Torture

[Ol' Dirty]

Hello, Freinds. I've been fiddling around on the execution boards, And I thaught it woulld be good to keep the two debates separate.

I think that intentionaly causing physical pain is evil, unethical and immoral, so it should not be done.

So, what do you guys think?

[Janus]

First off, morals must be examined in the social context of which they came from. The current morals are not timeless but rather the morals of the ruling class. Causing harm to another is considered wrong and I also believe that it should be avoided. Deontologists believe that morals are permanently defined and shouldn't change just because the circumstances change. Since this should be a philosophical debate, what would be your opinion if torturing someone would help another? A utiliarianist would approve of it since it would benefit the majority. So one should be more careful when one steps onto the grounds of morality. It is extremely important to question morality for yourself and not just listen to the dogma of those who justify their actions by waving the morality banner in the air.

[Ol' Dirty]

Very true. I agree, but my ideas may be a tad different. I believe that everything, moral, physical, "metaphysical", are changing constantly, and that people should adjust their morals with change. In a way, I am a supporter of evolution (not just the darwinist theories) and revolution. Also the "make yourself" comment was true. You seem of the intelectual type. Your typing does'nt look jumbled like everybody elses.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:54 AM
I think that intentionaly causing physical pain is evil, unethical and immoral, so it should not be done.

I disagree, I think that is some cases causing physical pain intentionally is moral, ethical, and good.

Here are a few I would love to cause pain to:

Henry Kissinger

Dick Cheaney

The Koch brothers

All members of the Bilderburger group

In the case of the innocent and those who have caused you no harm, yes it is evil. In the case of those in power who cause harm to millions it is justice.

[Xvall]

I think that intentionaly causing physical pain is evil, unethical and immoral, so it should not be done.

Well, since I don't believe in "evil" and am not "moral", only the "unethical" section applies. I guess it makes sense, though in this aspect any form of violence is "evil, unethical, and immoral". (Even punching someone is intentionally causing physical pain.) I don't like it when people do it to me, but I think I wouldn't feel to horrible doing it to someone else, if they upset me enough.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:54 AM
I think that intentionaly causing physical pain is evil, unethical and immoral, so it should not be done.
My reasoning is quite different.

If we are to build a new society, a Communist society, then it must be an equalitarian society, isn't it? So we wouldn't create a special caste of citizens in charge of inflicting physical pain into discontents, would we? And if so, the only way we could systematically inflict pain into discontents would be if the whole of the society would partake in the inflicting of physical pain, isn't it? Like, for instance, people taking turns into torture activities, or drawing sorts?

Then we would have to ask ourselves, "would I, personally, do that?"

Luís Henrique

[Ownthink]

I wouldn't advocate torture as a means to extract information because anyone could just make things up in order to stop the pain.

But torturing Nazis could be fun.

[Goatse]

Tickle them instead, apparently being tickled is worse than pain to some degree.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:28 PM
But torturing Nazis could be fun.
So, would you volunteer as a torturer?

Luís Henrique

[Ol' Dirty]

I define evil as:

Intentionaly causing offensive pain to another living thing.

I know it seems broad, but I think it makes sense. I believe it's better than letting it float around with no meaning.

[NSov]

To a certin degree that definition is abit too broad. Things like "Good" "Evil" "Justice" (even though plato makes a fair atempt at the last in "The Republic) are quite hard to define. The easiest thing is for someone to put forward a definition and someone else (me!) to come along and put holes in it!

Personal views effect attempts to define ideas such as this. Your own definition concerns pain, where as many others would define it as harming the enviornment or going against excepted social order. Then some would describe the "Jewish Bolshovic Conspiricy" as evil and many others would call communism evil.

Interesting theoratical qustion. Had Hitler won the second World War, would history books today teach of the evils of Churchill, De Gaulle and the american guy and would we except it as the "truth"?
Many ideas such as right, wrong, just, evil etc are established by the ruleing class.


As a means of extracting information I see no problem with the use of torture

[Ol' Dirty]

Well, what one has to consider is that definitions are not permanent. They are fluxuating constantly, often changing when someone new takes power, or when a new culture takes root.

Really, I think that we should all make our own definitions!

[redstar2000]

The problem with torture as a "tool" is that it is unreliable.

This was discovered during the "witch hunts" of the 14th-17th centuries...when entire villages "confessed" to witchcraft.

From a utilitarian standpoint, it seems to me that a society which "makes a place" for torture simply re-generates whatever "evil" it purports to "abolish".

The U.S. and British governments' practice of torturing "Islamic terrorists" will only generate more of them.

Just as the routine practice of torture on American citizens in American prisons can only generate, in the long run, more incredibly vicious criminals.

If one wishes to eradicate (or sharply diminish) some perceived "evil" from one's society, a quick and humane execution is far more effective.

Of course, different kinds of societies define "evil" in many different ways...most of which we on this board would vehemently disagree with.

