Thread by @ekverstania

Is torture an evidence-based means of eliciting a confession?

(Yes, this is a rather loaded question.)

Are all the people saying no even reading the research? tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

Now, separate question: is torture an evidence-based means of deterrence?

THIS WHOLE THREAD CARRIES A CONTENT WARNING: I'm talking about #torture and I am linking to academic studies with descriptions of torture.

In other words, if you torture people, does it stop them from doing things? Like, people invade your country, you capture them and torture them, then eventually let them go. Does that stop other people (or the same people) from invading your country again?

Do you think people may be underreporting the effectiveness of torture because they'd look bad if they made torture look effective? Or could it be that there really just ARE many better ways of achieving certain goals? Or something else?
jstor.org/stable/24557487

Are there experimental studies showing the effectiveness of torture in a variety of applications?

Ethical research studies require the informed consent of participants, making it impossible to experiment with nonconsensual torture.

(Fritz Allhoff, ed. (2008). Physicians at war: the dual-loyalties challenge.)

So, if in our authoritarian magnanimity tells us that for their own good, we should probably be torturing people, but the obstacle is their consent, is it OK to remove the requirement for consent, and get consent from the close relatives of the research subjects instead?

I mean, if you draw blood from a comatose patient without their consent, does that invalidate the analysis of the blood sample?

Shifting the basis of consent to relatives (legally or de facto) means that even if the nonconsensually tortured subject tries to sue you later, you can say, "Well, we did ask your mom if we could torture you, so, sorry you claim to have been harmed, but we did nothing wrong."

The same principles can be applied to so-called "community engagement". If the people we're studying are represented by their own community elders, fathers, or even by majority-win elected representatives, and if those people consent to whatever we want to do, isn't it OK?

And then, what if there's no way of knowing whether or not you want to consent to torture? Shouldn't we then waive the consent requirement?

Like, what if most of the people who can hear and talk say, nope, we don't want to be tortured and we don't think you should torture people who can't hear and talk either, then...

Shouldn't we just go ahead and torture those people who can't fill in a consent form? Because, you never know, they may just appreciate the torture, unlike any normal person, because maybe they're weird like that.

I mean, if you can talk and hear, surely you can't say anything on behalf of those who can't? Why do you want to deprive them of the opportunity to be tortured for their own good? Isn't that rather selfish of you?

Is the use of torture evidence-based?

Wouldn't it be fair to assume that a parent who's prepared to stand up against an army of torture survivors and insist on the right to torture a child who can't communicate, and who will even PAY for the torture, must surely love their child a lot?

Doesn't love justify abuse?

When is it torture?

Let's say two factory workers claim that the industrial ultrasound equipment in the factory makes them vomit causes produces excruciating pain in their ears. Another 98 factory workers say they don't feel that way.

Is tying the two guys to the transducer to see if they'll get used to it eventually torture, or is it fine?

What if they agree to the experiment, is it torture?

What if the consequence of not agreeing is unpleasant, is it torture then?

What if the consequence of not getting used to it is unpleasant, is it torture?

What if they pretend to get used to it, because they are afraid of losing their job if they don't, even if nobody said they would, is it torture then?

If 98% of factory workers say there's no problem, is it torture?

If 98% of factory workers said it IS a problem, and 2% said they're fine, should we tie 100% of them to the transducers to see if they acclimatise, or should we only tie 98% of them to the machines?

REMINDER: This whole thread contains hypothetical descriptions of torture and links to academic studies with descriptions of actual torture.

When is it OK to torture people for their own good, without consent?

If they're violent criminals who have tortured other people?

If they are at war with us?

If they are disabled children, and their parents consent and the government is prepared to pay?

When is it OK to torture people for their own good, WITH THEIR CONSENT?

If they're violent criminals who have tortured other people?

If they are at war with us?

If they are disabled children, and their parents consent and the government is prepared to pay?

What if we change the word 'torture' and call it 'therapy', without changing what we actually do, we're just changing the label.

Does it mean it's still torture?

What if we create goals for this therapy that most voters agree are good goals, is it OK to then go ahead and do this evidence-based therapy?

If the government sponsors this therapy and has been doing so for years, so that an entire 17 billion dollar industry grows around it, would it be abusive to stop it if so many people's livelihood comes from it, and if they'd feel guilty for having been a part of it?

If 99.99% of the people who survived a certain type of therapy say they think it should be banned, and 0.01% say that it should be kept legal, but with better governance, then should it be banned, or would you need more information to be able to decide?

What if legislators don't have proper stats on the numbers, they have just heard many complaints about the legality of the therapy. Should they pay for formal studies to establish the true support or opposition to it among survivors?

If the therapy fits the description of torture, should it be banned without even researching whether there are not perhaps vast numbers of survivors hiding from the world who secretly support it?

Also, what about the economy? We all know that weapons and war and the like create jobs. Why disrupt an industry when it's only disabled children who get tortured, mostly even with their parents' consent?

https://twitter.com/ekverstania/status/1378320758888357889?t=6ImBgESQ468mGMZktOjgwA&s=19

What if the people who call a thing wrong are hypocrites, does that make it OK to do the thing? Like, many member governments in the United Nations torture their citizens with impunity. Doesn't that bring into question the content of all the United Nations Human Rights treaties?

Also, to be fair, if Russia's government gets to torture journalists without getting kicked out of the UN, why can't the American government sponsor the torture of disabled children and call it therapy?

Shouldn't torture just be more regulated? Like, instead of being allowed to use electric shock devices strapped to disabled people 24/7, you're only allowed to shock them, say, on a Friday between 15:00 and 16:00?

Or instead of torturing a toddler for 40 hours per week, you're only allowed to torture them for 40 hours per month?

I know that some of the most experienced researchers say that this defeats the purpose; if you don't do the optimal amount of torture, you create a mixed message, and the person you're torturing doesn't progress in their torture-driven transformation.

Many disabled survivors of torture say that instead of torture, they would have preferred the means to communicate freely and fully. They even say that others who are being silenced should be given suitable means to communicate. akhaswords.home.blog/2020/10/03/the…

But some people in positions of power say that communication of this kind isn't a priority. They say behaviour is the thing to work on first, and that if they motivate you to behave in the way they deem appropriate, you'll get the motivation to learn to communicate properly.

Because disability is all about a lack of motivation, apparently.

I guess this doesn't count, because it's anecdotal. It's my observation, based on all the nonspeakers' writing I have ever read. But I put it into a blog post instead of a peer-reviewed literature study, so, unlike torture, it isn't 'evidence-based'. tania.co.za/gestures-and-g…

The torture promotors say that speaking is The Way to communicate, and if you use these other ways first, you won't develop speech.