Christopher Hitchens on Torture. [video]

[Raayl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58&NR=1

Interesting video. I've always been a big fan of Hitchens - hes everything an intellectual should be. Pragmatic, calm, and exceptionally educated. He also has absolutely no problem with experiencing first hand all the things he discusses, which is admirable.

In the video he is water boarded. of course, its a simulation, so the stress is decreased, but the physical effects are absolutely in tact. This practice is ****ed.

discuss.

[1338 h4x0r]

A-rabs aren't humans don't you know that

[Raayl]

i had read that somewhere i think

[1338 h4x0r]

My Southern Baptist minister told me that. Do you go to church with me?

[Raayl]

in an attempt to be serious for a moment, here are my thoughts on torture

i honestly don't think we torture for information or misbegotten altruism. i think it really is just as simple as the primordial desire to inflict pain to people who we feel deserve it. (people who have caused pain to us.) its a lot more insidious. it has to be, because...i mean, it doesnt make sense to hurt people to help people. you hurt people to hurt people - thats the goal. thats the nature of violence.

so torture really is, as natural as breathing for human beings. it'll always exist in some form, its never going away. the only major issue i have regarding this is our obsession with claiming the "high road." i mean, really? why is it so terrible to simply elaborate on our undeniably sadist impulses and claim them as natural? (sadist by definition of a technological culture, that is.) These desires and impulses most certainly are innate, if they weren't - we wouldn't even have made it past the Neanderthals.

"Hey guys, we're human beings, and we love to maim and kill. Just like everything else in the universe, balance is necessary."

Wouldn't that be something.

[Raayl]

further

non-violence is a product of technological culture. taking that into consideration, its no wonder torture seems so terrible to most people. and of course, anyone who has been tortured. i think it unforgivable for a western democracy to condone the act as a global power - but thats my opinion. even though our culture demands non-violence, torture still manages to persist.

which, to me, really gets at the heart of the human condition. the conflict of being aggressive to be genetically dominant with the desire to be non-violent in effort to not disrupt technological society.

EDIT: i'm talking about violence because i feel it central to the debate on torture - obviously most torture is physical, but becoming increasingly psychological. Violence applies to both, and the conflict of cultural values on the subject i think is important to consider.

[1338 h4x0r]

Torture has dubious utility

[Raayl]

Torture has dubious utility

if you're being serious, elaborate

if not...:chug:

[TerranYouApart]

this is not torture and people that think it is need to get your head out of your *** and remember that the people that we do this to want to kill use

this is old i posted it like 2 months ago

[1338 h4x0r]

People lie to get out of torture

duh

@ TerranYouApart: it was torture when the VC used it on American soldiers, it was torture during the Spanish Inquisition, and it's still torture now ...... if I haven't convinced you, you can come to my house and try experiencing it you pussy

[gregulus]

the people that we do this to want to kill use

This isn't necessarily the case. Also, that doesn't necessarily justify torture, nor does it prove torture's utility.

How is it not torture?

[Raayl]

People lie to get out of torture

duh

@ TerranYouApart: it was torture when the VC used it on American soldiers, it was torture during the Spanish Inquisition, and it's still torture now ...... if I haven't convinced you, you can come to my house and try it you slightly confuzzled sea lion

i always liked your posting style.

[TerranYouApart]

haha TROLLED.

look at the first comment on that video.

[spitfirejunky]

Torture has dubious utility

That's being generous. Torture is absolutely useless unless you're a sociopath.

[gregulus]

That's being generous. Torture is absolutely useless unless you're dick cheney.

fix'd.

edit: or steve.

[TerranYouApart]

well what if you saw a guy running out of a building that is blowing up and you saw him throw the bomb on the ground and you catch him.

how would you get him to say "who put you up to this?"

furthermore, your entire family was on the 2nd floor waiting on you to join their dinner party.

[spitfirejunky]

well what if you saw a guy running out of a building that is blowing up and you saw him throw the bomb on the ground and you catch him.

how would you get him to say "who put you up to this?"

furthermore, your entire family was on the 2nd floor waiting on you to join their dinner party.

