NationStates Jolt Archive

We, the people of Vegas-di-mare cannot support this resolution.
Our disagreement is based on the resolution's (perhaps intentionally) vague language. The resolution in no way adequately defines terms such as "torture" and "cruel and unusual punishment" used within it. To some, mere detention might be construed as torture. To others, an imprisoning nation's insensitivity to a detainee's diet (such as serving meat to a vegetarian, or pork to someone bound by faith not to eat it) might be called "cruel and unusual".

This language creates a situation in which any prisoner is placed in a legally actionable position against the imprisoning power, and therefore, would ultimately render the resolution meaningless (as any prisoner in any nation could, in effect "cry wolf", complaining about accomodations, or the color of the prison uniforms, or the direction the cell window faces, the aggregate of which would flood any agency set up to handle and process such claims, making it nearly impossible to discern the real from the frivolous.)


Perhaps, if these problems were dealt with, and more effective language used, the people of Vegas-di-mare might reconsider.

I don't support it because it gets rid of my ability to break savage's legs. I'm already miffed about the lack of land mines, this is just going to far. I think I'll quit the UN

It doesn't crack down on barbarians.

Your argument swayed me to change my vote to negative. However, if the resolution does pass, I will propose a resolution to more clearly define "torture" and "cruel and unusual."

It is highly unlikely that any amendment would ever pass.

It is highly unlikely that any amendment would ever pass.

That is true. However, I feel that anything has a chance of passing if it is worded correctly. Besides, this resolution will seriously need an amendment if it passes.

It NEEDs an amendment before it passes

*bump*

I personally cannot support the motion against torture for the reasons I set out below, I urge everyone to think carefully about this proposal.

Individual rights also entail individual responsiblity to the community as a whole and to the soveriegn power. A right and a duty however are not moral creatures, morality and right and wrong exist outside of these parameters.

Take the right not to be tortured. It is a amalgamtion of many seperate rights, among them: the right to bodily and mental integrity, the right to avoid self-incrimination, the right not to be pained, or killed, the right to save one's life (wrongly reduced merely to the right to self-defense), the right to prolong one's life (e.g., by receiving medical attention), and the right not to be forced to lie under duress.

None of these rights is self-evident, or unambiguous, or universal, or immutable, or automatically applicable. It is safe to say, therefore, that these rights are not primary - but derivative, nonessential, or mere "wants" the way we'd like things to be, they are not of themselves devine.

The wider community and soveriegn also has rights which may justify the use of torture, this is often overlooked by liberals.

All these rights, the rights to live etcetera form a social contract, they are constantly ebbing and flowing between A, B and C but does A's right to life overrule C's right to justice if the only way justice can be fulfilled is A's death. In the case of an attack by A on B. Is B prevented from enforcing his right to life because of A's right to survive , NO. The same can be said of torture when mental pressure fails to exact a remedy then torture is justified.

As I've said the rights of an individual are not immutable, when one refuses to co-operate with the state , you are abbrogating the rights of others and have broken the social contract in most states you lose the rights of liberty, but you also lose the right to life and to be free from torture. There is a natural progression here. You welch on your side of the contract and you should suffer the consequence.

Moreover, torture is erroneously perceived by liberals as a kind of punishment. Suspects - innocent until proven guilty - indeed should not be subject to penalty. But torture is merely an interrogation technique. Ethically, it is no different to any other pre-trial process: shackling, detention, questioning, or bad press. Inevitably, the very act of suspecting someone is traumatic and bound to inflict pain and suffering - psychological, pecuniary, and physical - on the suspect.

Take the case of the ticking time bomb - there is a bomb in a location know only to the accused ticking down to detonation, all mental interrogation has failed and the accused refuses to help, should we not apply torture, or should we give his rights precedence over the rights of innocents?

For the above reasons I vote against this motion and urge others to do so to

Can we have a list of nations not supporting this proposal? We want to include you on our "do not visit" tourist warning list.

None of these rights is self-evident, or unambiguous, or universal, or immutable, or automatically applicable. It is safe to say, therefore, that these rights are not primary - but derivative, nonessential, or mere "wants" the way we'd like things to be, they are not of themselves devine.

I can't believe that a celtophile would say such a thing.

Would you say, for example, that the torture of people involved in the Rising of 1916 to obtain names of people to be executed was the result of their "welching" on their "contract" with the British imperial invaders?

There are no circumstances under which the physical or psychological torture of a human being gets you anything other than people in your nation who are torturing others and people in other nations who are horrified that you're allowing it.

Not that I think this resolution is well-worded; it needs definitions; but I cannot, cannot believe how many "nations" are opposing it on the basis that it's okay to hurt another human if they meet some set of criteria for not counting as fellow human beings anymore.

I pulled this nation out of the UN because I wanted it to be successful by my standards of successful, and I put in a second nation so I could continue to participate in the UN in the hopes that the UN would improve someday and this nation could rejoin. But I guess I really don't see the point in participating in an international confederation of people who value some strange and twisted ideal of "security" -- and who says that torture produces accurate information? Who says another method wouldn't get truth, without being destructive? -- over human life.


Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

Fair point... torture does not provide reliable evidence, but i think this proposal is too poorly worded and far too far reaching to be considered. On the note of other methods would one include the use of certain truth drugs to get information torture? The criminals would not be physically harmed but certain human rights would be violated. Would the violation of one person's human rights be too much for some nations, even if it saved thousands of lives. How many nations would have approved of the torture of the perpatrators of 9:11 had they been suspected before the event. This resolution has its heart in the right place but is too vague.. it can't be voted through without massive ammendment

Let's assume, for a moment, that it is possible to pragmatically evaluate torture, without considering the massive damage it can inflict on the selves and lives of the torturers and their communities, and the tortured (if they survive).

In fact, let's step out of character.

What will the impact of such a resolution be? It might increase your civil liberties. It might up your political freedoms. It doesn't cost anything. So why vote against it? Resolutions can be amended. Meanwhile, your nation will be doing better for not having, say, as high a rate of child abuse as might start if physical violence is endorsed by your nation.

And another small point. What exactly is the purpose of taking an eye for an eye? Wouldn't it have been best for everyone if someone had bothered to talk to the guys taking flight lessons in prep for 9/11, and had actually figured out that they weren't just learning to fly for giggles? Wouldn't it have been great if the FBI had listened to the woman who tried to make them pay attention to the information they had? Wouldn't it have been lovely if it had all been stopped, and I could still count on being able to live my life without fear that the government could strip me of all my rights on a whim, as the US government is now allowed to do and other nations are beginning to copy?

What in hell makes you think that physically harming those guys before this happened wouldn't make their buddies back home feel like justified martyrs ready to redouble their efforts to ruin all things US?

And wouldn't it be lovely if the US figured out that it isn't alone in tragedy? Those of us who live in Ireland or Israel have been suffering losses like 9/11 for decades. But we're still trying to embrace humanity, to find a way for all of us to grow and become more civilised. We still have hope.

If you don't, fine, but don't sic your sickness on us.

Its funny because nobody every questions what the Canadian Charter of RIghts and Freedoms means about cruel and unusual punsihment. Nobody every questions what the American Constitution means by cruel and unusual punishment. Neither of those documents 100%, or even 80% clearly outline what these terms mean. So then why does the term come under question here? As for the use of truth serums to gather information... its all up to each individual nation :twisted:

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Mr. Baron's tone aside, he does bring up a useful point. The definitions of cruel and unusual are open to interpretation if they are not specifically defined by the resolution, which is the problem with this resolution, if there is one.

I would argue that it is not always necessary to reach perfect clarity before you act, especially if you know your act is a temporary stopgap to save lives and prevent abuses while you work out a definition that does approach clarity.

Wouldn't it have been lovely if it had all been stopped, and I could still count on being able to live my life without fear that the government could strip me of all my rights on a whim, as the US government is now allowed to do and other nations are beginning to copy?


It would be lovely but it also implies you have far more faith in humanity than I do. There will always be people willing to kill and maim other people for a myriad of reasons, because this is not a perfect world. Free-will is one of the defining characteristics of humanity. Free-will means that sometimes I'll call in work sick and have a day in bed, ultimately making life harder for everyone else at work, just because i damn-well feel like it. Free-will for some people will also mean they want to blow up building, or murder people, because they simply desire to and they can. This seems to have gone a bit off topic but its important to note that this is not a perfect world and sometimes being moral and doing the "right thing" is the wrong thing to do. I oppose torture in the way i would personally define it but that would probably not be the same as everyone else's definition. The problem of this bill is it lacks definition (more or less completely)

I'd agree with Roberia, [OOC] doing the right thing morally is not always the best thing to do. Yes, you can claim the moral high ground...but when there are people dying because you felt like doing the "right thing" then you really have to wonder what you are trying to accomplish. Rejecting this proposal does not endorse physical violence, it endorses the rejection of poorly-written proposals. Even if your country uses interrogation methods, do you think they will use them on a whim? That is up to the nation's leader, if he wants to be a psychotic evil tyrant, or if he has good intentions and usually does the right thing, but will use evil means if there is no other viable option that will provide the same results.

[IC] I think you are a soft, weak leader, Dendrys, and idealist leaders such as yourselves are mere windbags that don't have the stomach to provide the guidance that a population needs from a leader. If your people are as idealistic and naive as you, then criminals in your nation have it easy.

I don't support it because it gets rid of my ability to break savage's legs. I'm already miffed about the lack of land mines, this is just going to far. I think I'll quit the UN

Do you believe that you should jut be able to break people's legs then?

Free-will is one of the defining characteristics of humanity. Free-will means that sometimes I'll call in work sick and have a day in bed, ultimately making life harder for everyone else at work, just because i damn-well feel like it. Free-will for some people will also mean they want to blow up building, or murder people, because they simply desire to and they can. This seems to have gone a bit off topic but its important to note that this is not a perfect world and sometimes being moral and doing the "right thing" is the wrong thing to do. I oppose torture in the way i would personally define it but that would probably not be the same as everyone else's definition. The problem of this bill is it lacks definition (more or less completely)

Free will, like any freedom, is a responsibility, a burden, a tool we must learn to use. I choose to use it to hope. I choose to have faith in humanity because I choose to believe that showing faith mends more ills than showing selfishness, power or liberty.

