The more you attend Church, the more likely you are so support Torture.

[Thumpalumpacus]

First, that's a false dichotomy. Second, I already said: All it needs is that the tortured person will sometimes tell the truth. Some recovered children are better than none.

The fact that some if not most will undoubtedly lie shows that the premise is flawed. We haven't even addressed the other hidden assumptions built into that scenario, either.

You said that "the tortured will say what they think their captor wants to hear in order to make the torture stop." I want to hear the actual location of the child. By your logic, the person being tortured should tell me that.

... or you will be sent on a wild goose-chase so that the criminal will get his wish of having the child die, perhaps. Or, you have the wrong guy. Or, he dropped the child off left to wander.

Bottom line, this scenario represents a "perfect storm" scenario in an attempt to educe the acknowledgement that torute is moral. The fact is that the inbuilt assumptions are so unlikely that this scenario is useless as a means of adjuging the morality of torture.

Me too. I haven't had time to review opposing opinion, but if the facts are that torture is ineffective, I see no reason to pursue it.

I'd recommend you use Google Scholar to get the meat of the details. News articles are great, but usually pretty biased.

As opposed to, say, build the things straight in the first place?

Yes, as opposed to that.

It's a pity that said carpenter couldn't figure out a better way of building quality products.

What case is that, and how is it obvious?

You seem like you can figure it out.