Trump Promotes Torture

[invisible]

Come on.

Lots of people do, especially the following examples: Adolf Hitler, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer.

The problem with torture is that it's inefficient.

Your personal view is not the only possible view, there is legitimate room for disagreement with that. I agree with @Melissa that no one deserves to be tortured. That doesn't mean I think that people like those you mentioned should be left at liberty to run around and fuck people up. Deciding what someone "deserves" is I guess, a matter of personal feelings... or maybe of justice, of the right thing for society, of what we choose to believe about people who harmed society, and how to "correct" it, or how far it is possible to do that, or the meaning of our methods of achieving that for society. For me, there's no place for torture in a fair and just society. I don't accept torture as something that anyone deserves.

 

[invisible]

He isn't talking about torture as punishment, he is talking about using it as an interrogation tactic.

In a society that permits torture, there is no practical difference between those distinctions and the way they are applied, and there's no way of telling the difference between whether the torture was applied for one reason or the other.

 

[invisible]

If you think about torturing someone to get information, then you can think about torturing suspects for mass shootings in the US, which are overwhelmingly, white American men. These men are committing a huge amount of killings in the US now, way more than any foreigner. They want to slit the throat of every US citizen and their children. Figuratively speaking of course, because they are using guns rather than knives. But maybe we were speaking figuratively when we were talking about foreigners wanting to indiscriminately slit American throats?

You may think that torturing some particular "suspicious" Americans to get information about mass shootings is rather random. Of course... it's just as random torturing "suspicious" foreigners for information. There's no reason that is meaningfully verifiable in current practices to accept that the foreigner would possess access to some or other desired shred of information. There's no trial process to go through to determine worthiness for torture. It's just some given person's inclination to commit torture on another person, which without any proper judicial process to determine the worthiness of the value of the subject for torture, is entirely subject to all kinds of emotional bias. The person determining worthiness for torture is no more reliable in their understanding of who should be tortured than any given foreigner being tortured. The order to torture is totally determined by the caprice of the person with the authority to order the torture, on that particular day. It isn't determined by any controlled, evidence-based, professionally developed and tested process. It's so personalised to the person with the power to order torture that it is effectively totally random.

Actually, torture will never be subject to a judicial process, because legal courts don't accept information obtained through torture as valid evidence. That's because information obtained through torture is almost universally agreed by any remotely scholarly or academic institution community to be totally fucking unreliable!! LOL!!! In case you have somehow not managed to figure it out, victims of torture will say anything at all they can think of while being tortured, just to get the torture to stop! You know what's worse than torture? NOTHING! That's what makes it torture!

Unless you believe that American lives are more valuable than foreign lives. In which case why do you believe that? What makes American lives so special? Is it because you see American lives in general as being more significantly "white" than foreign lives? If not, what is the reasoning for it? It can't be that Americans are inherently more "civilized"... Your willingness to randomly torture foreigners invalidates that. So... must be some other good reason? Please explain it.

 

[Eventhorizon]

The fear of torture is a deterrent.

 

[Skarekrow]

The fear of torture is a deterrent.

Yes...let’s just scare everyone (even more than they already are) by threatening to cause them great pain and suffering.
So we are promoting more fear as a means to control society now? As if we don’t already have enough of that.
How is the fear of torture any different than the fear the church puts in it’s parishioners in regards to Hell, and punishments and tortures that await if you don’t behave and follow the rules that may or may not be justified or shared morals.
Also, it’s not unheard of for the police to pick up the wrong person to question, or even convict the wrong person.
Who decides where to draw the line as to the severity of the torturous apparatus, how it is applied, to whom, for what period of time?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
You really want to wave that right?

Derp.

 

[Littlelissa]

I'm in agreement with the last post, omitting the last word. Lol.

 

[Skarekrow]

I'm in agreement with the last post, omitting the last word. Lol.

