What is your principal objection to Torture?

[el_bryanto]

I'm breaking this down into two large categories - obviously most of us will believe that both statements are true - but if you can pick, which one is most important to you?

Bryant

31 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Torture is morally wrong.
	14 (45%)
	Torture doesn't work.
	0 (0%)
	My opposition to Torture rests equally on it being morally wrong and on it's ineffectiveness.
	16 (52%)
	I am not opposed to Torture.
	1 (3%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. i think i am really 70-30 split on morality-ineffectiveness.

[Iggo]

2. Only pieces of motherfucking shit order, participate in, excuse, justify, and/or condone torture.

That's my principal objection.

[daleanime]

5. I hear that....

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Because I'm not a psychopath, my objection is that it's morally wrong.

Psychopaths should object to it too, because it's ineffective.

[el_bryanto]

7. Psychopath is a strong word - what is your definition of a psychopath?

I am principally opposed to it because it is ineffective - say 65% practical - 35% moral. I would never like the idea of torturing someone, but if I believed it was necessary to save lives and effective . . . but of course I believe it is ineffective, there's been too much data on how ineffective it is.

Bryant

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Personally, I'd say that debating the merits of torture based on it's utility is pretty close.

i.e. "we have an extraordinary need for improved education in this country so let's try torture and see if that works."

Some things should just be off. the. table.

[leftstreet]

18. +1

Nicely stated

[LWolf]

88. At the core: lack of empathy.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, lists both sociopathy and psychopathy under the heading of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD). These disorders share many common behavioral traits which lead to the confusion between them. Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include:

A disregard for laws and social mores
A disregard for the rights of others
A failure to feel remorse or guilt
A tendency to display violent behavior

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

Psychopathy is the most dangerous of all antisocial personality disorders because of the way psychopaths dissociate emotionally from their actions, regardless of how terrible they may be. Many prolific and notorious serial killers, including the late Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy, and Dennis Rader ("Bind, Torture, Kill&quot are unremorseful psychopaths.

Torture requires a disregard for the rights of others, a failure to feel remorse or guilt, violent behavior, and the ability to dissociate emotionally from actions.

People who can discuss torture in terms of effectiveness rather than in moral and ethical terms disturb me. To say the least.

[elleng]

4. It is CRUEL!

[Warren Stupidity]

6. If you torture others, others will torture you.

What part of that is not clearly understood?

[el_bryanto]

9. Are you asking me?

And is that a moral or practical objection?

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

10. It is a rhetorical question.

But feel free to argue with it. You can figure out yourself if it is a morality argument.

[napi21]

27. That's my objection as well. Torture is NEVER to be used in a prisoner situation,

no matter what country or group, and we certainly can't gripe about someone torturing one of our own if we're going to be doing it ourselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. My answer to the morally objectionable "ticking bomb" canard is this:

if in fact the authorities are convinced that the subject has the information and will accurately produce the information after x-torture is done to this person, then x-torture can be performed if and only if x-torture is also applied in the exact same manner to all those involved in the decision and action to torture the subject.

So Jack Bauer can shoot the perp in the leg only if Jack is also shot in the leg. I'm fairly confident that no torture would be performed, although, even following my rules, it would still be wrong.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. I'm with elleng...it's cruel. You are HURTING someone.

They are helpless against your cruelty.

That is completely wrong.

[leftstreet]

12. Never thought I'd see a question like this on DU n/t

[el_bryanto]

13. I should make it clear from some of the comments that I oppose torture. NT

[Warren Stupidity]

24. It seems only because it is ineffective.

So if you could be assured that torture is effective, presumably you would approve of it. How effective does it have to be? 0% false information? 20%? 50%? 90%?

[el_bryanto]

26. Above 90%

And I do not only oppose it because it is ineffective.

Bryant

[leftstreet]

30. Could workers be tortured into higher productivity?

I mean, if it could be proven torture is effective at and above 90%

I don't think you have any idea the argument you're making

[el_bryanto]

35. What?

No torturing people to increase productivity would be 100% morally wrong in all cases. I don't know why you would jump to this - nobody is arguing that torture be used in all situations; the only place people are even discussing torture is within the realm of national security; i.e. someone has information we need but they won't share it with us.

