Jack gets tortured a lot -- it's a thing. I was saying there's no sample in saying torture's not effective against the good guys if there's only one good guy with info that gets tortured when said good guy is the hero.

I think, quite simply, the good guys will be more heroic than the bad guys, and heroism includes resisting torture. The hero will be even more heroic than the rest of the good guys (although, in Jack's case, that's always been messy -- heroism for him is pain, whether deliberately inflicted by others for information or not).

For me, it all boils down to this residual represented thought: People who torture people are good guys.

I do not want my hero to torture people. My hero can be conflicted and confused, and be moving under the press of current events in a way contrary to his better motivations, but he should eventually recognize that his actions were wrong.

Otherwise, he is not a hero. He is an example of how not to act.

People who torture people are good guys.

Are you calling the people who torture Jack good guys? Or are you limiting yourself to this season? Because if that's the message, they're going back on their previous message.

I'd posit that "good guys torture too" is a closer message -- it's not been shown to be the tool of just one side.

good guys torture too

Anathema. If abstention from torture is removed from the defintion of "good guy", I don't want to be a good guy.

Let's go back to your sentence.

People who torture people are good guys.

This implies that the people who torture Jack are good guys. Is this actually the point you're making? I'm getting mixed messages.

Sometimes it seems you're saying that Jack isn't actually a good guy because he tortures people.

That - I get.

This implies that the people who torture Jack are good guys.

No, that is not the point I am struggling to make. People who torture Jack are bad guys. Jack has done bad-guy things. Jack is a bad guy, too, unless Jack's actions are justified in some larger context.

The 'larger context' here is Jack's actions versus the actions of a dude who is trying to reduce Minneapolis to a radioactive rubble.

My discomfort might be with the comic-book scale of the bad guy. Jack's actions are particular and immediate, shown to us in full detail. Marwan's awfulness is sort of remote, with network-announced body counts and poor dead Nerd Mommas we never actually see dead.

I get a sense of permission for Jack's actions, nevermind the reason.

Let the court show that the witness stood mute.

What am I supposed to say? I'm not arguing with you.

Pointing out that Jack's an unconventional hero who does dodgy-assed things in the pursuit of the greater good isn't going to start a kerfuffle or get you a medal. It's kinda the premise of the show.

There are no good guys.

I do not want my hero to torture people.

Then 24 is probably not a good show for you.