[Closed] Torture - is it ever justified?

surfer says it is. I would like him to define the boundaries.

Is that a question?

If so fine I can answer that quite easily. Given the outrageous example I mentioned I would probably be the case that anything goes to gain the information. If threatening to give him a "good talking too" got a result then great.

if you torture someone committed to the cause they won't tell you anything useful
if you torture someone not committed to the cause they'll tell you anything to make you stop

great method for keeping us all safe

If you say so 🙄

if you have to torture 100 people to save one life its worth that persons life, to them and their family

how do you like them apples 😉

Zulu - I have given you the only possible answer. I am sorry you are unable to understand.

No TJ, you've quite specifically and repeatedly [b]avoided[/b] answering the question, all you have said is that the answer is obvious, and tried to waffle about moral compasses

Its a simple, categoric and specific question, yes or no answer

International law prohibits "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...
What exactly constitutes severe pain or suffering?

[b]as an example does, in your opinion, sleep deprivation, fulfil the legal definition of torture[/b]?

Now, please answer that specific single question, in your opinion does sleep deprivation, legally, amount to torture?

Yep.

Not answering for TJ, btw, im sure he can fight his own battles.

and refering to law doesnt help us here because we are interested in your "moral compass"

im sure he can fight his own battles

he's a categorically imperative pacifist. He'll not fight.
In fact he's a bit of a Kant.

Did I spell that right?

Clong, does Ton sitting on your chest and tickling you with grass constitute tortue? Does placing somebodies arm up their back repeatedly constitute tortue?

I suspect they both do however I dont need laws to tell me I am hurting people or that in most instances it is wrong to do so. Being a paid up member of the human race tells me this. I dont need to refer to a law to make that judgement.

They are morally identical situations

they are all theft bit not all identical unless you lack the power to differentiate IMHO Yes I disagree it does not have to be universalizable only a Kant would disagree - so many gags with this one 😉
I would say utility -utilitarianism saysthat in some cases this justifies it - maximum good etc

I think these are the key issues that the pro tortures won't or are unable to answer. Morals seem easy to define until you start looking deeply at tehm

TandemJeremy - Member

So if you think it is acceptable to torture one person to save thousands. but not to torture thousands of people to save one here are some more awkward questions.

1) can you define a moral difference between the two situations?
2) is torturing one person to save one acceptable?

3) is torturing thousands to save thousands acceptable?

4) How many people need to be at risk to justify the torture?

the categorical imperative is the key concept I believe here

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

If you apply the tests of the categorical imperative to torture you get the position I arrive at. It can never be justifiable for if it is justifiable in one context then it must be justifiable in all.

IE if it is justifiable to torture one person to save thousands than it is also justifiable to torture thousands to save one. They are morally identical situations.

TJ you offer so little in return 😥

By making up scenarios your nor contrbuting.

Answer the questions youve asked regarding what constitutes torture (without refering to law)

E if it is justifiable to torture one person to save thousands than it is also justifiable to torture thousands to save one. They are morally identical situations.

Beacuse you can quote it doesnt really make it so! I would not agree they are the same and I suspect most people would feel the same way. You can kid yourself into thinking these decisions arent being made in your name if you want but I think we all know the truth. I'm just not as ready to hide behind legislation and call it a "moral" approach,

surfer - the legal definition is clear to me. I cannot explain it any better. I can give no other answer

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted is torture.

You will not answer direct questions to you

if its wrong in one circumstance it is wrong in all circumstances.

Does this also mean that you are against red light jumping in all circumstances?

Dogsby

 

You will not answer direct questions to you

I've answered them, what ones are outstanding?

Nice debating point dogsby.

The answer is no - the circumstance that decides is my safety. Teh question is " what maximises my safety here?"

So at a red light I take the action that maximises my safety at all times - that is the rule here. So I stop when it is safer to do so, I don't when it is not.

1) can you define a moral difference between the two situations? ( torturing one to save thousands or torturing thousands to save one)
2) is torturing one person to save one acceptable?

3) is torturing thousands to save thousands acceptable?

4) How many people need to be at risk to justify the torture?

severe pain or suffering

Precisley

So, what acts constitute [b]severe[/b] pain or suffering TJ?

Come on, its a reasonable question!

In your opinion, does sleep deprivation cause [i][u]severe[/u] pain or suffering[/i]?

Its a perfectly fair question, and simple to answer, why the reluctance to do so TJ?

