NationStates Jolt Archive

It's pretty difficult (and I'm being nice here) to deny that torture is pretty much useless as an interrogation tool, if you actually want reliable information.

On the other hand, what's wrong with using it as punishment for a bona fide crime of which the creature in question was duly convicted? I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore. And since non-humans have no rights, torture against them does not cause the torturer to lose his own humanity as it would if the torturer was working on a human being.

Itd be easier to debate this if you dont rely entirely on multiple false premises.

I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity

.....the fuck...?

if you actually want reliable information.

Bullshit. Information extracted from torture is very unreliable.

Bullshit. Information extracted from torture is very unreliable.

Read the OP again.

... I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore....

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone of this.

Bullshit. Information extracted from torture is very unreliable.

Indeed, and this has been established several times when the torture topic arises. It seems, though, that some people continue thinking that the information extracted from tortured prisoners is reliable.

Itd be easier to debate this if you dont rely entirely on multiple false premises.

Don't go making me break my foot offa yo ass!

Bullshit. Information extracted from torture is very unreliable.

In fairness, he conceded this. Also in fairness, the rest of his post is extremist bullshit.

Read the OP again.

Oh yeah. I read it as "It's pretty much useless to deny"

He's not even discussing using torture as interrogation. He's talking about using it as punishment.

Which of course conveniently ignores the whole Cruel and Unusual Punishment provisos of many a "civilized" Western nation. Maybe BC's suggesting America should be more like China or those Ebil Mozlem Nations?

On the other hand, what's wrong with using it as punishment for a bona fide crime of which the creature in question was duly convicted? I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore. And since non-humans have no rights, torture against them does not cause the torturer to lose his own humanity as it would if the torturer was working on a human being.

But do the first principles of the universe objectively show that it's in your own objectively objective rational self interests to torture someone?

Indeed, and this has been established several times when the torture topic arises. It seems, though, that some people continue thinking that the information extracted from tortured prisoners is reliable.

It's crazy. They should know that you'll say anything if you think it'll make the agony stop.

Don't go making me break my foot offa yo ass!

Mom and dad let ya use the computer, huh?

It's crazy. They should know that you'll say anything if you think it'll make the agony stop.

Exactly. As for it being suitable for punishment... I haven't made my mind on this one.

I haven't made my mind on this one.

Thats unfortunate.

On the other hand, what's wrong with using it as punishment for a bona fide crime of which the creature in question was duly convicted? I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore. And since non-humans have no rights, torture against them does not cause the torturer to lose his own humanity as it would if the torturer was working on a human being.

Interestingly enough, I regularly see many people use almost this exact defence for jail, without any objections.

Mom and dad let ya use the computer, huh?

*cough* lookatthename *cough*

Goddamit. This is a drive by, isn't it? *grumbles, leaves*

Thats unfortunate.

Why is that unfortunate? Because I haven't made up my mind or because I don't quite care about torture administered for punishment so much that I need don't feel like making up my mind? What can I say, I'm apathetic.:wink:

Thats unfortunate.

I think for extreme cases, i.e. Bin Laden, a beating's in order, but not waterboarding, electrocution etc. But I'd love to punch his face in.

What about the innocent people who were convicted by corrupt judges or incompetent defense attorneys? Should they get tortured too?

Even if they enjoy it? Probably nobody here as heard of the Operation Spanner Trial.

Which of course conveniently ignores the whole Cruel and Unusual Punishment provisos of many a "civilized" Western nation.
That only applies to human beings, as only human beings have rights.

Those who violate the rights of others are not themselves human, and therefore have no rights.

It's pretty difficult (and I'm being nice here) to deny that torture is pretty much useless as an interrogation tool, if you actually want reliable information.

On the other hand, what's wrong with using it as punishment for a bona fide crime of which the creature in question was duly convicted? I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore. And since non-humans have no rights, torture against them does not cause the torturer to lose his own humanity as it would if the torturer was working on a human being.
it demoralizes the population, makes it less likely that a jury will be willing to convict, and makes the prisoner that much less fit for society when he is eventually released.

I say get rid the of the death penalty and bring back torture. i mean what is more detrimental to raping a kid. knowledge of being killed after 20 years of appeals, or knowledge that you will live in an ever living hell for several years after killing a kid.

it demoralizes the population, makes it less likely that a jury will be willing to convict,
Certainly, that's a compelling practical reason against it (if your presumptions are true--they're certainly reasonable enough to think they might).

