Yes, that is exactly what a rational and coherent person would say.
Yes the jokes are quite cringeworthy. Especially the fourth and fifth iterations.
I’ve never been locked up even when I deserved it. And I’m not even a Boomer!
Now, where the hell did I put those dillies…
Why don’t you go up to Alaska, build an igloo, and keep an eye on Putin for us so we can all sleep soundly. Don’t call until you see the whites of their eyes.
Of course you haven’t, those walls are padded for aesthetic reasons.
That depends on your definition of torture, of course. But I’d make an argument for the so-called enemies of the state in Guantanamo for starters.
(n.b. This should in no way be construed as standing in Farnaby’s corner. Broken clocks and all that.)
.
Apparently, the deserving. No way to know how that’s determined or by whom.
Tinfoil hat wearer is no doubt afraid to ‘say too much!’. Dispute?
Do you find torture abhorrent, as a moral/ethical issue?
Please answer this question Will. There is a lot riding on your answer.
Of course. I would never contract with a police agency who used torture.
That being said, torture of the innocent is worse than torture of the guilty. So my priorities are to eliminate torture of the innocent, then once that is accomplished, to eliminate torture of the guilty.
Do you consider the violent capture of non-harmful individuals and their subsequent imprisonment to be a form of torture? If so, why do you favor a system with outcomes such as these?
I see no reason that we should prioritize one over the other. No torture, period.
And I know you live in an alternate universe, but I don’t see how “contracting with a police agency” makes any sense in the dimension that most humans live in.
I do not. It may be unjust, depending on the facts of the case, but injustice isn’t automatically torture; even if all torture is an injustice (IMHO).
So if you had two systems with equal amounts of torture to choose from, one where only guilty violent criminals were tortured and one where innocents and guilty were both tortured, you wouldn’t have a preference?
Ok, well if you read the link to Rothbard you would find that his “torture” would include this practice, which I hope never befalls you, even if it would change your mind quite rapidly.
It’s a false dilemma. If I gave you a choice between voting for Hillary Clinton or being justifiably tortured by a police force you “contracted” with, you’re free to say you choose neither.
I am generally adverse to spending much time reading bullshit from crazy people.
You may ask why I’ve spent more than 7 minutes reading this thread; and I’m afraid that’s a very good question.
But even if someone, including me, is subjected to an injustice, that doesn’t mean it is torture. No more than abortion is murder, taxation is theft, etc.
Are they “top men?”
No, it’s a demonstration of preference. Either you prefer one or the other, or you are ambivalent.
Ok then you are missing key context to a discussion you decided to hop into. I didn’t ask you to.
Ok but you shouldnt fail to mention that as an agent of the state you are comfortably safe from any state violence, in fact you benefit from it. This is also key context for any readers.
So basically what you’re telling us here is that you’re incapable of understanding the actual issues being considered by the Mueller enquiry and thus have resorted to creating in your own mind this weird cartoonish version of what the concerns over Russian involvement in the US election and current administration are, and are then attributing it to me - despite it bearing absolutely no relation to anything I’ve ever said - in order to make yourself feel better about your own rather dubious worldview.
This is why we worry about you.
This question fundamentally misunderstands what “torture” is: you imply that whether something is torture depends on whether it’s performed on a harmful or non-harmful person.
No: torture describes the act, not the victim. Locking up Mr. Rogers would not be torture. Waterboarding Hitler would be torture.
Or it is a fatuous question. But way to keep piling up the false dilemmas – first who do you prefer to torture, then either which do you prefer or ambivalence – and I think if you tried really hard, you could come up with another.
How do you suppose this goes? If I get pulled over from a cop, do you think there is a special “agent of the state” hand sign that I give him that immunizes me from abuse?
You gotta throw the Freemason ‘mason in distress’ hand sign. 
What about my statement about being against the torture of guilty people failed to dispel your confusion?