T-J
But surely there is a strange parrallel here. We are talking about torture to stop soemthing bad happening; ensuring safety.

Dogsby

that is only true if we accept the categorical imperative as the correct method to judge our ethics by.
I assume you have never ever lied then TJ and there are no circumstnces in which this is ever justified?
As I said I prefer a utilitarian approach on this issue - torturing one person to save one is not the same as torturing one to save thousands whatever you say one clearly has a greater "good" than the other
I , just like stoner, would prefer to just give them a good talking too , tut loudly and stare at them in disbelief and hope they speak but if it saved thousabds Iwould be prepared to let Ton sit on them and tickle them with grass

Surley breaking the law in one circumstance breaks the imperative?

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances (the "Third Maxim").

1) can you define a moral difference between the two situations? ( torturing one to save thousands or torturing thousands to save one)
2) is torturing one person to save one acceptable?

3) is torturing thousands to save thousands acceptable?

4) How many people need to be at risk to justify the torture?

But this is a smokescreen.

1: maybe and even without being privvy to detail I would hazard that if a known criminal was holding a child in a basement who was tied up and starving of oxygen (and we knew this) then I (and I suspect many others) would be happy to give him a "thumping" if I thought it would result in her release.

2: I cant think of an easy scenario for this or in practical terms how this would work, maybe holding back aid to a state to punish the government? is this tortue?

3: I dont understand this question

Junkyard. I do my damnedest not to lie and its hard to think of circumstances when it is justifiable.

so then you must always use torture to ensure you have maximum information. Thats the result of "the end justifies the means"

all suspect must be tortured at all times in case they have information that may save someone? Torturing innocents to make sure you have not missed anyone with information?

Would you be prepared to have Ton sit on you and have him tickle you with grass on the basis that "some-one" believed you were about to commit an act of terror?

No idea who this Ton fella his, but hope doesn't take offence at him being used as a method of torture.

Yes - we all should jump red lights when it is safer to do so and we should always jump red lights when it is safer to do so.

Clong..........i am not easily offended mate.... 8)

Yes - we all should jump red lights when it is safer to do so and we should always jump red lights when it is safer to do so.

But isnt that against the law? if so you were prepared to quote law earlier or are you saying its only the law when you feel a moral obligation to recognise it as such?

Quite convenient really.

Surfer - the law on torture provides a easily recognised definition.

I don't refuse to torture because its against the law, I don't torture because its morally wrong

What is legal and what is morally correct are not the same. Some things are legal but morally wrong, some things are illegal despite not being morally wrong.

The obey a red light and put yourself in danger is a clear example.

the good old knuckle drill in the chest is a real sod too.........
not many blokes can withstand the old chest knuckle........... 😀

What is legal and what is morally correct are not the same. Some things are legal but morally wrong, some things are illegal despite not being morally wrong.

I agree with you on this point however if it is not the "law" that stops you from torturing but a moral position (and I agree here also) then why dont you answer the questions as what constitutes tortue unless the law encompasses you position on what activities constitute tortue exactly?

It works in 24 and thus it works IRL.

If it provided reliable results then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I have answered the question. The definition given in the law is good enough for me. Not because its the law but because its a good definition . Its clear and obvious to me. You can attempt to count the angels on a pinhead all you want - it gets you no closer to the truth.

Well - I don't think I can make my point any clearer. Its just going round in circles

Thing is, where's the proof that torture works?

Guantanamo exists as a propaganda exercise; mess with us and we'll torture you. 'Shock and Awe' tactics. Otherwise, it would be tucked away out of sight somewhere.

[b]iDave[/b] - Member
if you torture someone committed to the cause they won't tell you anything useful
if you torture someone not committed to the cause they'll tell you anything to make you stop

That more or less sums it up really. Many military and psychological experts agree that torture is ineffective and unreliable at producing useful information. And these are people far more knowledgeable than any of us. I'm inclined to go along with their judgement.

As for the argument on here; TJ must be chuffed that he's been likened to such a great philosophical figure.

Zulu/Labrat is a fantasist with a penchant for guns and some very dodgy attitudes in areas we won't go into. Zulu; you often present a very good-looking case, and are undoubtedly highly intelligent and educated, but I think you would do well to examine your need to 'win' conflicts all the time; the only time you ever turn up on here is to argue. I suspect that the argument itself is secondary to your need to be victorious. I'd hazard a guess that you harbour some deep set unresolved conflicts within yourself, and attempt to deal with matters by entering into arguments with others. Perhaps consider professional counselling/therapy. And I'm not saying this to be a ****.