But I was going for moral reasons against it.

and makes the prisoner that much less fit for society when he is eventually released.
Why would it be released? Torture it until it dies, whether on its own or as a result of the torture. Whatever.

Those who violate the rights of others are not themselves human, and therefore have no rights.

This might be hard for you to understand, but we're having a little trouble reaching this conclusion. Perhaps if you would give the rationale behind this particular statement this thread could actually go somewhere. Until then, people are just going to hang around going WTF till the cows come home.

This might be hard for you to understand, but we're having a little trouble reaching this conclusion.

It is man's rational mind that has enabled him to spread and thrive almost all over the world, even though physically he's rather unimpressive.

Follow so far?

It is man's rational mind that has enabled him to spread and thrive almost all over the world, even though physically he's rather unimpressive.

Follow so far?

that's very good, you understand human biology. Unfortunatly that has dick all to do wtih supporting your "claims"

It is man's rational mind that has enabled him to spread and thrive almost all over the world, even though physically he's rather unimpressive.

Follow so far?

Ok.

Certainly, that's a compelling practical reason against it (if your presumptions are true--they're certainly reasonable enough to think they might).

But I was going for moral reasons against it.


Why would it be released? Torture it until it dies, whether on its own or as a result of the torture. Whatever.
because in the real world most prisoners get released.

im not here to be your moral teacher. if you cant figure out why is it wrong to torture i guess i wont be hiring you as a prison guard any time soon.

Even if they enjoy it? Probably nobody here as heard of the Operation Spanner Trial.

The gay sex torture thing?

It is man's rational mind that has enabled him to spread and thrive almost all over the world, even though physically he's rather unimpressive.

Follow so far?

This would imply that a criminal is in need of rehabilitation rather than torture. If someone is being irrational, you attempt reeducation. But, that's even giving your premise more credit than it merits.

If a man is looking at two deals, one obviously worse than the other, but he chooses the worse deal anyway, is he now a criminal or has he somehow, magically removed himself from the human race?

In the end, a properly functioning justice system should be rehabilitative. Torture runs completely contrary to this.

That only applies to human beings, as only human beings have rights.

Those who violate the rights of others are not themselves human, and therefore have no rights.

This is that whole "false premise" thing again.

I don't think I have a problem with tortures of some kinds, in the interest of immediate dangers. I wouldn't, for example, sentence a man to be prodded with hot irons every day of his life. I might, however, permit extreme tactics against an obviously guilty party in an effort to glean information hat could avert some greater tragedy, such as an imminent attack.

Those who violate the rights of others are not themselves human

So what are they? Werewolves?

I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore.

You're completely wrong here, and you would know that if you'd bothered to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher, humanist and beacon of light Ayn Rand.

You're completely wrong here, and you would know that if you'd bothered to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher, humanist and beacon of light Ayn Rand.

you forgot "outragious sex kitten"

Torture should be for entertainment purposes only. *nod*

It's pretty difficult (and I'm being nice here) to deny that torture is pretty much useless as an interrogation tool, if you actually want reliable information.

On the other hand, what's wrong with using it as punishment for a bona fide crime of which the creature in question was duly convicted? I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore. And since non-humans have no rights, torture against them does not cause the torturer to lose his own humanity as it would if the torturer was working on a human being.
Before you get all holier-than-thou, it might be worth considering that it's not like the rest of us are perfect angels. When people do what they do, they have their reasons, and these reasons aren't always "because I can"; people have their motives, and it may be worth considering them, rather than using what they did as a justification for doing whatever we want to them. For what it's worth, I'd rather torture than the death penalty, since if a criminal turns out to have been falsely convicted they can at least stop torturing them; with the death penalty, it would have been too late. But still, it's the whole "they violated others' rights so it's ok for us to violate their rights" idea that I'm opposed to.

That said, I think if you're going to use torture as a means of punishment, it should at least be useful torture, like scientific experiments, sort of like the ones we do on animals. (Including the ones by Banting and Best that the insulin treatments that saved my life came from) I've noticed animal rights people say we should do experiments on pedophiles instead of animals; well, I think in today's witch-hunt mentality I'm not sure I trust society to even say who is a pedophile and who isn't, but even then, I'm not so sure sex with those society deems underage is necessarily a good reason for them to be experimental subjects. But it sounds more appealing when it's about terrorists. Torturing someone doesn't bring back their victims, but doing experiments on someone might save others from death, even if it's not death from the same thing.