You don't. Your testimony alone should imprison him along with whatever evidence you find.

[TerranYouApart]

what if your family was the royal family, and he was a foreigner?

[1338 h4x0r]

That's being generous. Torture is absolutely useless unless you're a sociopath.

That's what I'm saying: even from the perspective of the ideal Homo economicus (even Cheney is probably not one of them), torture has dubious utility because the information you get may very well not be sound

[TerranYouApart]

torture is fun. i mean, i'll admit i get a thrill out of torturing people. maybe not life threatening torture, but for instance trolling intellectuals with retarded opinions. or locking my sister out of the house in a downpour. or tickling my girlfriend until she can't breath.

none of those people are my enemy though.

[1338 h4x0r]

I want to prank call someone on Skype with an Ah-nuld sound board. That might be pretty cool.

[Smokey D]

in an attempt to be serious for a moment, here are my thoughts on torture

i honestly don't think we torture for information or misbegotten altruism. i think it really is just as simple as the primordial desire to inflict pain to people who we feel deserve it. (people who have caused pain to us.) its a lot more insidious. it has to be, because...i mean, it doesnt make sense to hurt people to help people. you hurt people to hurt people - thats the goal. thats the nature of violence.

so torture really is, as natural as breathing for human beings. it'll always exist in some form, its never going away. the only major issue i have regarding this is our obsession with claiming the "high road." i mean, really? why is it so terrible to simply elaborate on our undeniably sadist impulses and claim them as natural? (sadist by definition of a technological culture, that is.) These desires and impulses most certainly are innate, if they weren't - we wouldn't even have made it past the Neanderthals.

"Hey guys, we're human beings, and we love to maim and kill. Just like everything else in the universe, balance is necessary."

Wouldn't that be something.

I don't see how you got from 'the nature of violence' to 'torture is as natural as breathing for humans'. In the vast majority, humans are empathetic, and they resist inflicting pain on other things, especially other people. In order to make most people willing torturers, you either have to remove the illusion of choice ("superior orders") or dehumanise the victim.

Moreover, I see nothing obvious about the proposition "it's natural, therefore it's good".

well what if you saw a guy running out of a building that is blowing up and you saw him throw the bomb on the ground and you catch him.

how would you get him to say "who put you up to this?"

furthermore, your entire family was on the 2nd floor waiting on you to join their dinner party.

What you might want to do in a particular instance is entirely irrelevant to whether torture is useful or whether it's justified.

torture is fun. i mean, i'll admit i get a thrill out of torturing people. maybe not life threatening torture, but for instance trolling intellectuals with retarded opinions. or locking my sister out of the house in a downpour. or tickling my girlfriend until she can't breath.

You're a funny man.

[1338 h4x0r]

Torture: come on, everyone's doing it man

[Raayl]

I don't see how you got from 'the nature of violence' to 'torture is as natural as breathing for humans'. In the vast majority, humans are empathetic, and they resist inflicting pain on other things, especially other people. In order to make most people willing torturers, you either have to remove the illusion of choice ("superior orders") or dehumanise the victim.

Moreover, I see nothing obvious about the proposition "it's natural, therefore it's good".



What you might want to do in a particular instance is entirely irrelevant to whether torture is useful or whether it's justified.



You're a funny man.

no you misunderstood me about natural = good i was merely proposing the inconsistency in the logic of people who support torture, and i addressed already that violence is the base issue with torture is it not

and i completely disagree humans are most certainly not naturally empathetic we are violent and savage history clearly d0cuments this - heck, even contemporary global politics d0cument this i really dont understand how you could make such a claim

compassionate states are almost always eradicated historically

[Smokey D]

no you misunderstood me about natural = good i was merely proposing the inconsistency in the logic of people who support torture, and i addressed already that violence is the base issue with torture is it not

What? You said that there was nothing wrong with succumbing to sadist impulses because they were natural and innate.



and i completely disagree humans are most certainly not naturally empathetic we are violent and savage history clearly d0cuments this - heck, even contemporary global politics d0cument this i really dont understand how you could make such a claim


Violence is the exception, not the norm.


compassionate states are almost always eradicated historically

States aren't people.

