![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Torture is good for you.
May. 17th, 2005 10:04 amAccording to these people, not only is torture morally defensible, even praiseworthy, there is simply not enough of it around, and it really should, nay, must be legalised for the good of us all.
What got my attention was this:
It turns out that they were under surveillance. Therefore, so are you, and you are taken in for 'questioning'. Under this theory, it is not only morally fine, but necessary for you to be tortured to death for information you don't have, and possibly put your family at risk as well.
Not to mention that their entire thesis is based on the theory that torture returns accurate reliable data, which it doesn't.
Notice that I haven't included a single expletive here. This is because every one I thought of is insufficient. There is no expletive which can express my utter contempt for this theory.
Remember though, kids, lucky for us Academia is controlled in a rigorous, even Stalinist, fashion by the Left, so opinions like this can't possibly be published. So we should be thankful that we can determine ab initio that this paper Doesn't Exist. Thank goodness for that, eh?
Oooh, ooh, it might be said that the outpouring of contempt from most people on this is itself an example of Stalinist Groupthink in action. That would be ignoring the concept that people might be personally and individually repulsed by what amounts to the Malleus Maleficarum for the new age.
What the hell is going on, by the way, that when many people agree on a proposition, that this becomes prima facie evidence that that proposition is wrong? feh.
For those who have no access to The Age, and so that the true richness of this article is preserved forever:
( Here is the Article )
What got my attention was this:
Asked if he believed interrogators should be able to legally torture an innocent person to death if they had evidence the person knew about a major public threat, such as the September 11 attacks, Professor Bagaric replied: "Yes, you could."So... hypothetical: You overhear someone on a train. You don't actually hear any words, just that those two gentlemen are speaking quietly to each other. They see you, and come over. "If you say anything about this," they tell you, "we'll kill your family." Terrified, all you can do is agree, and assure them that you really did hear nothing.
It turns out that they were under surveillance. Therefore, so are you, and you are taken in for 'questioning'. Under this theory, it is not only morally fine, but necessary for you to be tortured to death for information you don't have, and possibly put your family at risk as well.
Not to mention that their entire thesis is based on the theory that torture returns accurate reliable data, which it doesn't.
Notice that I haven't included a single expletive here. This is because every one I thought of is insufficient. There is no expletive which can express my utter contempt for this theory.
Remember though, kids, lucky for us Academia is controlled in a rigorous, even Stalinist, fashion by the Left, so opinions like this can't possibly be published. So we should be thankful that we can determine ab initio that this paper Doesn't Exist. Thank goodness for that, eh?
Oooh, ooh, it might be said that the outpouring of contempt from most people on this is itself an example of Stalinist Groupthink in action. That would be ignoring the concept that people might be personally and individually repulsed by what amounts to the Malleus Maleficarum for the new age.
What the hell is going on, by the way, that when many people agree on a proposition, that this becomes prima facie evidence that that proposition is wrong? feh.
For those who have no access to The Age, and so that the true richness of this article is preserved forever:
( Here is the Article )