TJ; you could perhaps consider this about yourself too. Seems to me that you need to carry an argument to exhaustion, which must surely be quite draining. What's the outcome though? What is achieved? What conflicts are resolved?

The irony here is that ultimately, you're just torturing yourselves.

Yours,

Elfin 'Sigmund' Safety.

XX

all suspect must be tortured at all times in case they have information that may save someone? Torturing innocents to make sure you have not missed anyone with information?

Well - I don't think I can make my point any clearer

Poetic elfin poetic

TJ; you could perhaps consider this about yourself too. Seems to me that you need to carry an argument to exhaustion, which must surely be quite draining. What's the outcome though? What is achieved? What conflicts are resolved?

Elf - I am trying to learn this lesson hence I butt out of this now and I didn't get sucked into counting angels on pinheads with Zulu on this thread.

doubled edit

you could say whether you though sleep deprivation was torture with a yes or a no that would be much clearer than what you have said so far

Yes

final one 🙂

So junkyard if torturing one to save thousands is justifiable and torturing thousands to save on is not then where do you draw the line?

Junkyard said, amongst other things:

[i](2) is torturing one person to save one acceptable?
If it is my child yes- depends who am i torturing and who am I trying to save?
[/i]

So you are happy for another child to be tortured to (possibly) save yours?

I think you need to look long and hard in the mirror.

So junkyar

d if torturing one to save thousands is justifiable and torturing thousands to save on is not then where do you draw the line?

I think you have to make decisions TJ at the time with the information you have based on assessment of the situation in question. That wont concern you as they can be made by other people who hopefully will make them on your behalf and not refer to philosophers.

 

You can attempt to count the angels on a pinhead all you want - it gets you no closer to the truth.

Bit rich coming from you TJ!

where's the proof that torture works?

But given the situation even a very low success rate would mean its worth a try. Theres hardly an opportunity cost in the "ticking bomb" scenario is there.

That more or less sums it up really. Many military and psychological experts agree that torture is ineffective and unreliable at producing useful information.

Why didnt you tell us ealier I've wasted ages on this and you knew all along.

I wont request evidence as you are obviosuly very busy.

You can't fight a noble and just war against a worthy adversary.

Look at the war crimes committed by the allies in WWII in response to the Germans bombing Coventry, London etc.
Look what the Americans did the Japanese population.
Look at what the Americans did in the deep south.
Look at what the Americans did in Vietnam and surrounding areas. Heard of the legacy of Agent Orange?

Waterboarding pales into significance compared to any of the above.

I posted up a link recently on here about what happened to an Iraqi who was serving his country and the detail about his torture was just mind-blowing cruel and sadistic.

War is bloody grim. When someone is holding pointy-sticks you want to ensure the people guarding you have the sharpest weaponary available.

Sad really.

Right or wrong that's the made by the ex-President and bear in mind he was once the "most" powerful person in the world.

What's the outcome though? What is achieved? What conflicts are resolved?

Arguing/debating doesn't have to result in a resolution. The journey itself can be the goal, much like my commute really: I much prefer the cycle to work, to the work itself!

On a different note, the outcome could also be a strengthening of viewpoints or a change in opinion. I accept the latter is highly unlikely to occur here, at least with regard to the primary participants. But those viewing the thread may gain more than those taking part, I find them interesting and in some cases have changed my own opinion after reading some of the debates on STW.

Don't stifle TJ and Zulu! They're the ends of the spectrum that enable everyone else to sit comfortably somewhere else on the bell-shaped curve!

If you are off a sensitive nature or do not want to be disturbed, please do not open the link within my thread. It just shows what can happen and does happen to people on both sides. Shocking and terrible.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/michael-yon-anyone-following-his-despatches

yes what surfer said
I

I think you have to make decisions TJ at the time with the information you have based on assessment of the situation in question

So you are happy for another child to be tortured to (possibly) save yours?

I think you need to look long and hard in the mirror.

I have met one victim of torture, represented one person accused of inflicting a "classic death by torture" and been involved in a similar torture murder where I defended a bystander. i have also spoken to one US interrogator who was based in Afghanistan prior to the Iraq fighting.

Torture is resorted to as a power trip as in the two murder cases above, to gain information as in the first case (I was not crass enough to ask him if it worked sorry) and according to the US interrogator counter productive and unreliable. a view apparently supported by MI5 and any other agency when asked.