Now, if someone chooses to abandon the very faculties that constitute the essence of humanity, by choosing to deal with others through violence rather than reason, he has quite simply abandoned his own humanity. Therefore, he is no longer human, in any meaningful sense of the word.

There's more to being human, after all, than mere biology.

Now, if someone chooses to abandon the very faculties that constitute the essence of humanity, by choosing to deal with others through violence rather than reason, he has quite simply abandoned his own humanity. Therefore, he is no longer human, in any meaningful sense of the word.

There's more to being human, after all, than mere biology.

Oh dear. So I suppose all soldiers, and all politicians who have anything to do with starting wars, can be tortured with impunity?

EDIT: Not to mention the people doing the torturing.

Now, if someone chooses to abandon the very faculties that constitute the essence of humanity, by choosing to deal with others through violence rather than reason, he has quite simply abandoned his own humanity. Therefore, he is no longer human, in any meaningful sense of the word.


Do you really expect to be able to go into NSG, and just expect people to find any of this compelling? You're going to have to show many things. Here's some pre-emptive pedantry:

Prove that not breaking the law/being violent is a faculty that constitutes the essence of humanity.
Prove that even if he is no longer 'human', that justifies torture.
Prove that him being human doesn't justify torture.

Before you try, here's the answer: you can't, since it's all a load of moral gibberish.

On the other hand, what's wrong with using it as punishment for a bona fide crime of which the creature in question was duly convicted? I mean, by violating the rights of another human being the criminal has renounced its own humanity, so it's not like it has any rights of its own anymore.

First-off: Why is it necessary? So humanity can vent its sadistic tendencies?

Second: Surely you do not believe a criminal should be treated worse than an animal, and surely you do not believe a dog who bit someone should be tortured.

And since non-humans have no rights,

I do not know what you mean by "non-human"; but if murder can work this magical transformation, then most of our Presidents ought to be tortured to death.

torture against them does not cause the torturer to lose his own humanity as it would if the torturer was working on a human being.

There is something wrong with deriving pleasure out of another's pain; the state should not sponsor such practices.

Once again, innocent people get convicted from time to time. Hell, innocent peoiple get EXECUTED form time to time. Therefore, if you support torturing the convicted, then you support torturing the occasional innocent people who get convicted.

Do you really expect to be able to go into NSG, and just expect people to find any of this compelling? <....SNIP....>
Before you try, here's the answer: you can't, since it's all a load of moral gibberish.

Come come .... Don't hold back!

:)


PS - you're forgetting that this is quite simply objectively a fact (possibly because A is equal to.... now what was it?)

Once again, innocent people get convicted from time to time. Hell, innocent peoiple get EXECUTED form time to time. Therefore, if you support torturing the convicted, then you support torturing the occasional innocent people who get convicted.

Hmmm....... So does that make torture better than the death penalty? As you still have the chance of being acquitted?

Now, if someone chooses to abandon the very faculties that constitute the essence of humanity, by choosing to deal with others through violence rather than reason, he has quite simply abandoned his own humanity. Therefore, he is no longer human, in any meaningful sense of the word.

There's more to being human, after all, than mere biology.

You've now, as the often used saying goes, moved a goalpost or two. First it was because the criminal is irrational that he becomes dehumanized, but now it's because he is acting brutish (seems to fit here perfectly). However, by resorting to a retributive form of justice, a tit for tat nonsense, that neither serves a rehabilitative purpose nor provides any real form of restitution, how is this any less brutish?

because in the real world most prisoners get released.

Yes. And while jail messes people up, torture does it worse.

============

Once again, innocent people get convicted from time to time. Hell, innocent peoiple get EXECUTED form time to time. Therefore, if you support torturing the convicted, then you support torturing the occasional innocent people who get convicted.

The same argument holds for imprisonment unfortunately. Acknowledging that innocent people do sometimes get convicted, we must support imprisoning the occasional innocent person.

To me, the distinction lies in human dignity. Living in jail you can retain it, being tortured you can't (well, that's a dualism, but clearly one invades your person worse than the other, leaving less room for dignity.)

Surely a lot of convicts feel that they are unjustly punished, make excuses for what they did and find the punishment disproportionate, but if they truly believe they didn't commit the crime that is something to hang onto for self-respect.

===========

Hmmm....... So does that make torture better than the death penalty? As you still have the chance of being acquitted?

Yes it does. But without limit -- never to be released, and tortured without consideration of how it messes the criminal up -- it's worse than the death penalty. They could still die of it before being acquitted, plus if released after severe torture, harm has been done to all society by having such a person in it.