Torturing people in order to gain information that would stop immediate danger of death to people might be acceptable to me if I believed that torture was at least 90% effective (which I don't, as numerous reports have shown it to be ineffective.

Bryant

[leftstreet]

38. Could empty store shelves be 'national security?'

If warehouse and grocery store workers weren't productive enough to keep food on the shelves in retail outlets?

I don't think my 'jumping to conclusions' is any stranger than an Imperialist Super Power deciding what is/isn't a threat to its 'national security'

[el_bryanto]

39. I answered this question above

No torturing people to increase productivity would never be acceptable. Did you not read that above?

All nations decide what is or isn't a threat to their national security. All of them take actions based on that assessment, and those actions have often been pretty awful, including many of the actions the United States has taken.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Your poll you answered "doesn't work".

How am I supposed to interpret that? Bad poll?

[el_bryanto]

54. You really have a problem with reading comprehension sometimes

Here's the poll again, and I''ll underline some bits to make it clear.

What is your principal objection to Torture?

I'm breaking this down into two large categories - obviously most of us will believe that both statements are true - but if you can pick, which one is most important to you?

Does that clear it up?

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

61. No, your poll offered a third alternative that encompassed both and you rejected it

in favor of "doesn't work" as your principal objection. It seems when you meant "principal" what you really meant was "but if somebody points out the flaw in that objection I' weasel out of it with a new principal objection".

[el_bryanto]

62. You are really working over time to paint me as pro-torture

Do you know what the word principal means? It means the main objection; it does not preclude also being opposed to torture for moral reasons as well.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

50. So if we could be 90% sure that torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's son

would produce valuable information, that would be acceptable?

Report that interrogators abused his children[edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Letter from Ali Khan, Majid Khan's father


Ali Khan, the father of Majid Khan, another one of the 14 "high-value detainees," released an affidavit on April 16, 2006, that reported that interrogators subjected Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's children, aged 6 and 8 years old, to abusive interrogation.[83][84][85]

Khan's affidavit quoted another of his sons, Mohammed Khan:


The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs, and were denied food and water by other guards. They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Report_that_interrogators_abused_his_children

[el_bryanto]

55. The question answers itself; there is no reason to speculate that a 6 year

old or an 8 year old would have valuable information.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

60. No, but Khalid did and child torture is very effective in extracting information from a parent.

So let's, for the sake of argument, say it is over your 90% threshold. It is consequently allowable. This was in fact, approximately the argument that the Bush administration made.

[el_bryanto]

63. OK - well you've had your moment of feeling morally superior

I oppose torturing children, no matter what the circumstances.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

66. So your principal objection is not "doesn't work".

You still can change your vote. Or you can blame me for your not thinking through your position.

[el_bryanto]

67. I see no reason to change my vote, and I won't be bullied into doing it. nt

[PoliticAverse]

28. The bar on this issue seems to have been moved a bit to the right. n/t

[Orsino]

90. Or see so many fail the test. n/t

[dawg]

14. It's morally wrong.

Even if it were 100% effective (which it isn't), I would oppose it.

You don't protect yourself from monsters by becoming one yourself.

[Ms. Toad]

36. Unless, of course, Obama is implementing it -

then we have to trust that he knows what is best for us, right?



I shouldn't really need that tag - but, unfortunately, it seems I do: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5339866

[steve2470]

15. morally wrong, hands down ! nt

[KamaAina]

16. Once again, may I remind you two pro-torture people

about the Show Usernames tab in the lower left corner.

[Maedhros]

22. Thank you. Two more names added to my ignore list. [n/t]

[Warren Stupidity]

53. AFAIC "doesn't work" is pro torture.

It allows for "x-torture" works.

[el_bryanto]

57. That's not accurate. nt

[sarisataka]

17. There is only one objection

It is wrong.

