Suppose you tortured someone

[Ghost of the dead horse]

How would you do the interviews to find out what they knew?

 

[Jaguar]

Why the hell would I have to torture someone to find out what I want to know? I'm not wired for that crazy shit, man.

 

[FemMecha]

Doesn't torturing someone just make them tell you what you want to hear even if they don't know anything? I think it's stupid and mean.

 

[Coriolis]

Torture has been shown to be ineffective in getting at the truth. People will say whatever will make the torture stop, which means they are often saying simply what they think the torturer wants to hear.

 

[FemMecha]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]
We typed our posts at almost the exact second. Surfing the same brain wave.

 

[highlander]

Doesn't torturing someone just make them tell you what you want to hear even if they don't know anything? I think it's stupid and mean.

That's what seems to be the conclusion from what happened after 9/11 with the water boarding and all that. Worthless.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Suppose further that someone from apparently organized crimes had approached your family to do violence on you. You don't know what issue this is related to. You had a minor dispute over a payment in some job. Then you were employed with someone who also had problems with you. Then a friend of friend made a contact with you and there was a whatsapp message to deliver the package to the said location, or else. Now you've done nothing. But someone surely wanted to do violence on your family. Wouldn't you want to interview that person to find out what was that person's problems related to, and how you are related to that?

Do I need to tell this is make-believe and an exercise, and not an actual situation?

Wait, the guy in the basement is wailing. I have to get back to him

 

[Jaguar]

You do realize you post is coming across as gibberish, right?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Don't you have the will to decipher. It isn't like there's lack of substance

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

If it helps, lets make this a philosophical question.

Suppose you've lived a nice life with no major arguments with anyone. However, someone is threatening you with mafia-like violence and you now have him captured. You don't know where he came from but you have three suspects.

*One guy is in dispute over a plumbing job
*Someone doesn't like how you cleaned his car
*Someone wanted some goods transported for him and they are not there

So, the guy was supposed to do violence on your family as a revenge on something, but now that he's captured, he's not willing to talk. How would you find out which of the three possible grievances that guy has on his mind? Can we trust what he is going to say? Is there a way to approach the truth? So tell your non-torture ways of finding this out. Why was this guy on your lawn threatening on your family, and he was definitely going to do something. We got him tied now so he's not going anywhere. What can we do to find out why he approached these premises?

 

[Lark]

That's what seems to be the conclusion from what happened after 9/11 with the water boarding and all that. Worthless.

Yeah, I was about to say that, worthless.

 

[Lark]

You do realize you post is coming across as gibberish, right?

Yeah.

So much yeah.

Its either the drugs or drink.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't you have the will to decipher. It isn't like there's lack of substance

You can say that again, you should lay of the substance before you post and then maybe people might understand what you're writing about.

 

[Lark]

If it helps, lets make this a philosophical question.

Suppose you've lived a nice life with no major arguments with anyone. However, someone is threatening you with mafia-like violence and you now have him captured. You don't know where he came from but you have three suspects.

*One guy is in dispute over a plumbing job
*Someone doesn't like how you cleaned his car
*Someone wanted some goods transported for him and they are not there

So, the guy was supposed to do violence on your family as a revenge on something, but now that he's captured, he's not willing to talk. How would you find out which of the three possible grievances that guy has on his mind? Can we trust what he is going to say? Is there a way to approach the truth? So tell your non-torture ways of finding this out. Why was this guy on your lawn threatening on your family, and he was definitely going to do something. We got him tied now so he's not going anywhere. What can we do to find out why he approached these premises?

None of those three scenarios is even worth detaining someone let alone torturing them.

Sounds like whatever way you cut it the risk of violence to your loved ones is a consequence of your actions, illegally detaining and torturing someone is in the same style of the lousy decision making that made you a target in the first place and is only likely to make you more of a target.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

So, an interview of Lark

*How do you like being a big troll against someone who's investigating anything?
*Why did you mention drugs? Is that because drugs are an issue for you?
*Why did you approach my family with a baseball bat?

*For the record, this conversation is for play, I do not suggest Lark has done anything to offend me.