My strongest case against torture as punishment is that it can't be imagined properly. So as a counter-incentive to committing a crime, it does not have the same tangible and forseeable quality as a jail term of known length, or the tangible and foreseeable benefit of the crime it is meant to make less attractive.

But that's the best I've got just now, and I don't find it conclusive. I was caned in school (only once mind you) and it certainly seemed pretty tangible and foreseeable then. I'm still open to arguments for torture as punishment, if someone can show a natural limit to how far it should go and how it can be standardized as a punishment given different individual responses to pain.

"Limitless" torture, all you can take until you're dead (as the OP seems to suggest) is very like the death penalty in that it attempts to make the prospective criminal consider the unimaginable. Reckon the unreckonable. It won't therefore make anyone behave more rationally ... since they don't and can't know the full consequences of their actions, it appeals to irrational fear rather than a rational counter-incentive.

That only applies to human beings, as only human beings have rights.

Those who violate the rights of others are not themselves human, and therefore have no rights.

Let's see: stealing someone property violates their human rights, correct?

So if steal a paper clip from your desk, I can be tortured because I am no longer human!!

Hmmm....... So does that make torture better than the death penalty? As you still have the chance of being acquitted?

Well, "tortured for life without parole" is worse than "life without parole", which is worse than execution. Still, two of the three (torture and execution) are morally repugnant, so I recommend life without parole for osama and such.

Let's see: stealing someone property violates their human rights, correct?

So if steal a paper clip from your desk, I can be tortured because I am no longer human!!

You know what comes next. The OP or one of their defenders will start trying to draw an arbitrary line as to what level of crime justifies torture.

I'd like them to also quantify the torture, and in particular how to balance "harm done" by the criminal against "harm done" in retribution. That always seems to be difficult for the "eye for an eye" argument which the OP's justification basically is.

An eye for an eye makes Schrödinger's Cat blind ... or something :tongue:

Well, "tortured for life without parole" is worse than "life without parole",
I'm with you to there. But ...
which is worse than execution.
WTF?

Keep in mind that with execution it's over and done with, and they're on the way to your next reincarnation (where, hopefully, they won't cause as many problems).

Life without parole, however, means rotting in a jail alone with no real friends for DECADES.

Keep in mind that with execution it's over and done with, and they're on the way to your next reincarnation (where, hopefully, they won't cause as many problems).

Life without parole, however, means rotting in a jail alone with no real friends for DECADES.

I can see that for some people it might be worse. I don't think we can rely on that in every case though. Jail may be boring, it may be humiliating (you might even be "tortured" by other inmates) but it is still life. You can read books, you can breathe and eat and shit and masturbate, perhaps even hold a proper conversation or watch some cable. Sure, it is a real punishment because of the many things you can't do, but it's a humane punishment because it maintains some rights to do pleasurable things.

While some convicts commit suicide rather than face their future in jail, and while some surely have reasons (eg religious) for not committing suicide -- it isn't that common. Surely if they reckoned "life without parole" worse than execution, they'd execute themselves?

As to the "no real friends" thing, I don't believe it at all. Freedom of association (in the outside) allows us the luxury of "real friends" we chose ... but friendship is possible without it. Otherwise, we would not recognize army buddies as "real friends" ... perhaps not even school buddies as "real friends" since they are forced into each other's company.

It's good that you see jail as almost unimaginably horrible -- you're unlikely to commit a serious crime. It's providing an effective deterrent in your case. But the sad fact is that some people are actually happier in jail than they are on the outside. "Liberty more dear than life itself" isn't for everyone, for some it's even the opposite.

Let's see: stealing someone property violates their human rights, correct?

So if steal a paper clip from your desk, I can be tortured because I am no longer human!!

Precisely.

You've now, as the often used saying goes, moved a goalpost or two. First it was because the criminal is irrational that he becomes dehumanized, but now it's because he is acting brutish (seems to fit here perfectly).
No, they're the same thing. You're just not paying attention.

By choosing to act irrationally, he is renouncing his humanity. That he has acted irrationally is evidenced by the fact that he has chosen to deal with others via violence rather than through rational persuasion.

However, by resorting to a retributive form of justice, a tit for tat nonsense, that neither serves a rehabilitative purpose nor provides any real form of restitution, how is this any less brutish?
There's nothing inherently wrong with brutish behavior. It's only wrong when it is used towards a rational being.

One does not attempt to reason with bears or birds, after all.

Precisely.