Our country and it's alies appear to use it when politicians exert pressure to get results by any means and the intelligence gathering agencies feel the need to be seen by their masters to do everything.

Use of torture in Afghanistan had a snowball effect as victims dobbed in every one they could think of to appease their captors those innocents where then arrested abducted or rendered and the cycle continued any genuine info was far outweighed by the blizzard of chaff.

Surfer's hypothetical question is a deliberate construct to achieve a positive answer, rather like asking a vegetarian would they eat meat if they were shipwrecked on a desert island and there was no food apart from a steak . The question neither provides a rational for using torture nor a credible scenario in which torture would work. When your victim says " OK i give in they are in the old warehouse " what do you do? break off and look? carry on in case he is lying ? what is the victims motive ? will he care if he dies will he see being tortured as a passport to heaven will he have prepared a scenario where he expected to be tortured and built that in to his plans.

To answer the out standing question sleep deprivation is torture people can and do die from it and it causes severe distress so that victims will give misleading information to make it stop.

I am 100 % against the use of torture as there is more chance that the use of torture acquires unreliable untrue evidence than conventional structured interrogation. Torture is widely abhorred and it's use galvanises hatred and opposition to the user and so acts as a recruiting Sergent for terror.

If I was ever in surfers fantasy scenario I may well be tempted to waist my time trying torture out due to blind panic and desperation. That would not make me tough, brave, right or misunderstood it would make me a idiot who should be in prison.

Oh dear. Some genuine intelligent insight and rational thought.

We can't have that.

Crankboy; go and have a think about what you've done...

(Fantastic post btw; the best on here yet)

Arguing/debating doesn't have to result in a resolution. The journey itself can be the goal, much like my commute really: I much prefer the cycle to work, to the work itself!

Oh yes, I agree, but in the case of certain individuals, arguing seems to be an outlet for deep-seated anger and frustrations, which may not be channelled in the most positive or productive manner. Indeed, this mode of expression may in fact be counter-productive and simply make matters worse for the individual, as they get even more wound-up and angry. I'm just suggesting that Zulu and TJ may benefit from exploring therapeutic possibilities.

Don't stifle TJ and Zulu! They're the ends of the spectrum that enable everyone else to sit comfortably somewhere else on the bell-shaped curve!

Wouldn't want to stifle them; just concerned that their need to engage in conflict with others may not be good for them. Or others, for that matter.

Surfer's hypothetical question is a deliberate construct to achieve a positive answer, rather like asking a vegetarian would they eat meat if they were shipwrecked on a desert island and there was no food apart from a steak . The question neither provides a rational for using torture nor a credible scenario in which torture would work.

I think it does provide a rationale. As I mentioned I dont think torture would be a first resort or a strategy instead of questioning, investigation, forensic etc but when all of those avenues have been explored. Its trivialising it to compare it with a vegetarian eating meat. The fact is the stakes (not steaks!) are higher and whilst it is hypothetical it highlights a scenario that would need to be acted upon. If that scenarion where to present itself in the way I (Sam Harris not me) refer to then torture is logical not illogical in the sense there is little else to use and it is pure speculation to say "it would not work"

Its not designed (as far as I can tell) to always get an affirmative response but to force the reader to consider if they would refuse to use/condone torture under any circumsatnces or given a sufficiently outrageous scenario they would.
So far TJ has said under no circumstances which is fair enough but it wouldnt be my position.

Zulu/Labrat is a fantasist with a penchant for guns and some very dodgy attitudes in areas we won't go into.

Ooh, the great one speaks, and foresooth, we shall listen

Zulu; you often present a very good-looking case, and are undoubtedly highly intelligent and educated, but I think you would do well to examine your need to 'win' conflicts all the time;

No, not a case of that at all my good man - I repeatedly see certain people come on here spouting forth in blanket statements that ignore nuanced balanced complex situations, who again and again ignore the right of people to hold an alternative viewpoint and call them names for daring to challenge their narrow orthodoxy, they refuse anyone else's reasonable discussion on issues and choose to set up repeated straw man and ad hominem arguments, reaming the thread out with pages of cut and paste - I choose to prick their balloons, as is my right.

the only time you ever turn up on here is to argue. I suspect that the argument itself is secondary to your need to be victorious.