And.. for the post post scriptum.. u USA guys really has your ass sore over all the real torturing scandal backslash that has come over you in the past few decades, so you can't help but to be the big whiny social bastard that you are, complaining how all the social niceties you imagine are not realized with a given philosophy. So. Take your sore asses for a 20 year walk. I'm going out of here.

Any drugs I had before joining this conversation are going to be with me as I leave. Thank you.

You have way more issues to handle than someone's drugs.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Torture has been shown to be ineffective in getting at the truth. People will say whatever will make the torture stop, which means they are often saying simply what they think the torturer wants to hear.

Doesn't torturing someone just make them tell you what you want to hear even if they don't know anything? I think it's stupid and mean.

This stands only if you don't know how to do it right. First you torture, then you write everything down and check in reality, however if the story doesn't stick to reality you torture again.


(Btw. I am not a fan of torture)

If it helps, lets make this a philosophical question.

Suppose you've lived a nice life with no major arguments with anyone. However, someone is threatening you with mafia-like violence and you now have him captured. You don't know where he came from but you have three suspects.

*One guy is in dispute over a plumbing job
*Someone doesn't like how you cleaned his car
*Someone wanted some goods transported for him and they are not there

So, the guy was supposed to do violence on your family as a revenge on something, but now that he's captured, he's not willing to talk. How would you find out which of the three possible grievances that guy has on his mind? Can we trust what he is going to say? Is there a way to approach the truth? So tell your non-torture ways of finding this out. Why was this guy on your lawn threatening on your family, and he was definitely going to do something. We got him tied now so he's not going anywhere. What can we do to find out why he approached these premises?

In my country we just call the cops for this kind of stuff. (I am not BS)

 

[Maou]

If someone was threatening my family, and I had him hog tied in my living room. Id first clarify why he was angry. Then I would try to amend the situation. I wouldn't even need to torture them, because kindness can turn someone. I would hope we came to an understanding, then let him go. If he still tries to attack my family, I'd shoot him and call the cops.

 

[FemMecha]

l;

This stands only if you don't know how to do it right. First you torture, then you write everything down and check in reality, however if the story doesn't stick to reality you torture again.

(Btw. I am not a fan of torture)

Placing someone in that sort of compromised psychological state is not placing them in an objective mindframe. I would become quite confused about reality if someone was torturing me. I don't think I could recite facts and figures or objectively state the reality of the situation. ...and this article corroborates what I said intuitively.

The neuroscience of interrogation: Why torture doesn’t work | New Scientist

As O’Mara emphasises, torture does not produce reliable information largely because of the severity with which it impairs the ability to think. Extreme pain, cold, sleep deprivation and fear of torture itself all damage memory, mood and cognition. Torture does not persuade people to make a reasoned decision to cooperate, but produces panic, dissociation, unconsciousness and long-term neurological damage. It also produces an intense desire to keep talking to prevent further torture.

O’Mara quotes an intelligence officer’s story about a 60-year-old torture survivor in Cambodia: “He told his interrogators everything they wanted to know, including the truth. In torture, he confessed to being everything from a hermaphrodite, and a CIA spy to a Catholic bishop and the King of Cambodia’s son. He was actually just a school teacher whose crime was that he once spoke French.”

Read more: The neuroscience of interrogation: Why torture doesn’t work | New Scientist

 

[Virtual ghost]

l;Placing someone in that sort of compromised psychological state is not placing them in an objective mindframe. I would become quite confused about reality if someone was torturing me. I don't think I could recite facts and figures or objectively state the reality of the situation. ...and this article corroborates what I said intuitively.

The neuroscience of interrogation: Why torture doesn’t work | New Scientist

I can add some decent extra layers to my post and dissect quite a bit, but I wouldn't. Since then it would look as I am advocating torture, what simply isn't the case.

 

[The Cat]

It entirely depends on the person I'm going to break.

 

[EcK]

That's what seems to be the conclusion from what happened after 9/11 with the water boarding and all that. Worthless.

Well I mean I'd assume it's not as simple as that.
ie: torture would make an innocent person anything to make it stop, but it would also be likely to make a guilty person say what they know.
So I'd say it's a shitty tool to discover who is guilty but it's not necessarily that terrible at getting the truth out of the guilty.

Now the issue is you might get the truth and plenty of bullshit with it - but still noteworthy.

btw: I am not for torture, just being an ENTP here.