Hello F(r)iends,
Is torture wrong? Why or why not?
Do you oppose torture? If so, why?
Are there any circumstances that could merit the use of torture methods?
-Thirst
I’ll try to answer your questions as you posed them.
-
I don’t believe torture per se is wrong, but I might be forced to prevent it if my job required. I believe torture is an inhumane way of treating people, but some people may no longer deserve to treated as humans - or even as animals.
-
No, if it is necessary and effective. I don’t generally oppose anything that accomplishes the job, provided the job is relevant and important to me.
-
Yes, many.
What if I were tortured?
Would I want to be tortured? No, absolutely not.
Would I understand it to be a necessary method to retrieve information I held that I wouldn’t normally divulge? Probably.
Would I lie if I were tortured? More than likely, making the information retrieved very questionable.
Is torture a productive method to retrieve information? Not if my personal beliefs are widely shared.
Would I be able to hold to my personal beliefs under torture? I don’t know.
Overall I don’t think torture is an effective means of extracting reliable info. It may be effective to break someones spirit, though. Torture is certainly distasteful, but I stop just short of saying it’s never justified.
Yeah…mostly what he said.
I think most everyone, if they tried real hard, could come up with a scenario wherein torture is justified. Of course, extracting information is not the only reason people are tortured. And torture itself, left undefined, is in the eye of the beholder. Reading Thirst’s questions right now, in the context of recent political news, a certain image comes to mind. But torture can be, evidently, mishandling a book (another loaded concept) or forcing a person to watch Friends incessantly (my greatest fear).
I have envisioned more than one poster here turning slowly on a spit, not to extract a statement, but to prevent any further ones.
Faust: 
Torture can be abolished if you use the right chemicals to extract a truth.
But it just does not carry the same impact. If you tell a person you are going to drug them to get the truth its hardly piss your pants scary, they more or less force you to use that taxpaid $5,000 injection and really, so you get the truth,big deal, it just lacks that certain something. Now torture is cheap and a more hands on aproach, of course its not nearly as effective but, apparantly much more satisfying.
Edit note:
I just thought of a way to keep divorce rates down and save parental savings accounts. Before the wedding takes place and actual money is spent on a ceremony, the parents should invest in a few doses of truth serum for the soon to be married couple, that ought to stop a few poorly thought out plans of marriage and make Dads much happier
LoL. Why you hate Friends so much? And please answer logically and not sarcasticly. I really want to know what do you think is bad about Friends.
Its my favorite program.
Kris - I have the same doubts as you that torture is always effective, but again, it’s a vague term to begin with. If I know nine of ten facts about something, and I know that I know nine of those facts, and I can recognise the tenth, or at least what cannot be the tenth factor, then I can judge the effectiveness of torture in a given instance.
Let’s say I am trying to break a code (and this does not have to be a literal code) and I know that I have most of it. I suspect that you have the missing piece. I can, in many cases, verify the information that you give me under torture - or threat of torture. Now, I do not know that you have that information, but I know that someone does. If you do have it, and you know that I can verify what you tell me, it is in your interest to tell me the truth. How often this comes up, or something like this comes up, I do not know.
I do know that the screams of the guy in the next room can be more persuasive than the idea that I will be injected with something, if I am a candidate for being tortured. Again, let’s not get bogged down too much in the movie version of torture. Torture is not always a three-hour physical and mental beating. Torture can take many forms, and is usually a longterm undertaking. It is, in essence, a form of conditioning. I am not sure where we might actually draw the line here. Your injections would not be considered humane, or legal, if administered to a common felon that is also a US citizen.
eugene - I hate friends because it is not remotely funny, and is an insult to my intelligence - it is a nonstory about six bland, superficial, uninteresting, sexdriven, unregenerate, boring, stupid, consumerist, plastic, dull, selfcentered morons. It is the protypical american television demographic epitomised. It represents everything about american life that I abhor. It is what Seinfeld parodied. It is post-sitcom, but without humor - self-referential and People-Magazine driven. It is entirely nauseating.