But, for example, the most effective way to eliminate neo-Nazism from a revolutionary society is not torture or imprisonment; just shoot them until you can't find any more.

It won't take long. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Ol' Dirty]

If a neo-nazi has commited a hate crime, like killing a "minority", I think that he should have the shit shot out of him (or her, for that matter). But I think that the justice of the people is more powerful than that of the courts. I think that the local people should make a general consensus on if the person should be killed, and how he should be killed. And, the criminal should have to be shot within a year. In that case, the death penalty is in order.

Torture, however, is unethical, and should be abolished now! That is only the causing of senseless pain and misery.

Peace.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:30 PM
If a neo-nazi has commited a hate crime, like killing a "minority", I think that he should have the shit shot out of him (or her, for that matter). But I think that the justice of the people is more powerful than that of the courts. I think that the local people should make a general consensus on if the person should be killed, and how he should be killed. And, the criminal should have to be shot within a year. In that case, the death penalty is in order.

Torture, however, is unethical, and should be abolished now! That is only the causing of senseless pain and misery.

Peace.
with the discussion on nazis, they would most likely have a trial. but as the recent events in Toledo Ohio show, the community's consensus is LYNCH THE FUCKERS. :lol:

[Ol' Dirty]

I disagree with the lynching part, but other than that...

Kill the *****es! :lol:

Peace.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Jan 2 2006, 02:03 PM--> (Luís Henrique @ Jan 2 2006, 02:03 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 06:28 PM
But torturing Nazis could be fun.
So, would you volunteer as a torturer?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Maybe, if I felt the need to or needed to exert some anger or something.

[Janus]

Redstar is right, torture has never actually succeeded in the long run. For example, take the Algerian War of Independence: the French got their answers through their brutal use of torture but that didn't help them to win the war. Simply put, torture has greater repercussions and negative consequences than benefits.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:08 AM
The problem with torture as a "tool" is that it is unreliable.

This was discovered during the "witch hunts" of the 14th-17th centuries...when entire villages "confessed" to witchcraft.

From a utilitarian standpoint, it seems to me that a society which "makes a place" for torture simply re-generates whatever "evil" it purports to "abolish".

The U.S. and British governments' practice of torturing "Islamic terrorists" will only generate more of them.

Just as the routine practice of torture on American citizens in American prisons can only generate, in the long run, more incredibly vicious criminals.

If one wishes to eradicate (or sharply diminish) some perceived "evil" from one's society, a quick and humane execution is far more effective.

Of course, different kinds of societies define "evil" in many different ways...most of which we on this board would vehemently disagree with.

But, for example, the most effective way to eliminate neo-Nazism from a revolutionary society is not torture or imprisonment; just shoot them until you can't find any more.

It won't take long. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Correct, I got to view a Central American school recently where I observed one of the teachers hit the kids.

The child would cry then become more violently aggressive to other children. I explained this to the teacher and helped her to find other means of discipline. But after the children learned what she had done was wrong there was a lot of resistance and the children, very young, became angry and rebellious to her.

A natural process. If you oppress, others will rise against you. How can you be an oppressor and a revolutionary at the same time? Times when this hypocrisy has existed such as Lenin against the Anarchists, are the times that are anti-Communists thrive on.

If you are going to talk the talk you must walk the walk, that means no oppression.

It is sad that those in the Global North could be so limited in their thinking while those in the Global South such as India and Nicaragua espouse the revenge of love and forgiveness against enemies who raped and killed their families personally upon their return to the village.

Prosecution yes, revenge of violence no. The change of heart of those who were forgiven by those they oppressed, and their reacceptance into village culture have been some of the most amazing experiences on this planet. Please educate yourself to this phenomena. It was one of the powerful positive platforms of the Sandinista, the Zapatista also practice some of this, although they still isolate such people out of necessity.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Pandora
It is sad that those in the Global North could be so limited in their thinking while those in the Global South such as India and Nicaragua espouse the revenge of love and forgiveness against enemies who raped and killed their families personally upon their return to the village.

Well there are a lot of cultural differences between the "Global North" (mostly advanced capitalism) and the "Global South" (mostly pre-capitalist or early capitalist societies).

I can simply not imagine why people would "love and forgive" those who did really bad things to them or to their loved ones.

Indeed, what I have found myself on this board arguing against is torture as vengeance.

I think that if people are entitled to vengeance, it should be limited to a swift and painless execution...the infliction of protracted suffering on others is both unjustified and harmful to oneself.

I'm especially skeptical of the idea of accepting those who are known to have done violent things to others "back into the community".

How does one know that they won't do it again?

I read an essay once about a guy in Montevideo (Uruguay) who discovered that he lived only a few blocks away from one of the bastards who tortured him back in the 1970s. He sees this sadistic asshole in the marketplace or on the streets once or twice a week. (!)

He looked in the bastard's eyes and saw the signs of mutual recognition.