If torture was 100% effective, it would still be wrong.

[IronGate]

19. Torture is not only morally wrong and ineffective,

BUT IT'S AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW AND INTERNATIONAL NORMS.

Why Bush and co. weren't hauled before the Hague or prosecuted by our own DoJ blows my mind.
It's no wonder the world looks at us with as a hypocritical nation.

[marions ghost]

29. Thank you

Torture is the way of the barbaric past, not the future.

Bushco broke laws. Absolutely. And those who carried out the crimes should live to regret it.

[PoliticAverse]

31. Oh yeah? Well someone got some official letters from some lawyers that says it's a-ok...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

[Lars39]

34. The Torture Memos, Yoo, Gonzales...it's all there

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html?_r=0

[Maedhros]

20. Effectiveness is irrelevant. Torture is morally wrong, as are those who condone it. [n/t]

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. It's morally wrong and has no place in a civilised society founded on the rule of law.

Also it doesn't work; ask John McCain, who I'll credit for his opposition to torture....based in part on his own experience of torture at the hands of his Vietnamese captors.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. “May all that have life be delivered from suffering” ― Gautama Buddha

[LanternWaste]

25. Joe Navarro, one of the F.B.I.’s top experts in questioning techniques, told The New Yorker...

Joe Navarro, one of the F.B.I.’s top experts in questioning techniques, told The New Yorker, “Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected. You don’t want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems.”

(Jane Mayer, "Whatever it takes. The politics of the man behind "24."", The New Yorker.)




I tend to agree with that sentiment. A degree of that same indictment is also projected onto the proponents of torture too-- budding psychopaths.

[Puzzledtraveller]

32. If someone kidnapped my child and I was in a position to extract their location

I would torture them if need be.

[Iggo]

40. How many innocent people would you be willing to torture...

...to make sure you had the right guy?

[Puzzledtraveller]

58. not playing, but thank you for offering

[Iggo]

59. Hey, it's your ball.

[NuclearDem]

42. And waste time hunting down bad leads based on the bogus information you'd get?

People will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear to get the pain to stop.

That's why it doesn't work.

[Boom Sound 416]

33. Their is a part of me that wants the

Bad guys to know, "don't get caught."

[CJCRANE]

37. What happens when someone thinks

you're one of the "bad guys"?

Who decides who are the "bad guys"?

How about we just stick to due process of law, and the laws of war?

[Boom Sound 416]

52. I'll try to answer this way

I'm against state sanctioned death penalties, but I'm for it for the Feds. The reason is deterrence, but it's too flawed and inconsistent among the 50 states.

Torture is another arrow in the quiver.

Perhaps those who wish to do us harm might just think it over just a little more.

On your first question though, "what if I was a bad guy?" - two thoughts. I think it would have been better if the president had both changed the point of view of his admission to toture and his words. Also, I would prefer the official stance lay somewhere in the murky depths of American retaliation.

[Zorra]

41. Torture hurts.

[A HERETIC I AM]

65. Well, loosen it up a bit. n/t

[Zorra]

68. I can't.

They've cut off both of my hands.

[rock]

43. Are you familiar with the principle that says

If you have one really strong reason for a thing, then you do not need two. Torture is morally wrong. You cannot have a stronger reason.

[el_bryanto]

45. I'm familiar with that principal but don't believe it to be how

people actually work. People like to pretend that's how they work (because that high horse is surprisingly comfortable), but most people have several motivations for everything they do.

Bryant

[rock]

46. True

Of course I said, "need" not "can't have". I believe you weaken your argument by putting up more targets for your opponent to attack but will not say, "shouldn't have".

[Shrike47]

44. I oppose torture whether or not it's effective.

Which doesn't mean there aren't some people I'd like to hurt.

[Silent3]

47. My objection is moral. As for effectiveness, I think that's situational.

When I hear people say that torture is ineffective, the situations they describe where it's ineffective nearly always have no immediate feedback for providing false information -- victims can confess to things they haven't done, name names that will be hard to verify, talk about plans of real or imaginary collaborators that will be hard to confirm and will take time to confirm.