Okay - To wave that right would be derpy.
Better?
lol

 

[Pin]

Your personal view is not the only possible view, there is legitimate room for disagreement with that. I agree with @Melissa that no one deserves to be tortured. That doesn't mean I think that people like those you mentioned should be left at liberty to run around and fuck people up. Deciding what someone "deserves" is I guess, a matter of personal feelings... or maybe of justice, of the right thing for society, of what we choose to believe about people who harmed society, and how to "correct" it, or how far it is possible to do that, or the meaning of our methods of achieving that for society. For me, there's no place for torture in a fair and just society. I don't accept torture as something that anyone deserves.

I'm willing to be wrong. However, I am almost certain that murderers, rapists, and other assortments evil people deserve nothing less than the most brutal forms of torture on moral grounds: physical and psychological; this is because it is the moral equivalent of what they have done to others. For those who adhere to retributive justice: torture can be good, torture can be righteous.

What's morally good isn't necessarily the same thing as what is nice.

Here is what I am not saying: "We should torture bad people."

I am merely saying that there are moral justifications for doing so. With that being said, I'm no practical advocate of retributive justice. Frankly, I prefer rehabilitation as a means of deterrence.

 

[acd]

Doesn't torture just reduce you to the same evil people that you claim deserve it? That doesn't seem righteous. Torture doesn't bring anyone back or right wrongs. I can understand the emotional desire for vengeance.

But I think that for the health of a society, justice is the better way. Separate those sadistic predatory elements from society. We don't need to become sadistic in response to sadism.

 

[Pin]

Doesn't torture just reduce you to the same evil people that you claim deserve it?

If the intention is good and the cause is just, no. If one intends to eliminate evil, it makes no difference to the outcome of its elimination (a just outcome) whether or not torture has occurred. For example, if Ted Bundy were going to be executed, his experiencing torture would make no difference to the outcome of his execution.

Torture doesn't bring anyone back or right wrongs.

I agree.

I can understand the emotional desire for vengeance.

As can I, to an extent.

But I think that justice is the better way.

As do I.

Separate those sadistic predatory elements from society. We don't need to become sadistic in response to sadism.

This is where I disagree somewhat. Suppose we could incorporate these urges (which are intrinsic to human nature) into society, by extension, fully satiating them. We could theoretically make society more functional by providing these urges a morally justifiable outlet.

 

[acd]

If the intention is good and the cause is just, no. If one intends to eliminate evil, it makes no difference to the outcome of its elimination (a just outcome) whether or not torture has occurred. For example, if Ted Bundy were going to be executed, his experiencing torture would make no difference to the outcome of his execution.

I agree.
As can I, to an extent.
As do I.

This is where I disagree somewhat. Suppose we could incorporate these urges (which are intrinsic to human nature) into society, by extension, fully satiating them. We could theoretically make society more functional by providing these urges a morally justifiable outlet.

Why is torturing criminals or predatory people moral? I just don't think it's a good or an ethical thing to do. I think it's unnatural and antisocial. I don't think it's a part of human nature. When I think of torture, I think that only a sadistic person could torture someone.

Are you talking about people who have sadistic urges but do not act on them being allowed to exercise their sadism on criminals? Because I don't think it's a really widespread thing to really want to torture people. Sure, in moments of intense anger one might entertain violent thoughts-- but actually carrying it out is another thing. I don't think that a healthy minded person could actually torture someone and be OK afterwards.

 

[infinite dreams]

This is where I disagree somewhat. Suppose we could incorporate these urges (which are intrinsic to human nature) into society, by extension, fully satiating them. We could theoretically make society more functional by providing these urges a morally justifiable outlet.

I think a more admirable and higher functioning society would be one wherein people work more diligently to control their violent urges and make themselves (and the social construct) better in the process.

Seriously, think about what you're saying. Sanctioning torture? Would there be paid admission to this spectactle? A PPV television audience? I mean if you're gonna turn sadism into a normalized and justified part of society, might as well monetize it to boot.

One man's moral justification is another's dystopia.