[Raayl]

What? You said that there was nothing wrong with succumbing to sadist impulses because they were natural and innate.



Violence is the exception, not the norm.



States aren't people.

No I was sincerely asking the question why is it bad. Or is it bad - its an ethical question. Why is it 'wrong' to succumb to our impulsive, sadist nature? That is a legitimate question I'd like to hear your answer on, its not rhetorical.

Also, violence is the exception? I'm not trying to condescend you in any way, but do you read history? That statement is completely backwards.

and states are most certainly comprised of people that in someway feel unified by their mention

[Smokey D]

No I was sincerely asking the question why is it bad. Or is it bad - its an ethical question. Why is it 'wrong' to succumb to our impulsive, sadist nature? That is a legitimate question I'd like to hear your answer on, its not rhetorical.

Well, that's a massive question. I don't really have the time to go into what makes something good or bad.


Also, violence is the exception? I'm not trying to condescend you in any way, but do you read history? That statement is completely backwards.

Yeah I'm a historian.

Or at least a history major.


and states are most certainly comprised of people that in someway feel unified by their mention

A state is not a person, therefore the behaviour of states acting as institutions in cannot be taken as representative of the behaviour of people acting as people.

[StreetlightRock]

Of course violence is the exception. And we are not violent or sadists or benevolent or anything by nature, so the appeal to what is 'natural' to justify violence is wrong.

Love Hitchens though, even if he can be a giant wanker sometimes.

[Raayl]

Well, that's a massive question. I don't really have the time to go into what makes something good or bad.



Yeah I'm a historian.

Or at least a history major.



A state is not a person, therefore the behaviour of states acting as institutions in cannot be taken as representative of the behaviour of people acting as people.I am a history major as well, which is why it baffles me that your perspective weighs on the side of violence as the exception. I mean, i really don't understand it. War and violence are almost always at the forefront of any major civilization.

And are state decisions not made by people? They most certainly are. It isn't some arbitrary strange 'force' that simply acts on its own. Human beings make these decisions. It is absolutely valid to discuss human nature by using examples of state decisions. It's actually the only way to even successfully discuss this issue because honestly, if you're talking about individuals, you can always find exceptions. But these exceptions do not shake human society or culture normally - they're banal.

[1338 h4x0r]

Do you take a Hegelian view of history

Your post reminded me of how, in the Hegelian view, no one really matters but World Historical Individuals, lol

P.S. - I don't think people are usually violent per se, just indifferent or "good Germans" or whatever ...... that's not much of a step up ethically speaking

[StreetlightRock]

moar like hegaylian view of history

[1338 h4x0r]

icwutudidthar

[Raayl]

Do you take a Hegelian view of history

Your post reminded me of how, in the Hegelian view, no one really matters but World Historical Individuals, lol

P.S. - I don't think people are usually violent per se, just indifferent or "good Germans" or whatever ...... that's not much of a step up ethically speaking

Keep in mind though your opinion has been shaped by massive cultural indoctrination to be non-violent and passive. I'm talking about a historical perspective and doing my best to think as somebody in ancient sparta would, for example. Violence then was much different than it is today. You were indocrinated to be incredibly violent and savage - as that is what the entirety of society was based on. There wasnt any conflict or feelings of guilt, either.

So what does that say about human nature?

Culture that advocates non violence + violent base nature = internal conflict
Culture that advocates violence + violent base nature = no internal conflict

hrmm

[1338 h4x0r]

The genome is full of dumb ape **** from the Stone Ages, this is true

[Raayl]

I wouldn't exactly call greek obsession with warfare stupid.

the primary reason they were so obsessed with battle is because of warrior ethos - or a desire to achieve great glory. The only way to do that back then was through athletic contests (which were basically mini wars anyway) or open combat.

