dimreepr

Not my problem that you can't see the parallels... 😉 It is for him...

I'm pretty far from OK...

Mr Bush was just an aperitif... He was subject to satire, not a source of it... 😉

All we know for sure is, Putin's gone full on Trump and we're in for a bumpy ride...

It depends on why you think it's a strawman...

Only you catching them in the act can determine 100% guilt without trial, and given the time limit set by the OP, it has to be you that administers the torture (you're not trained and if you get someone else to do it, how do they know your not lying?), and given the OP, torture would be unnecessary since you'd have also secured the child/bomb. Point's 2 and 3 are therefore irrelevant.

The answer remains, we can't predict when that 0.01% will be effective, it's like saying "if we torture everyone, then one day I'll be right, and when that day arrives it will be right to torture that person". FFS take a day off, having a point of view that you don't agree with, is not being obtuse!!! especially since you brought up the American "war on terrorism". Which is like declaring war on your own imagination and torturing yourself...

It's never well explained, or everyone would get it...

So, it doesn't make them happy, just glad to be rid of the memory's...

Well, we all seem to agree that torture is wrong; and I'm quite happy that I haven't tortured anybody. I can't know how I'd feel if I had, but I bet I'm not going to be happy about it.

What's possitive about torture? I'm only dismissing the possibilty that you can know the consequences, of your action's; what I think is, if you do the wrong thing, you'll probably regret it... There's no reason to use torture, just a list of excuses...

You can't compare the odds, that's my point; maybe one of the maths geniuses can explain it properly. As per @Prometheus argument, it's possible that killing the next person you see, will save millions of lives, but you can never know. That's the excuse America used to torture people without trial, the thing is, the people involved were all dead... That's another thing you can't possible know, how you'd react in that scenario, however much you imagine how you'd be a hero, you can't image reality...

"I stated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 'among the most unspeakable crimes in history.' I took no position on just where they stand on the scale of horrors relative to Auschwitz, the bombing of Chungking, Lidice, and so on." -Noam Chomsky If you think hard enough you can justify anything...

If your best mate is the newest superpower, you're gonna want to stand behind them, while flipping the bird.

What an excellent question +1 It is the very essence of justice; do I deserve to suffer because I've made a mistake or do I deserve the chance to feel pleasure, if I'm sorry and I've paid my penance?

Here's a what if for you; you have to torture your own, possibly innocent child, severely enough to extract the correct information in time to save a million people you've never met?

But we're not talking about a lottery, that someone wins every week, we're talking about deliberately hurting, and potentially killing, a possibly innocent person, without a trial; it's jedwood justice, unless you think mob rule work's. And the excuse has, to my knowledge, never happened and is never likely to happen, no if's or but's (perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary). Would you still be advocating for torture, on the off chance (by which I mean incalculable odd's of success) if the potentially innocent person is you or your child/loved one?

"lord what fools these mortals be"

None of us are innocent, we're all guilty of being humans...

That only work's for the survivors... Free will is limited: Our enviroment, our diet, our teacher's etc... But we have to believe our choices matter, otherwise what's the point...

So, your imagined unreal situation is correct and anyone who disagrees is being obtuse? You need to get a new definition...

There's many a hole in the OP; it's like saying "If the ball goes in the net, it will be a goal". It's not a realistic question, for many a reason as pointed out by other member's. 1. Torture is an unreliable way to extract information, as pointed out by @John Cuthber, you either get the information you want (because they'll say anything you want them too), or you get no information at all (a terrorist/priest is an extremely committed extremist). 2. The only way too ascertain guilt with certainty is to catch them in the act and as @Peterkin pointed out, if you've got the perp, you've got the victim/bomb. 3. Even if we ignore point's 1 and 2, there's a time limit, so they only have to suffer until the clock ticks down to zero. 4. Apparently, we all agree that torture is morally wrong; so when the clock reaches zero, whatever the consequences, we have to stop the torture, because that would be revenge. The only logical conclusion is, torture is only right in a scenario that will never exist. It's funny that you'd think that, because you haven't answered my questions... I came here for an argument, not abuse...

There's no other way of empathising.

Sniff it, if it smells bad don't eat it...

😁