However, if the torture (or other coercion) is immediately connected to immediately verifiable information, I have a very hard time imagining that torture is NOT effective.

For example, imagine that someone wants to open a safe, you know the combination, you and the torturer and the safe are all together in the same room. The torturer is threatening to cut off one of your fingers if you don't provide the combination. You know lying isn't going to help you, because he'll immediately try the combination you tell him, and if it's wrong, you very painfully lose a finger.

Even if you're trying to be noble or stubborn, how many fingers would you be willing to lose, especially if you let this go far enough that you lose one finger and you know for sure the torturer is not bluffing?

[Savannahmann]

84. Indeed? Perhaps you should speak with Alan West.

You may remember the former Congressman from Florida. Before being elected to Congress, he was forced to resign from the military in a deal to avoid a Courts Martial for torturing a prisoner.

http://wonkette.com/552058/allen-west-tortured-iraqi-cop-avoided-court-martial-kept-pension-hey-its-not-like-he-was-gay

The interrogators convinced that the Iraqi police officer was lying, reported frustration at not getting him to talk. So Colonel West stormed in and placed his pistol next to the ear of the suspect, and pulled the trigger to "scare him into talking". That this leads to permanent damage to hearing is well known, but damn it there were lives on the line here. End result, the Iraqi Police officer started tot talk. He provided lots of information. Unfortunately, none of it was true. You see, he was actually innocent.

Let's be honest shall we, if only for a moment. Most people possess information that would be considered tactical. That is to say that the information they have is useful today, but pretty much useless tomorrow. They don't have any strategic information. So by the time you torture them enough that they break, and start getting information, even if it is true which in the case of Alan West, it wasn't, it's old and obsolete information that provides you with nothing useful.

Let's look at history, and the success or failure of interrogations. The technique most often successful is not torture, nor even drugs to induce a hypnotic state. It is befriending the subject. Child Molesters, Rapists, even Serial Killers are often coaxed to speak by understanding and reasonable interrogations. It is difficult for the interrogator, to understand and sympathize with the subject, especially the child predators, but it is very often successful. How many strong arm interrogations have been later found to lead to a conviction of an innocent individual? Here's a report on interrogation techniques. What is disappointing, is despite the advances in psychiatry and psychology, we still return to the 19th century as soon as we want information. Best solution always seems like a chance to beat the information out of the subject.

Let's look at the case of Andrei Chikatilo. He was arrested on 21 November, and subjected to interrogations by the Russians. This was within months of the Soviet Union collapse, when the Miranda warning was scream all you want, we don't mind. Yet for eight days, at the hands of the Russian Police and security people, what was KGB until a few months before, Andrei Chikatilo resisted the interrogations. Then they had a Psychiatrist who had assisted in profiling the serial killer interview the suspect. Chikatilo broke down as the Doctor told him what he believed motivated the man. To prove he was the guilty one, Chikatilo took the investigators to the site where additional previously undiscovered victims were located.

In this case, as in most of them. Brutality did not work. Threats did not work. Intimidation did not work. What worked was one person sitting down and understanding the suspect. Excellent movie on this case, Citizen X. I've read a couple books on the case as well, brilliant work by a handful of fairly open minded investigators. People who were confident enough in themselves to admit when the routine was not working.

Torture will get you information, eventually. But it will almost certainly be useless or false. History shows that. Finding excuses or what if scenarios where it would work should be left to the realm of fiction, instead of being discussed as a real policy suggestion.

[Silent3]

86. How is your response relevant to what I just wrote?

The types of situations you listed where torture wasn't effective were already the kinds of situations that I started my post by agreeing it wasn't effective.

Is it your position that the kind of scenario I propose only exists in "the realm of fiction"? If so, then why start your response to my post with inapplicable examples that don't counter the hypothetical situation I offered instead of getting right to the more relevant point?

I said nothing, by the way, about how frequent or infrequent the type of scenario I proposed is likely to occur -- so, to make that clear, I don't think it would be very common, especially when it comes to the types of prisoner interrogations we're talking about our government being involved with.

