Psychology of mass violence/sadism and mass irrationality.

[Panda]

If you buy this you wont have so many incomplete pages:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YctWRS ... &q&f=false

Libraries work too

That is a cool looking book even though it seems a bit depressing.

[zwzsg]

From the book title and chapter title I thought it would just be some founding book of the satanist religion, but upon reading the intro, I saw it's actually a book about the answer to the OP question: What's the root cause of violence/sadism?

(Then maybe there's no contradiction, dunno about modern satanism enough.)

[MidKnight]

From the book title and chapter title I thought it would just be some founding book of the satanist religion, but upon reading the intro, I saw it's actually a book about the answer to the OP question: What's the root cause of violence/sadism?

(Then maybe there's no contradiction, dunno about modern satanism enough.)

It's by the guy who did the Stanford experiment the OP mentioned, about the stuff he learned.

[Neddie]

The book appears to be by Howard Bloom, who - while a sort of academic superstar and the driving force behind paleopsychology - is not Philip Zimbardo, the professor of psychology who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment.

[MidKnight]

The book appears to be by Howard Bloom, who - while a sort of academic superstar and the driving force behind paleopsychology - is not Philip Zimbardo, the professor of psychology who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Ehh...

[bobthedinosaur]

Well that's a different book but the same principle. I think Bloom's is his own take on Zimbardo's account.

[MidKnight]

Oh! That makes sense!
I'm just a poor, confused sod, then. Pay no mind to my last 2 posts!

[t0rb3n]

No one noted, that there can even be a moral imperative to violence/torture. We even had such a case recently in Germany...

There was a man, who abducted a child, was caught and refused to name the hiding spot, but confessed to be the captor. How is it not moral to torture this guy in order to get the child alive?

Worse, the police president was even charged, because he _threatened_, not performed, torture.

I would have put that guy on a good dose of psilocybin and scared the hell out of him...

[zwzsg]

At least in this case the torture advovate (here, t0rb3n) is using a real case, and not a made up one. So gratz on that.

However, in this case we can also see that no amount of torture would have helped save any live: The captor had effectively killed the child days ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world ... rture.html

[t0rb3n]

Captain Hindsight to the rescue!

It was not clear that the child is already dead. But even if it were clear, most people consider a proper burial for the dead body a moral duty. They have a right to that, that man violated it. IMO he'd still be a reasonable candidate for torture.

edit: Oh wait, it's more that he killed a child, what makes him that.

[zwzsg]

Oh, so you advocate torturing people "just in case"? Or to torture mean people cause they deserve it?

[t0rb3n]

Yeah, just in case...
... they admit to have killed a child and are hiding the body?

Oh, so you consider killing a child mean? Oh man, I wouldn't be so harsh, sure it's not nice and all, but there are certainly worse things you can do... like... uhm... wait a second... wtf -.-

[zwzsg]

Most people justify torture by saying that's sometimes it's the only way to save innocent lives. You don't even bother with that excuse so I am confused.

[t0rb3n]

By murdering that child, he revoked his individual rights and except killing or crippling him, there is no torture that wouldn't do him justice. But I can see that a law-enforcer would be (should be?) unable to commit torture, so that psychological method would make it bearable for him.

Of course, I may be wrong with that assessment about psilocybin... but I'm pretty sure, in a non-friendly environment that stuff is enough.

[dizekat]

Captain Hindsight to the rescue!

It was not clear that the child is already dead. But even if it were clear, most people consider a proper burial for the dead body a moral duty. They have a right to that, that man violated it. IMO he'd still be a reasonable candidate for torture.

edit: Oh wait, it's more that he killed a child, what makes him that.

If someone captured my child, and if I was sure enough he's the culprit, and if I needed to get information from that person, I'd torture that person to get the info, no question about it.
Chances are, he'd break even before getting tortured. You see, some uber ideological person may prefer to suffer or die than to reveal the secret, but common criminal or a child molester? No way. As soon as revealing the secret seems advantageous, he'll talk. And he'd better talk truth coz if its bullshit i'll be back and be pissed even more.

Of course that does not apply to the case of torturing prisoners at gitmo for things they probably don't know, and getting all sorts of bullshit out. Because if you are torturing someone who does not know what you want to get, you will get bullshit. Worse than that the bullshit tailored to meet whatever suspicions you might have voiced. Worse than that it'll quickly turn into torture for making people confess, which just really sucks.

[dizekat]

ahh and also note that this case is absolutely not related to torture at all... what actually happened, police just made up a sequence of syllables which made the kidnapper reveal the location of child. That is permitted, no? And even if it is not permitted, it was a duty of policeman as a human being to try to the best of his abilities to at least talk the suspect into revealing location of the child.
Child who may have been still alive but about to die (sadly, already dead).
Think how psychologically devastated the policeman would have been if he did see the fear in the suspect, the stupidity of the suspect, but did not even try to make use of that, and the child would have been found a week later, dead for 3 days.

I think anyone who argues against actions of police in this particular case (actions which did not in any way include act of torture) is a psychopath whose mask of sanity is slipping (lack of morality + misunderstanding of where the rules came from and what the rules are for).
But this case is hundred percent irrelevant to torture as no torture actually happened. The only thing to discuss is whenever it is reasonable to permit interrogator to lie to the suspect being interrogated, cost vs benefit style.
Threat of torture is not torture. Threat of torture is just speech and body language.

[Neddie]

The threat of torture can be a form of psychological torture, but I do not feel that in that case it was. While there is no clear measure of fear or social pressure, a certain amount of repetition, intensity or elaboration is, I feel, necessary to inflict significant psychological harm. Context would also play a part. Telling a man once that you are bringing in a "specialist" while he is sitting in an interrogation room is very different from, say, going into detail about what the specialist does while you have the suspect handcuffed in a private apartment.

That said, asserting that those who disagree with you in argument are psychopaths is hardly conducive to productive discussion.

[Regret]

That said, asserting that those who disagree with you in argument are psychopaths is hardly conducive to productive discussion.

I find it highly amusing how people in this thread race for who has the higher moral horse.

[MidKnight]

That said, asserting that those who disagree with you in argument are psychopaths is hardly conducive to productive discussion.

I find it highly amusing how people in this thread race for who has the higher moral horse.

I believe that feeling amused by this contest of morality is unethical and reprehensible!
Your move.

[Neddie]

Actually, I felt it was more useful than a warning, since it is technically against the forum rules. Just a reminder in passing... but who am I to deny you the broad back of your dusky gelding as he carries you onward beneath the mellow glow of moonlight?