 

[Pin]

Why is torturing criminals or predatory people moral?

Firstly, it is a display of power; it is political. Morally, the purpose of torture is to reinforce the strength and authority of good people, restoring their power through punishment.

I just don't think it's a good or an ethical thing to do. I think it's unnatural and antisocial. I don't think it's a part of human nature. When I think of torture, I think that only a sadistic person could torture someone.

In humans there is a natural instinct for power. Throughout history, good people and governments (The U.S government, the British government, and many polities prior) have gone to great lengths to preserve their power, including torture.

Anecdotally, the Abrahamic God even does it in the Bible to display his power over evil (via Hell).

Are you talking about people who have sadistic urges but do not act on them being allowed to exercise their sadism on criminals?

I am, but ideally on a case-by-case basis.

Because I don't think it's a really widespread thing to really want to torture people. Sure, in moments of intense anger one might entertain violent thoughts-- but actually carrying it out is another thing. I don't think that a healthy minded person could actually torture someone and be OK afterwards.

I am of the opposite opinion; I believe that it is a widespread desire to want to torture and eliminate evil people. However, we're not all inherently equipped for such a task psychologically.

With that being said, healthy-minded people are capable of any discipline with the requisite training.

 

[Happy Phantom]

By your definition, some are forcing torture on me here.

You know that’s a ridiculous comparison. Are you suffering? Not everyone is going to get along. I’ve been nothing but nice to you with the occasional kidding around.

Seriously, think about what you're saying. Sanctioning torture? Would there be paid admission to this spectactle? A PPV television audience? I mean if you're gonna turn sadism into a normalized and justified part of society, might as well monetize it to boot.

Rehabilitation is coming. Trump will have a VERY exclusive solid gold balcony where he will referee from which will include a VERY private solid gold toilet with drink holders and fold out trays. He will also have his own private Carl’s Jr. burger concession stand also made out of solid gold with clusters of HUGE diamonds on top of the stand. It will be the best thing anyone has ever seen and very HUGE! Melania will not attend

 

[Sloe Djinn]

I would think that forcing someone to suffer would be torture. How is forcing people--including children-- to choose one article of clothing to wear and then forcing them to sleep in a cold room on a cold floor not a form of torture? Forcing a mother to struggle to keep her baby warm... when all you have to do is heat the fucking room, offer a cot and a blanket... It's the 21st century. Electricity and blankets and cots exist and they aren't newfangled unheard of things.
It is fucking sadistic.

I guess the reason that I split hairs here is that while I don't dispute that Trump endorsed torture, I don't think that terrible policy/conditions of ICE detention facilities are necessarily a direct result of that. That is of course debatable, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that his stance emboldens or emboldened someone who might craft policy or engage in behavior that encourages or constitutes torture. As such the inhumane, undisputedly condemnable, and inexcusable (regardless of the word used to define them) conditions and policy may amount to torture if enacted to punish or discourage detainees.

In lieu of direct evidence in this particular discussion (and only in the context of the article recently referenced) I think that ICE detention centers have sucked well before Trump arrived, and I’m not sure that they’ve gotten any worse as a direct result of anything that he’s said or done.

Sure it’s crazy that he endorsed it, and that he has publicly endorsed it, and anyone feel free to clarify if I got my details mixed up, but I thought he was specifically endorsing enhanced interrogation as opposed to tormenting ICE detainees. This crosses over into another separate issue, and instead of jumping down that rabbit hole I’ll just say that I don’t agree with the use of torture by our government for any reason, but I still think that in terms of interrogation and detainment of spies and enemy combatants, the use of torture would continue no matter who was president and whether or not they publicly endorse it. That’s part of the “benefit” of having black sites and contractors.

