We took lessons from the Soviets and Chinese on torture

[Universe Prince]

Stress is placing the body in some form of duress, be it physical, mental, emotional, and/or psychological.  Abuse is the willful attempt at trying to bring completely unwarranted and over-the-top form of stress, simply to abuse & cause pain

Looks like stress is a merely a mild form of abuse. But what I'm not getting is the "simply to abuse & cause pain" part. If abuse-like measures are used for some other reason, is that not abuse?

Again, you need to go back to the beginning, since your version of torture is obviously different than mine.  Causing someone to be afraid is one of the best ways of interrogating. It causes no physical damage, and is not torture, in the sense that "torture" is historically understood to mean....dislocating of appendages, piercing body parts, burning flesh, pulling eyes out....THAT's torture

Ignoring for the moment your choice of omission when you quoted me, you seem to keep trying to make this all seem mild. I speak of severe psychological suffering, and you say, "Causing someone to be afraid". I'm not talking about spooking someone into confessions like a comedic cop show. I'm talking about causing severe psychological fear and trauma. Not all torture is physical. It doesn't have to be the Spanish Inquisition with hot pokers and racks to be torture, and I am not aware of any definition of torture that excludes intentionally causing mental anguish and/or psychological trauma or some variation thereof. Except, of course, yours, which seems unusually selective in both action and intent of the action.

[Universe Prince]

There is a certainty (no doubt whatsoever) that certain brutal and inhuman techniques will win his capitulation.

That is where you lost my suspension of disbelief. First, I don't know how that could possibly be certain. Second, even if there was a reasonable assurance that he would buckle under torture, there is no certainty that he would give accurate or even truthful information. I realize you probably see my objections as a dodge, but your hypothetical seems like a bit of a trap. If the only way to stop a terrorist was to send in your mother to have sex with the guy so she could blow both herself and the terrorist up with an exploding condom, would you do it? And if you say yes, does that mean you think sending mothers to have sex with and to explode terrorists in suicide attempts is a policy we should pursue in fighting terrorism?

[Amianthus]

Please, if you would, clarify for me the specific difference between 'stress' and 'abuse'.

Well, my job causes stress. Does that mean my employer is abusing me?

[Universe Prince]

Well, my job causes stress. Does that mean my employer is abusing me?

Probably not. Are you suggesting your job could be given to prisoners in order to make them give us information?

[Amianthus]

Probably not. Are you suggesting your job could be given to prisoners in order to make them give us information?

Well, not my job per se, because it requires clearances to access confidential data.

But some of the stuff that happens? Woken up randomly at all hours of the day and night, working long hours with very little sleep, that kind of stuff?

Sure.

[Universe Prince]

Woken up randomly at all hours of the day and night, working long hours with very little sleep, that kind of stuff?

Okay, for you, from your employer, we are calling that stress. But let's say the person doing that was not your boss, but your neighbor. Would you call it stress or abuse?

Another scenario. Your employer kept you locked in a jail cell, and you had no way to leave the job, and every day all day you were kept awake, able to get no more than a few moments of sleep at random intervals. Would that be stress, or abuse?

What about waterboarding? Is that stress or abuse? Or torture? What I have heard and read about waterboarding, it sounds like torture to me. But I've seen implications that it is no worse than being made to listen to rap music. I don't really see how the two are comparable, so I am trying to understand.

[gipper]

Employing your hypothetical with YOUR mother (policy forbids making such a decision regarding one's own family on conflict of interest grounds et al.), assuming the CERTAINTY of acquiring crucial, usable, "preemptive" intelligence on a timely basis, there are a number of factors to consider legitimately. Care to try, using yet another mother for the example?

[Universe Prince]

You broke your own "no dodges allowed" rule, Gipper.

[gipper]

Mine wasn't a dodge, as it didn't address my original hypothetical, to which the "no dodge" prescription applied. Instead, it was a recasting of your dodge. In the future, even for serious matters such as that addressed by my original hypothetical, just say, "Fuck it" and be done with the pretense. In the final analysis I discern that you have neither the capacity nor the courage to answer.

[Universe Prince]

Mine wasn't a dodge, as it didn't address my original hypothetical, to which the "no dodge" prescription applied. Instead, it was a recasting of your dodge.

Oh, I see. I gotta say though, it looks like you're still dodging.

In the future, even for serious matters such as that addressed by my original hypothetical, just say, "Fuck it" and be done with the pretense. In the final analysis I discern that you have neither the capacity nor the courage to answer.

Heh. That's funny. Apparently you have confused "the capacity" and "the courage to answer" with stupidity, and so I can't say I'm sorry to have disappointed you. Your hypothetical isn't relying on people to have courage to answer, but fear. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk and you have to torture someone to get the info to stop the danger, in other words, does the hypothetical threat scenario frighten you enough to agree to the use of torture to get the information. As I said before, it's a trap—one that, redressed and turned back on you, I noticed, you squirmed out of answering with excuses for which you then made more excuses. Anyway, who is going to answer with "no, I would rather let hundreds of thousands of people die than torture one person for information"? Obviously, the purpose of your unrealistic hypothetical is to get an answer that agrees with torture. And now you're passing judgment on my intelligence and courage because I didn't step into the trap. That's funny.

[gipper]

Intelligent discussion on the way to an answer, and then only for its heuristic value, is what the situation called for. Your simple ipse dixit leaves me, well, unenlightened.

[Universe Prince]

Intelligent discussion on the way to an answer, and then only for its heuristic value, is what the situation called for.

If you want intelligent discussion, then try starting there yourself. Your hypothetical, to put this very politely, was a poor choice for a heuristic tool. The completely unrealistic nature of your scenario is such that you might as well have posed one suggesting that we could use ordained priests armed with the power of Christ to compel terrorists to talk. Taking your hypothetical seriously is difficult because your hypothetical is implausible.

I'm glad you want intelligent discussion, but I'm not a rube you can manipulate with pseudo-Socratic hypotheticals. If you want to discuss ideas, then let's do that. If you want to know if there are any circumstances under which I would agree to the use of torture, then ask me. If all you want is to trick me or "heuristically" lead me into agreeing with torture, then I'm not interested.

Your simple ipse dixit leaves me, well, unenlightened.

Please, since you're so smart, point out the unsupported assertion. Otherwise, physician, heal thyself. So far your swagger looks like so much bluster and show.

[gipper]

Prince, to me at least, you are an oversensitive, overly-circumspect little paranoid pretender. The obvious and open intent of my suggested exercise is to determine whether in a theoretical world "extreme measures" in interrogation are ever justified.

[Lanya]

Question:   If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

[sirs]

Question:   If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Except for the point he wouldn't authorize such a barbaric terrorist-like act.  And the idea that someone would even think he could, demonstrates just how bad their BDS has gotten        This is the point I apparently couldn't make with Prince.  When I reference listening to rap music as a form of "torture" I would have a hard time with, it's not to directly compare it on an even keel with sleep deprivation or scaring the bejeebees out of someone you were interrogating.  Yet it's in this vane that folks on the left lay innuendo that sleep deprivation is akin to crushing children's testicles.