Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't answer that question, as you can't. And to me, that's part of the problem with this whole scenario.
Part of me would rather be right only 10% of the time than ignore everything. But we can also become so busy pursuing the false 90% that we miss the 10% anyway.
If I gave you a list of ten statements and told you that one of them is true, would you know any more than you did before? If I told you that maybe one is true, and maybe they are all false, how much closer have you come to finding out which one, if any, is true?
If I gave you a list of ten statements and told you that one of them is true, would you know any more than you did before? If I told you that maybe one is true, and maybe they are all false, how much closer have you come to finding out which one, if any, is true?
On the other hand, if I'm looking for a briefcase full of money, and you give me 10 locations - only 1 of which is true - am I out anything by not finding the briefcase at the 9 incorrect locations?
We have another motivation for torture also: deterrent. This was usually a situation where the condemned was put to death in a very brutal, torturous way (hung, drawn and quartered; burned at the stake; impaled; etc) rather than just tortured, so that the general populous had an ‘example’ of what they could look forward to for a similar infraction against the state. In this case, it tended not to matter what the ‘torturee’ said--perhaps saving him/her a few extra minutes of agony if anything at all. The more brutal the method the ‘better’ for the state. And unfortunately, I’d assume in this capacity, torture was a far more effective tool than it is to gain information.
That's a very interesting point! How would we know, though, whether it worked as a deterrent?
My gut feeling is that torture has more to do with blood-lust and revenge than any real, useful and practical purpose. But I could be wrong.
Can anyone withstand torture? That's not really the purpose of torture. It doesn't matter if you are a massive hulk with the nervous system of a dinosaur, or a Caspar Milquetoast who will cry if someone slaps you, the purpose of torture is to ensure that the victim knows who is in charge and that the torturer can (and might) do whatever they want to you. And that, if left alone, they eventually will. It's not the truth they're after - it is a power play. What you reveal - or don't - is all too often secondary. The mental and emotional breakdown of the victim's humanity is what the torturer wants, and the quickest way to do that is physically. Not always the most effective - but the quickest.
I too think that the word "torture" is very VERY overused. A lot of what has been passed off recently as "torture" is nothing more than ill-educated and half-arsed attempts at emotional battery; totally non-productive and simplistic.
On the other hand, if I'm looking for a briefcase full of money, and you give me 10 locations - only 1 of which is true - am I out anything by not finding the briefcase at the 9 incorrect locations?
Depends on how many people you have to torture to take the other nine briefcases from them and inspect the contents. And it depends on how sure you are that one of the statements is true. If A gives you zero true statements out of ten, and B gives you two out of ten, you can waste a lot of time checking out A's stories.
If he gives you the names of ten accomplices, and only one is a true terrorist, you still have to torture all ten of them to find the right one. So torturing one man has forced you to torture ten, who can force you to torture 100. But of course, nobody minds, because torturing is being done for fun, not for information. By what Al Franken calls "Hillbilly wimmen-folk pointing at your weenie".
Did he mis-characterize that observation somehow? Or was he the only person in all of punditdom who looked at those pictures and told us what he really saw?
Did he mis-characterize that observation somehow? Or was he the only person in all of punditdom who looked at those pictures and told us what he really saw?
Looks like few wanted to actually answer your question.
Since I'm not 'macho" I will.
I'd like to think I could withstand the pain to save my loved ones since ordinarily I am quite stoic but just the thought of slivers under my fingernails or that dental thing from Marathon Man makes me think I might offer up my entire family in 3 seconds.
I think this is one of those things you can't really know until it occurs no matter how 'strong' you'd like to think you are.
On the other hand, when I get qualms about doing something potentially harmful....like going up a shaky ladder or bungy jumping..the memory I get is not one of pain from previous accidents but that sudden helpless sense of loss of control before the pain even begins. So perhaps, with torture, the ability to be able to make the choice would allow tolerating the pain.
Yes, especially if he didn't have any information.
Besidez, would you believe anyone who squealed at the 1st sign of pain?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, especially if he didn't have any information.
Besidez, would you believe anyone who squealed at the 1st sign of pain?