You know what's funny? The average person breaks the law about 3 times daily. Like..you, for example

Once again, innocent people get convicted from time to time. Hell, innocent peoiple get EXECUTED form time to time. Therefore, if you support torturing the convicted, then you support torturing the occasional innocent people who get convicted.

I've addressed this general idea already; please pay attention.

I've addressed this general idea already; please pay attention.

A = A motherfucker! A EQUALS MOTHERFUCKING A!

You know what's funny? The average person breaks the law about 3 times daily. Like..you, for example
o.o The average person has one testicle and one ovary, that doesn't mean most people are that way. How can you be so sure BC doesn't obey the law himself/herself?

o.o The average person has one testicle and one ovary, that doesn't mean most people are that way. How can you be so sure BC doesn't obey the law himself/herself?

because everybody commits minor violations of the law.

everybody

because everybody commits minor violations of the law.

everybody
Well, that's what I would intuitively presume is the case. But I was more so referring to, what if BC is unusually obedient? Maybe not obeying everything but closer than others?

Meh, it's just that I had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to someone assuming things about the offline lives of people they don't personally know based on their Internet selves...

By choosing to act irrationally, he is renouncing his humanity. AThat he has acted irrationally is evidenced by the fact that he has chosen to deal with others via violence rather than through rational persuasion.


There's nothing inherently wrong with brutish behavior. BIt's only wrong when it is used towards a rational being.

COne does not attempt to reason with bears or birds, after all.

A) At what point, when rational discourse repeatedly fails, does brutish behavior become acceptable? For example, because of asymmetries in information, it is completely conceivable, in fact very likely, that two entities will be acting entirely rational within the context of their own information but still in such a way that is detrimental to the other. There is no discarding of reason here, but to each, they are also perfectly valid in seeing the other as acting irrational within the their own informational context. Brutish behavior ensues, according to your own system, who is thus deserving of being tortured?

B) Why is brutish behavior not wrong when turned towards non-rational beings?

C) Dog training is not brutish. In fact, within the context of the demands and the environment, one actually does reason. Reason always requires context. Reason without context is gibberish, it's applying analysis to vacuum. We reason with irrational beings within the context of their analytic and data capacity.

Well, that's what I would intuitively presume is the case. But I was more so referring to, what if BC is unusually obedient? Maybe not obeying everything but closer than others?

By his standard, it wouldn't matter. Any "violation of rights" in his perspective strips one of his humanity. It's not a relative proposition. One crime and you're an "it".

And any attempt to claim that this is not him, is a lie.

When I was alive, I wrote this:

"To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims." -The Actual Ayn Rand.


Nice to see that my so called followers have found an easy way to dehumanize any "offender" (an easy label to apply) so that he becomes "non-human" and not a victim.

To say "Those who commit this or that are no longer human, and thus no longer have human rights" is a wonderful extrapolation of my work, is throughly consistent with my published stances on torture by authority figures, and the importance of individual rights.

You know what's funny? The average person breaks the law about 3 times daily. Like..you, for example

Is that all? Just three times a day? I must have broken five or six civil and criminal laws, some of them repeatedly, before it was even lunchtime today.
Let's see:
I crossed the road on the way to work without using a pedestrian crossing properly - criminal offence.
I arrived at work a couple of minutes late - breach of contract.
I got into and drove a work car without checking that it had the documents to make it road legal, or making sure the car itself was roadworthy - that invalidates the insurance - criminal offence, plus another breach of contract for using a work car illegally.
I drove above the speed limit at several points on the journey - criminal offence, breach of contract again.
I overstayed my parking ticket - civil offence, probably another breach of contract.
Hang on - I parked an unauthorised vehicle outside a police station! That's probably a breach of the Terrorism Act.

Well, I'm off to put my affairs in order before the armed police show up to arrest me. Being a criminal, I am no longer entitled to any kind of rights, so they'll probably just take me somewhere quiet and shoot me. Still, think how different the world will be when all the criminals like me have been killed off. It'll be a lot less crowded, for a start.

Precisely.

Didn't you say that people lose their humanity when they abandon rationality and use violence against other rational beings?
Now, if someone chooses to abandon the very faculties that constitute the essence of humanity, by choosing to deal with others through violence rather than reason, he has quite simply abandoned his own humanity. Therefore, he is no longer human, in any meaningful sense of the word.

There's more to being human, after all, than mere biology.
Why yes, yes you did. How has TCT hypothetically used violence to pick up a paper clip from your desk and put it to his own uses?