Since no one compiles statistics on this kind of thing, however, I don't see any reason to decide that situations like my hypothetical example are so vanishingly rare that they only ever happen in fiction. I'd guess that such torture situations are more likely to occur, when they do, in (non-governmental) criminal and gang activity.

Since the very start of my post was to say "My objection is moral", if you then read an argument that torture might sometimes, nevertheless, be effective, as an imagined qualification -- as if I were saying, "but when it is effective, then it is moral" that's not me saying that, that's you incorrectly inferring it.

[TheKentuckian]

49. Torture is wrong and the fact that is ineffective just further bolsters the complete wrongness

Therefore torture must ALWAYS be illegal, must always be condemned, can never be tolerated, and the perpetrators and conspirators must always be prosecuted.

If there is some absurd 24 scenario that plays out then fucking President Palmer can fucking pardon Jack Bauer and Jack having been subjected to psychotic behavior to save LA should then be retired from service and provided with a pension, his duty to the nation fully discharged but their is no weekly episode, such a situation would be extraordinarily rare to the point that the pardon should be the only possible check on prosecution other than judge and jury, neither of which is fixing to send Jack away for saving LA either.

There is no justification to codify anything but the illegality of torture and the harshest penalties and no excuse not to prosecute those involved under the sun, fucking zero. If the President believes that circumstances were beyond extraordinary and grave then he can pardon and is within his legal rights to do so but live with what that says about him for good or for ill but he has no standing to ignore it, cannot admit and blow it off, and becomes an accomplice if he does either. We aren't talking petty nonsense, we are in the murder, rape, child molesting tier here but turned up to fucking 11 because of the systematic nature of the sins (at this point crime approaches weak tea). Maybe not up to the ovens and gas chambers level but quickly approaching for sure, raping kids in front of their parents shit is about there, we are just holding back due to quantity at that stage.

Subhuman barbarism at its lowest here not "patriotism", how in the world does one even mouth such despicable and tragically dishonest sentiments? These "folks" are monsters from a hoped and espoused to be horrific and failed past not patriots, patriots do not piss in the mouth of their nations most basic values to do something they know is past wrong and at evil that we have seriously hundreds and thousands of years worth of evidence doesn't work, mostly to get bullshit to help drum up an insane war of choice under the most false of pretexts.

[Matrosov]

56. It's prone to being ineffective and generating false information nt

[BlueJazz]

64. I have not nor ever will torture anything but myself.

[BainsBane]

69. Yet when that torture is for sexual arrousal

People insist it's wrong to question it.

[sibelian]

71. Meaningless garbage.

When you are capable of understanding the concept of consent, let us all know.

[el_bryanto]

73. And if that consent is coerced?

Is it still consent in your opinion?

Bryant

[BainsBane]

92. I didn't think you'd get a response

The point seemed to be a drive by attack. That member has made a number of them to me in recent days.

[sibelian]

72. Good trolling, by the way.

[rhett o rick]

74. I would be interested in seeing a link to that. How many people are we

talking about?

[BainsBane]

75. Remember the 50 shades of Grey discussion?

Surely I don't need to provide you links to support the idea that here people in general think anything related sex is good?

[rhett o rick]

79. But this is a discussion about torture and I don't remember anyone condoning torture even for sex.

Maybe I missed it, I will admit not to reading all the posts on that subject.

[BainsBane]

81. Not in this thread

I was pointing out a contradiction between abject horror for torture by the state (a view I share), and the idea that if something is for sexual arousal, it's always good. That endorsement of all things sexual must never be criticized, and if one suggests otherwise they are denounced as a right-winger, Ed Meese.

I think it is possible to consider a connection between our nation as an empire that wields power brutally, including through torture, and how those dynamics are manifested on a personal/sexual level. People want to pretend they are entirely separate. I question whether that is so. Freshwest had an excellent post exploring that connection a while back that I will try to look for later and link to.