Back to the matter of detainees this brings me to what @invisible mentioned about people who voted for Trump. I just don’t think it’s fair to blame or judge everyone who voted for him based upon the plight of the detainees. I will again stress that I am appalled by what they were and are subjected to, but this is not something that began with the Trump administration and I honestly don’t think there would be that much difference were Hillary, Bernie, or any other candidate in office. Illegal immigrants would still be getting detained, some unfairly and uncompassionately. They would still be subjected to terrible conditions, likely both felons and people who just have illegal status. The proportions may differ with Trump but it would still be happening with anyone else. I would be interested to explore areas of influence such as ICE policy, prison administration, use for-profit prisons, budgeting, oversight, etc. I don’t think (and again I am willing to be convinced otherwise) that such conditions are due to a direct order from the administration to maltreat detainees. It needs to be fixed but I don’t think it’s fair to point a finger specifically at Trump supporters to say this is their fault. I think that it only serves to promote divisiveness. The blame lies on the US as a whole.

 

[Littlelissa]

This...

Your personal view is not the only possible view, there is legitimate room for disagreement with that. No one deserves to be tortured. That doesn't mean I think that people like those you mentioned should be left at liberty to run around and fuck people up. Deciding what someone "deserves" is I guess, a matter of personal feelings... or maybe of justice, of the right thing for society, of what we choose to believe about people who harmed society, and how to "correct" it, or how far it is possible to do that, or the meaning of our methods of achieving that for society

And this...

Doesn't torture just reduce you to the same evil people that you claim deserve it? That doesn't seem righteous. Torture doesn't bring anyone back or right wrongs. I can understand the emotional desire for vengeance.

But I think that for the health of a society, justice is the better way. Separate those sadistic predatory elements from society. We don't need to become sadistic in response to sadism.

 

[Pin]

I think a more admirable and higher functioning society would be one wherein people work more diligently to control their violent urges and make themselves (and the social construct) better in the process.

How do you suggest people work more diligently to control their violent urges?

Seriously, think about what you're saying. Sanctioning torture?

Morally, on the grounds of reinforcing the power of good people.

Would there be paid admission to this spectactle?

I'm not sure, there is the risk of turning evil people into objects of pity. Perhaps the torture could be private and the execution public.

One man's moral justification is another's dystopia.

I can see that.

 

[infinite dreams]

How do you suggest people work more diligently to control their violent urges?

Early childhood intervention? Therapy? Medical science?

Basically anything aside from giving a free outlet to said violence. Even if you can morally justify your idea, there's the problem of a dangerous slippery slope, i.e. once you sanction the brutalization of "bad" human beings, what's next? My guess is that sanctioned sadism wouldn't be enough after a while. This contingent of friendly folks just itching to peel some murderer's fingernails or disembowel a row of child molesters would eventually want more. People with unnatural urges always want more. It's the thrill they're after, and if the safe environment becomes old hat they'll move onto something else. In my view, this is not a road the human race needs to explore.

Theoretically, on the grounds of reinforcing the power of good people.

Right, good people doing good by committing sadistic acts. Keep right on gazing into that abyss dude.

I'm not sure, there is the risk of turning evil people into objects of pity. Perhaps the torture could be private and the execution public.

Yes, that would make everything better.

Fuck it, I've got a great idea. Let's round up criminals and let them loose, naked and unarmed, in enclosed sports arenas with hungry wild animals. Why didn't someone think of this 2,000 years ago?!

 

[Eventhorizon]

Im not ok with torture for gaining information. I think data suggests it doesnt work well. Not enough of a cost to return.
But I am very ok with torture for punishment. Say for instance the pos who ran planes into the buildings on 911 did not die. I know its crazy but lets just say they didnt. Id be completely ok with them being burned alive slowly in the middle of Times Square while it was televised. You could start at their feet burning off their toes one by one. Then their feet ect. Youd want to leave their eyes and ears intact so they could see all smiling people and hear them cheering. All the while making sure they stayed conscious through the whole thing. Their screams would be like music. It might even make the top ten.

The one caveat is there would have to be no doubt at all in a persons guilt.

 

[invisible]

Of course tortured screams have nothing in common with music. What an utterly stupid remark