Go and reread the Exmoor threat from last week, polite happy discussion whereby a complex, nuanced issue was being discussed in perfectly reasonable fashion, till TJ spouted forth with, again, the blanket 'I know everything' hyperbole

I'd hazard a guess that you harbour some deep set unresolved conflicts within yourself, and attempt to deal with matters by entering into arguments with others. Perhaps consider professional counselling/therapy. And I'm not saying this to be a ****.

Ooh, you're [u]really[/u] still smarting over those napoleon complex comments a couple of weeks ago aren't you? Tell me Fred, are you qualified as a mental health professional, or does your, ahem, 'knowledge' originate from your own time with analysts and counsellors? do you feel that you need someone else to help you sort out your problems, or is it a 'London' thing?

Now, back to the subject...

Its vital that you can create a unified definition of what constitutes torture, and without that, any discussion on the subject is specious, since it comes down to personal interpretation.

TJ has stated that, in his opinion, sleep deprivation constitutes [b]severe[/b] pain and suffering, however of course the problem is that that is only in his [u]opinion[/u] and opinions, as we all know are like arseholes, everyones got their own, but thinks that everyone else's stinks

TJ and others claim that this is to do with your moral compass, without accepting in any way that just because [b]their[/b] belief is such, it does not make it correct, only one of a wide variety of possible moral outlooks varying from one extreme to the other. Morals are not black and white, there are all shades of grey.

so, if we look at torture, whilst one person may feel that anything short of amputation does not really constitute [b]severe[/b] pain or suffering, another may feel that putting someone under any stress at all constitutes torture, so Tons tickling torture could be, to some, an unacceptable method of torture, and since waterboarding does not cause permanent harm, the argument put forward by GWBjr that his advice said it was not illegal is, at the very least, a credible argument, even if most people would not agree with it.

The problem with TJ's black and white outlook, is that [b]severe[/b] is a matter of perception and opinion, and saying that someone else's moral compass is off because they feel that depriving someone of sleep does not fulfil the criteria of severe suffering while you do is childish and immature.

I'm just suggesting that Zulu and TJ may benefit from exploring therapeutic possibilities.

Tell me Fred, are you qualified as a mental health professional, or does your, ahem, 'knowledge' originate from your own time with analysts and counsellors?

The latter. Over 25 years in fact. So, I've learnt a fair bit about myself, and how to also recognise the same signs in others. Which are all too obvious with you. Sorry, but it's true. I see quite a bit of myself reflected in you, from your posts, so any accusation of 'napoleon complex' can quite easily be levelled at your good self. Interesting that you've attempted to discredit my knowledge of mental health issues, yet yourself used a term which isn't actually any recognised form of condition by any actual mental health professionals.

See, I've tried to offer an insight, albeit one based on very limited information, into your apparent need to 'win'. Indeed, you've kind of proved this in this very post! The 'napoleon' comments din't actually bother me, as I dismissed them as someone attempting to belittle me in order to bolster their own fragile ego, and to be quite honest, coming from someone with a love of guns, I find it quite amusing really.

Mate; you can carry on thinking things are fine, or you can make the step to explore the truth about yourself. TJ has suggested he is willing to do this, perhaps you would also benefit from giving it some sort of consideration.

Give it a go; what have you got to lose?

Zulu - you really are laughable. How you can accuse others of setting up ad hominen arguments when once again you attack me personally because you havce no answer to the arguments.

Ridiculous an childish.

Your idea of debate is to say " have you stopped beating your wife yet"

Ridiculous an childish.

Yeah, but what are you, for wanting to continue this nonsense? This has moved on from sensible debate, to 'I'm righterer than you', and it's getting a bit silly now. I'm sure others will agree with me (well they will if they've got any bloody sense).

Indeed Elf. Why Zulu feels it necessary to make such personal attacks on me I don't know. Clearly I have got under his skin. Its hard not to anmnswer them.

I think a complete ignore of him is best.

Go on Fred, you keep searching for the truth, you keep looking for the answer, good on you.

I'm glad you're amused, thing is, I dont sit there awake at nigh thinking 'oh, I'm so unhappy with my life, I need to change it' [b]true[/b] enlightenment comes from not caring and enjoying life and its huge variety of opportunities to laugh, cry, and take the piss on a daily basis

maybe, just like TJ's inability to accept shades of grey, you need to realise that just because you think something works for you, it doesn't mean that other peoples lifestyles, morals, beliefs, pleasures or reactions are wrong, just different! 😉

TJ

Why Zulu feels it necessary to make such personal attacks on me I don't know

I don't think you'll find a single [b]personal[/b] attack on you TJ - only on your debating style, repeated deliberate avoidance of answering questions whilst demanding people answer yours, and, worst of all your inability to accept other peoples viewpoints as equal to your own

and holding someone down and letting a slobbery dog lick their face is very effective too........or so i have been told. 😛

Ton, I believe I may be able to point you to a website where people would regard that as anything [b]but[/b] torture 😆

I think a complete ignore of him is best.

