get the truth that way.
That said, putting some benefit, such as good information, above the well-being of another person is still evidence of an evil, twisted person in my book.
Torture is evidence that there is evil in the world. Regardless of the reason, if you torture someone, you deserve to die.
mankind itself is proof of evil in the world. the gods didn’t create evil humans did
I thought about this and it’s sadly not true. If we’re talking about “gods” and not a monotheistic, all-powerful being, evil was already in them, so in a way they did create evil. Look up what e.g. the Greek gods did, there’s some vile stuff.
And if we’re talking a singular god, that one is omnipotent and by definition created evil, too. If just for balance reasons. In other words, humans never had a chance.
Hate to break it to you Libluini: the Greek gods aren’t real!
Thats a very interesting viewpoint you have there Sam. But I’m willing to bet the ones doing the torturing wouldn’t agree. And besides, if you’re willing to have that person killed for that, what makes you any better? I also don’t like the assumption that torture immediately makes a person ‘evil’ – I’m not for a second suggesting that I think it’s GOOD, but a lot of the time it’s simply a means to an end. Torture wouldn’t usually be carried out just for its own sake, but to get information or something similar out of a person. ‘Evil’ suggests performing the act out of some sadistic urge to cause pain simply for pain’s sake, and while this might sometimes be the case, more often than not it serves a purpose.
Once again, not saying that I actually agree with it or would wish that on any person, just that you should not be so quick to condemn others.
Information received from torture is almost always what the torturer expects, as nothing else would be accepted as the truth. There is never a good reason for torture, and it never serves a purpose except to get someone to say what you want them to.
Calaros:
Torture to get information is delusional, anyone who thinks that works and plans to use it should be forcibly committed as we do with other delusional people who plan to harm others.
Know about the Nazis? You know the ideologues who were willing to wipe out 150 million people as a justification of them being scapegoated by the Nazis?
Their best interrogators made friends to get information. To the point that when the best known of this group (Hanns Scharff) was convinced to publish part of his memoirs it was titled: ‘Without torture’.
This in stark contrast complete lack of results whenever the Gestapo tried to get information and decided they needed to use enhanced interrogation (Oh yes it isn’t the first time the fanatics used that euphemism for torture) techniques.
Lets stop beating about the bush. You seem to approve of torture. This is seen in your I say so claim that torture more often then not serves a purpose that isn’t causing pain. This is subjective. If I think that car mirrors are gateways to hell and to prevent people from getting sucked in I smash all that I see my purpose is not vandalism but the objective result is (also note that this is no less delusional then thinking torture works).
If you want to legitimize torture as a valid technique you need to prove a whole slew of things instead of your vague assertion it is so.
You’ll need to prove that you can only get said info with torture. Oops you lose I just pointed out that the person who didn’t bother using torture techniques could & did get more info out of prisoners then the Gestapo when that bunch of fanatics thought they could get away with torture.
Then there is the little gem of a war crime trial (based on the Nuremberg standard) in Norway where those Gestapo methods were used. 3 out of 3 convictions for war crimes because they used enhanced interrogation techniques, most of the time on people who didn’t have the information that the tortures wanted to hear.
If that doesn’t convince you I suggest you try to prove that you can find the relevant information from the verbal diarrhea your victim will suffer from when finally breaking or pretending to break (and find the relevant info faster then when it would be provided voluntarily with normal techniques). You need to also take into account costs (ethical, mental, moral, political) and prove that they are less then the damage of not getting the information at all (unlikely since a good interrogator can get it without harm) or the possible extra time it takes for a normal interrogation. Giving you the unproven assertion that torture is faster to prevent you from having a guaranteed Sisyphean task of proving a series of unprovables.
I think the point Calaros was trying to make is that the people expect to get results, i.e. good information, loyalty through fear etc. from the torture. In the Middle Ages, it was believed that people spoke the most truthfully under duress. The fact that they were wrong on all, or nearly all counts is beside the point. They tortured because they believed they could get the truth that way.
That said, putting some benefit, such as good information, above the well-being of another person is still evidence of an evil, twisted person in my book.
To end the pain of torture some people will say just about anything
That was not to torture them, by cutting the achilles tendon they can’t stand up let alone run away. It’s like hamstringing a horse.