torture to me

Controversy is nothing new; especially when it comes to the definition of torture and the repercussions of this definition on the law. Firstly, i would like to state that i haven't been desensitized. I have played violent video games, really who hasn't? but it still sickens me to see blood and gore and to think of one human being pulling out the fingernails of another. Gross.
Now, back on topic.
When it comes to legal torture in democracy, as ludacris and ironic it sounds, it is a part of issues which are wholly subjective and thus, controversial.
I believe that torture, in some of its lesser forms, are a necessary evil. i'm not a god and therefore have no right to judge the wicked (i'm still debating whether a god has that right or not anyway) however i feel that all knowledge is worth haing. And some of the most necesary of knowledge comes at a price. Sometimes, that price is weighed in flesh and blood. referring to an earlier post, i will restate that this price IS subjective and that if all people felt responsibility for fellow humans this wouldn't be an issue. But they don't and it is. Therefore, we go back to the drawing board. Torture can be necessary as a valid means to gain necessary information.
Someone made a point that torture should be defined as anything which causes intense anxiety or fear. No offense, but i find this idea pretty ridiculous. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger and one useful thing that many seem to have lost through evolution is a spine. Fear and anxiety, as much as joy and laughter are a part of the human spectrum of emotions. To try to cut off these emotions is unwise because fear and anxiety CAN make one grow as a person so long as they have the will to travel through these travails. TORTURE IS SUBJECTIVE! people find different things torturous and hey, some people enjoy pain. I personally find this argument, as well as any kind of radical rant torturous. Everything in moderation, that's my motto.