Yeah, might work. But he'll undoubtedly pop up to attempt to wind folk up though. He needs the attention.

See, even now he's attempting to turn my attempt to be helpful into an attack on me (maybe he interprets my comments as an 'attack' on him?). Always, the need to attack. And his persona of an extreme right-winger ('To the right of Attila the Hun', is an expression he has used), is something designed purely to gain a reaction. Interestingly, like AdamG, he seems to crave negative reactions, vitriol, hate. He seems to want a status of notoriety. This is quite interesting, and I recently heard one of my own mental health care professionals say that this is a sign that a person harbours deep guilt and anxiety about something, and like a naughty child, somehow 'needs' to be 'punished', in order to attain some sort of 'absolution' for their 'sins'. Bit like the Catholic guilt and 'confession is good for the soul' type thing, you know?

Very interesting. I look forward to future developments. I think there is much to be learned...

I think a complete ignore of him is best

and holding someone down and letting a slobbery dog lick their face is very effective too........or so i have been told. 🙂

A cat with catfood-breath and a sandpaper tongue would have me singing like the proverbial canary in minutes if not seconds!

Would feeding [b]tj[/b] a [b]ton[/b] of [b]peyote[/b] in a [b]junkyard [/b]constitute torture of just an [b]elfinsafety[/b] risk?

Would the [b]surfer[/b]ing be too [b]hora[/b]ble?

My god I am bored of this now.

Torture is bad. Thread over.

As a lad I had a job in a local pub. The music was supplied by an old CD player where the CD tray would no longer open. Hence, we had ABBA greatest hits on loop constantly.

That is torture.

Elfinsafety - Member
But he'll undoubtedly pop up to attempt to wind folk up though. He needs the attention.

Hang on, is that not the sole reason [i]you[/i] come on here Fred? 😐

Torminalis - Member

Would feeding tj a ton of peyote in a junkyard constitute torture of just an elfinsafety risk?

Depends if I had access to a computer. Can you imagine what peyote would do to the quality of my ramblings?

No, I come on here to have fun. That used to involve trying to wind [i]everybody[/i] up, but no it's just [i]most[/i] people. 😀

[i]Elfinsafety - Member
No, I come on here to have fun. That used to involve trying to wind everybody up, but no it's just most people.
[/i]

Fair one Fred, I stand corrected... 😉

Does this just apply to 'foreigners', or is it ok to torture anyone for information?

and holding someone down and letting a slobbery dog lick their face is very effective too........or so i have been told.

Got the feeling TJ would consider that to be severe torture, while I'd just find it funny...

A dash of Marmite on the face in question helps, fwiw.

What planet are you lot that say no on. you lot are the reason that the world is going to sh*t.
The quicker you wake up and smell the roses the happier the world will be.

iamhimsoiam

please explain yourself sir.......... 🙂

Right then someone kidnap's one of your children and threatens to kill them, then sets an impossible task to get them back.
But you manage to catch one of the kidnappers in the process, you try talking to them nicely for hours ,offering them nice gifts. But they aint budging ,times running out what you going to do......

me???

torture the **** out of em..........in the worst ways possible.

Put them in a room with TJ for 20 mins and get him talking about helmets to them. That'll force them into submission.

torture the **** out of em..........in the worst ways possible.
make them watch x factor on a loop?

Right then someone kidnap's one of your children and threatens to kill them, then sets an impossible task to get them back.

isnt that a film with Mel Gibson in?

This is my point about do gooders, it's all ok until it happens to them. 😆

Yep that's the one.

if it's an impossible task...you child is dead anyway so why bother. Otherwise hand them to the proper authority. By resorting to criminal action yourself if you ever did manage to get you child back, they would then be taken into care and you would go to jail where you have your bottom interfered with by Mr Big in the showers who's in with the prison govenor.

jeeze you right wing nazi torture monkeys are silly

tazzy............that's right wing nazi cock monkey if you dont mind.. 😉

I have a wife so no care home. And your obviously not a parent..........

yes I am....so there!

ton, you're too big to be a monkey...

would right wing nazi arse gorilla be ok?