[BainsBane]

91. Here is her excellent post

exploring the connection between depictions of sexual violence, including torture, and war and violence at the hands of the state. it is well worth reading.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025296248#post14

She updated it here for a broader discussion: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5353144

[woo me with science]

70. I am a human being with a functioning moral compass.

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

[Xithras]

76. How about "So they don't torture OUR guys?"

I am opposed to torture for moral reasons, but one of the foundational purposes for the international bans against torture was to ensure reciprocity when nations gave it up. "We don't torture your guys if we catch them, and in exchange you agree not to torture ours."

Once WE say "Torture is OK", we're also telling the rest of the world that torture is acceptable. American prisoners have been taken in every single major military conflict that the United States has engaged in. Do you really want OUR soldiers being tortured?

[el_bryanto]

78. That's a good argument - it does seem more in the practical rather than moral objections column NT

[Jackpine Radical]

77. Tough call.

However, if torture were actually effective, I could see some very restricted, desperate situations in which it might be defensible as the lesser of two evils (even though in itself it would always be a great evil).

Suppose someone had placed an atomic bomb somewhere on Manhattan with a timing device and you had captured the person responsible. Would you torture him for information on the location if that was the only way to save the city?

However, since torture is neither effective nor morally justifiable, my hypothetical is nothing more than that--a hypothetical. Torture is always indefensible.

[Go Vols]

80. In the US

20,000 to 80,000 US citizens are tortured daily by the prison system through solitary confinement.I strongly oppose torture.

Some states have banned it in the last few year or so,but is still widespread.

Solitary Confinement is Torture

The devastating psychological and physical effects of prolonged solitary confinement are well documented by social scientists: prolonged solitary confinement causes prisoners significant mental harm and places them at grave risk of even more devastating future psychological harm.

Researchers have demonstrated that prolonged solitary confinement causes a persistent and heightened state of anxiety and nervousness, headaches, insomnia, lethargy or chronic tiredness, nightmares, heart palpitations, and fear of impending nervous breakdowns. Other documented effects include obsessive ruminations, confused thought processes, an oversensitivity to
stimuli, irrational anger, social withdrawal, hallucinations, violent fantasies, emotional flatness, mood swings, chronic depression, feelings of overall deterioration, as well as suicidal ideation.

Exposure to such life-shattering conditions clearly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment – in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the brutal use of solitary has been condemned as torture by the international community.

http://ccrjustice.org/solitary-factsheet

[el_bryanto]

82. that is an important issue as well -

I think a lot of has to do with the prison industry - privatization and the like - prisons are too crowded, and so they use solitary as kind of a default way of dealing with issues.

Which ties back to our "war on drugs."

Bryant

[abakan]

83. My objection to torture, is, that its torture.

Many people think causing someone else pain is a way for them to get off, proves their superiority. But rational, moral people know there is no joy in pain for the sake of pain. My answer: it's wrong and will mess with your karma big time.

[Xyzse]

85. I don't condone it, but understand why it is used.

It is morally wrong to do.
It also produces sketchy information.

However, given certain situations, particularly time sensitive matters, I see why it is used.
The idea is the balance between the carrot and the stick.

See, for long term informational purposes, it is best to create a rapport with whomever you are trying to interrogate.
For quick situations, where lives are on the line within say seconds, minutes, hours or even the span of a few days, I can see why some would opt for torture.

I still don't condone it, nor do I think it should be done, but information gathered from torture is a crap-shoot.
It gives information or direction where there might have been none to begin with.
When faced with a scenario, where there is no credible information, where the idea is doing something or doing nothing, many opt to doing something, even acting on bad information, it is basically a verification method.

So, that's where I'm at. I don't condone it, it is morally reprehensible, and the information is suspect and not really credible, but faced in a crisis situation, I see why people do it, as a means of finding a direction to go to(even if the end result is choosing not to act).
It is still wrong, but I can understand and empathize the why.

[Garthem]

87. Excuse me?

It's fuckin' torture, for fuck sakes!

[L0oniX]

89. Folks piss me off.