How is it that the torture victim is not tormented by nightmares? Or by waking memories, for that matter.

How can he stand to see this vicious turd freely walking the streets?

Why doesn't he kill him immediately?

Perhaps this is due to a major cultural difference between the "Global South" and the "Global North".

If it is, I think it likely that the "Northern" idea is probably going to prevail.

No one has any right to inflict violence on us or even threaten to do that.

But if they do, we have every right to stop them from ever doing it again...to anybody!

We have a right to a life free from fear of violence.

And if that means painlessly executing the violent among us, then I think that's what we should do.

Torture is unnecessary.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redchrisfalling]

not only is torture unnecessary, it is inecsusable. There is no reson for any human to torture any other human. Even nazis, facists, capitalists, etc.. are entitled to basic human rights. And what is all this about "not haveing morals" any one who says that is full of shit and would not be posting on this sight if it were true. I don't care about a dictionary definitions of the word, morals are a personal belife that one thing is right and/or one thing is wrong. Killing people is bad, thats a moral. Loveing all humans equaly, thats a moral. Humans deserve to be free, the current system is wrong, capitalism needs to be abolished, these are all morals. And if you live by your personal belifes that causeing pain is a bad thing there is no reson for you to torture. So if no one deserves to be tortured and no one wants to torture why not draw the line there, NO TORTURE!

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Jan 4 2006, 01:46 AM--> (Ownthink @ Jan 4 2006, 01:46 AM)
Luís [email protected] 2 2006, 02:03 PM
So, would you volunteer as a torturer?

Luís Henrique
Maybe, if I felt the need to or needed to exert some anger or something. [/b]
Would you, for instance, apply electric shocks to the genitals of other people "to exert some anger"? Would you impale them? Would you, perhaps, do those things to their children or sexual partners?

Luís Henrique

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Jan 6 2006, 07:07 PM--> (Luís Henrique @ Jan 6 2006, 07:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:46 AM

Luís [email protected] 2 2006, 02:03 PM
So, would you volunteer as a torturer?

Luís Henrique
Maybe, if I felt the need to or needed to exert some anger or something.
Would you, for instance, apply electric shocks to the genitals of other people "to exert some anger"? Would you impale them? Would you, perhaps, do those things to their children or sexual partners?

Luís Henrique [/b]
No. I would probably just shoot them. Now that I think of it, I don't want to open any doors that should probably left closed.

A bullet is cheap and effective.

[drain.you]

Don't think theres any need for physical pain really and even less for torture.
I don't want to torture nazis because of what they believe, I just want to keep far away from them, if I had control of a leftist state I would exile people who appear to be nazis.
Evidence and information recieved from torture is less reliable than that gained through positive stimulation such as bribes and rewards. People under immense pain will admit to anything and say whatever they think is necessary so that the pain will stop. Torture is a waste of time and morally wrong to me.
I don't believe in capital punishment and murder as a solution but I would prefer to kill a person than to torture them.
Causing physical pain can does two main things, 1) Hurts someone 2) Releases anger and may make someone feel better about themselves.
Both of which I think are pointless.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 02:33 AM
A utiliarianist would approve of it since it would benefit the majority.
no they wouldnt. torture decreases pleasure by making people paranoid, and, dodgy though his political views were, john stuart mill would almost certainly dismiss it as his motto was "do whatever you like, as long as it doesnt harm anyone else. of couse this motto has been raped by his "followers", as the capitalist system has always caused harm to the working class.

[Tormented by Treachery]

I think all of those that replied to the thread about lynching or torturing Nazis and such are being a tad bit hypocritical. Were the political prisoners in WWII Germany not imprisoned and killed for their beliefs? And would that not be condemnable now? I can definitely see killing the nazis that have committed atrocities, but killing them merely for their political views is nothing more than a twisted role reversal where we find ourselves living in our own fascist state.

Torture, as a whole, has but one objective: To gain information.

Any other objective is for sick human pleasure, and when someone else's life lays in the hands of another man's pleasure, we have a situation similar to that of, I don't know, the capitalist pig and the working man being tortured for the rich man's pleasure?

Therefore, if torture does Not gain the information, which I think it is fairly well established that it doesn't, then what end does it serve? What is accomplished through the deed? You've got your pleasure. You've dawned your swastika, and you have stolen the very uniform from his back.

If/When the revolution occurs, and we have these capitalists, these rapists, these nazis lined up, it will be completely righteous to put exactly one bullet in each man's heart or head, the choice being their own. Especially if your goal is to unite a nation under a communist flag, to bring forth every man as a brother, you need not instate paranoia and fear. With this gives rise to totalitarianism. If you instate discontent and suppress the expression of opposing political views, what have you for a government?

[Ol' Dirty]

I agree, torture seldom gets the torturers any relieble info on their enemies.

[hemybel]

the working class hero is something to be
- john lennon