In today's world, you can strive for excellence in many different ways. Getting a degree, for example. So it's really no more stupid. Plus, it was the bronze age...not the stone age :chug:

[Mr. Ron]

When I had to do a lengthy research paper on the Spanish Inquisition, I read entire books about torture. Even THEY knew that torture wasn't useful for any genuine confessions or information. They had manuals that even expressed this.

[Raayl]

When I had to do a lengthy research paper on the Spanish Inquisition, I read entire books about torture. Even THEY knew that torture wasn't useful for any genuine confessions or information. They had manuals that even expressed this.

Yep.

[Jude]

The main reason torture should be banned is because as someone said, the only people you're going to be torturing you are those who have either wronged you or are connected with someone who has. People have a lot of really explosive, vindictive and over-reactive emotions to some slights or injuries, sort of as a deterrent (if you punch me, I'll slit your throat). Giving people legal sanction to carry out that sort of thing is exactly what rule of law is supposed to prevent, and even if benefits can be derived from torture (questionable at best) you're still undermining the entire system you're trying to protect.

[Smokey D]

I am a history major as well, which is why it baffles me that your perspective weighs on the side of violence as the exception. I mean, i really don't understand it. War and violence are almost always at the forefront of any major civilization.

We study wars because they are major events, but they aren't common, at least not compared to other modes of existence.


And are state decisions not made by people? They most certainly are. It isn't some arbitrary strange 'force' that simply acts on its own. Human beings make these decisions. It is absolutely valid to discuss human nature by using examples of state decisions. It's actually the only way to even successfully discuss this issue because honestly, if you're talking about individuals, you can always find exceptions. But these exceptions do not shake human society or culture normally - they're banal.

It is entirely irrelevant what decisions people directing states as to how to behave towards other states, because states aren't people. It is impossible to torture or act sadistically towards a state.

But these exceptions do not shake human society or culture normally - they're banal.

What?

[Nadinus]

ITT: Pseudo intellectuals

[Berner]

ITT: Pseudo intellectuals


You're good* at adding to a conversation.




*bad

[Light Flantastic]

dont quote her then ill see her posts

god

[Nadinus]

take your spam elsewhere, Light Flantastic

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

In this forum: pseudo-intellectuals.

[Light Flantastic]

nadinus is the biggest pseudo intellectual i know

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Somewhere between pine tree and a rain stick on a spectrum of thoughtful posting.

[Light Flantastic]

and i mean big like waist size

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Yodelayhee hoola-hoop.

[McP3000]

take your spam elsewhere, Light Flantastic
i still wanna have sex with you :-*

[Jaded]

how can an exception be banal? Unless in some alternate universe where exceptions are commonplace and normal.

[Raayl]

how can an exception be banal? Unless in some alternate universe where exceptions are commonplace and normal.

because when discussing the context of history we need to understand people didn't think in terms of individuals - individual "rights" weren't even something people considered or thought about really at all - individuals are banal in the context of history they have no power nor do they even seek or know they eventually will have power until about the industrial revolution, enlightenment and beyond

further - using individuals to cite history in your non-violent pacifist world view really is invalid because states were all that mattered both to the lower and upper class in pretty much every major civilization since the fertile crescent and the dawn of agriculture

and seriously the claim that history is somehow not dominated by war i mean i can think of no more ignorant claim

even the greeks, during the fabled years of peace from foreign threats constantly warred with each other simply for the sake of honor and glory. rome was in conflict every single spring for the entirety of its duration. history is war

and this notion that "all we remember are battles but we forget all the massive periods of peace in between" is simply nonsense

[Raayl]

which means i judge the sadistic nature of humanity by its state-driven actions seeing as thats how human civilization has functioned for the majority of its duration and there really isnt any other concrete data to go on (from the perspective of the majority of individuals in history) without becoming totally speculative

and the thread is about state-sponsored torture as well yet again another action of the state being used as an example of the human condition