It was a tongue in cheek comment, Faust, I agree with you a hundred percent. I find scrubbing a toilet disgusting but I still must do it. Not all things that are neccessary feel good or sit right. So until I can afford a maid or a robot, I scrub toilets and until a better way is found , interrogators must do what they do, I doubt if they sleep well anyway, the things they have to simply know would be disturbing enough without having to act upon it. Then just think of the weight of the info they do extract. Their job is to know the truth when they hear it. what if they are wrong? That could be hard to live with. I sincerely doubt most interrogators enjoy what they do.
Oh, I don’t know. The producers of Friends may enjoy their work.
Oh Faust admit it though the dingy blonde was the best. Her lines were good, funny accurate and rarely P.C. She nailed that part. She was the only one worth watching.
But Friends represents the life of most young people, and not only Americans.
A bunch of friends with different characters. Yes they are consumerists, but so is our society. sexdriven? Of course, they are young. We are all sex driven. selfcentered? And again, who is not? Besides they aren’t really selfcentered, they always support each other, too much I think. Sometimes they don’t but its just for the comical effect.
I actually like the humour a lot, its very language driven, and I like it. But I understand that its a matter of taste.
Yes, I think they are boring, I wouldn’t want friends like that, you wouldn’t be able to talk about anything serious with them. But most people are like that, not many are interested in science or philosophy. Besides its a light sitcom, it shouldn’t be too serious.
I will admit that that actress has comedic talent. If anyone was worth watching it was she. But this is like listening to an entire Captain and Tenille album because there is one good intro. Which there isn’t, I’m sure. But you get the point.
eugene - why should I watch if it’s just like real life? I could simply spend a half hour at the mall every week. At least I could come home with something. Oh, and different characters? The two boys that live together - you can actually tell them apart?
LOL Are they not dead yet? their music is. When I said she was the only one worth watching well that should lead you to know I couldn’t sit and watch the whole thing at anytime, Seinfeld just out and out annoyed me.
There simply are not any good sitcoms.
I guess if I were to be tortured they could put me in front of Barney reruns, Mister Rogers and telly tubbies. Within the hour I would be coughing up any info they wanted.
Question: Don’t they play rock music to weaken prisoners?
I have heard about the music thing, which might be a good example of the problem of where we draw the line. Torture is a form of conditioning. But so are other techniques of interrogation. Which are torture and which are not? Should the Friends Service Committee decide? Should Congress? Should the President? The voters? How many of those entities were part of the decision to go to war in the first place? Was Congress angling for war on principle, or because they were really angling for voters? Is it better to capture and torture, or just kill enemy combatants? What does “better” mean - more humane or more moral or more effective towards the end (and ends) of war?
Did we enter the current war on some moral principle, or to save our skins? If it’s the latter, then the enemy’s skin is worth less than our own, it would seem. If it was principle, then winning doesn’t count as much - the principles we are fighting for do. The former is an act of self-defense. The latter is a crusade. Can it be both? A moral stance of war and torture that accomodates both reasons for the war is going to be a problematic one.
Yes, they are very distinct, and I know real people who are like them.
Why you read books or watch movies?
Friends is a comedy/drama.
Naturally if you don’t like the humour you wouldn’t want to see it. But because its a long long series, the characters become almost real, so its like having more real life friends. Which is pathetic but nice, especially when they are so funny.
Is torture wrong?
Yes.
Why or why not?
It demeans and degrades life.
Do you oppose torture?
Yes.
If so, why?
Answered above.
Are there any circumstances that could merit the use of torture methods?
There are absolutely no circumstances that merit the use of torture.
I think nothing is sacred. Neither is democracy, freedom, love, hate, life, whatever.
So yes, they are circumstances which justify torture. But they must meet the right criterias. Only if torture will save lives, and the one being tortured deserves strong punishment anyway, then its ok.