You're quite right that doing the moral thing isn't always the right thing. But not doing the moral thing can also be doing the wrong thing, especially when you're not doing it for amoral reasons.

I'd agree with Roberia, [OOC] doing the right thing morally is not always the best thing to do. Yes, you can claim the moral high ground...but when there are people dying because you felt like doing the "right thing" then you really have to wonder what you are trying to accomplish.

Nations are not people. What is immoral for the individual might be perfectly moral for the State and its agents. A private citizen who captures a mass murderer and locks him in a room, and then shoots him is committing the crimes of kidnapping and murder. The state is exercising Justice.

"The state is given the power of the sword to promote justice and restrain evil."

The state's first concern is the protection of its citizens. This makes a preemptive strike against Iraq moral, but a preemptive strike against South Central LA imoral.

By extension, it could be argued that the torture of your citizens' enemies be they spies or terrorists, could be moral for the STATE to do. However, most western states outlaw most forms of torture anyway. However we still do deprivation, bright lights, too hot, too cold, living outside, lack of food, revocation of priveleges, intense interogation (lots of yelling, not violence), and intimidation. The threat of physical harm can be almost as effective as the actual use.

Of course, there is no circumstance where the individual acting as the individual would be morally able to do this.

Even if your country uses interrogation methods, do you think they will use them on a whim? That is up to the nation's leader, if he wants to be a psychotic evil tyrant, or if he has good intentions and usually does the right thing, but will use evil means if there is no other viable option that will provide the same results.

I'm not interested in giving them the option.

[IC] I think you are a soft, weak leader, Dendrys, and idealist leaders such as yourselves are mere windbags that don't have the stomach to provide the guidance that a population needs from a leader. If your people are as idealistic and naive as you, then criminals in your nation have it easy.

ooc: Do you really find that entertaining?

ic: If you don't have the courage to envision a civilised society, then it is you who are weak.

The state's first concern is the protection of its citizens. This makes a preemptive strike against Iraq moral, but a preemptive strike against South Central LA imoral.

And if the preemptive strike loses the state its allies? If it undermines the only international body with any power to unite the world and stop violence between nations (though admittedly, it has little of that)? If it causes six other nations to feel justified in striking South Central LA?

There is no excuse for shortsightedness.

"ic: If you don't have the courage to envision a civilised society, then it is you who are weak."

"Civilized" can mean many different things. On a basic level, it means that one is better than a savage. Since my nation is economically powerful, yet I am the end-all, I believe I am civilized, because I am doing things my own way, and they are working out. I make no claims to be good-aligned, however I make the claim that a nation's leader does not need to be good-aligned in order to be an effective leader. I see you as weak, because you make many claims which you cannot back up, and you offer no solutions of your own, even while saying that we don't offer good solutions. Perhaps you should practice what you preach. Until then, perhaps you should rethink some things.

The state, like the people, has to take responsibility for its actions. The US attacks Iraq to defend its citizens. However South Central is hardly a threat to the rest of the world. If it were, they would be justified in asking the US to fix the problem. If the US did not, then the other nation could intervene.

View the US response to Afghanistan: hand him over or we come and get him.

Because they feel like it is not justification to invade South Central just like because they felt like it is no justification to attack Iraq.

And as for undermining the UN, I think they took care of that when the SUDAN replaced the US on the Human Rights Commision. Honestly, the UN would fight all over itself to bid for the rope with which to hang themselves.

I think putting the Sudan on that committee was an instance of choosing the lesser of two evils. If striking a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 (all the pilots were Saudis), using falsified information and lying both to the UN and the citizens of the US, on the basis of one attack (and my country has lost TENS of thousands of people over DECADES in attacks like that; where was the USA?) is the US' idea of human rights, I'll take the Sudan.

The state does have to take responsibility. I hope the US is prepared to accept that it has utterly lost its credibility. It is willing to sacrifice both truth and civil liberties to fight a nation on false pretenses. That will have consequences.

Nonetheless, we are off topic.

The point is that there is no excuse for torture in CIVILISED nations.

OOC:I believe that the US had every right to attack Iraq.
IC:if your nation is not good hearted you are not civilized. My nation is civilized. We maybe a capitalist paradise, but we have the best interest of our people at heart. A cruel dictatorship IS NOT CIVILIZED! It is a tragedy that sime people think they are.

OOC:As a canadian native living in the US, I believe that we are doing the right thing over there. Our young men and women are giving there lives to defend our freedom. I dont see Ireland, or Isreal, or france, germany, or china doing that. No, they are drinking cofee and reading biased newspapers.

We in Presgreif believe that any means may be used to extract information from a prisoner during interrogation if it is a matter of national security. This of course includes all forms of torture. When put in a situation where the suffering of person can save the lives of millions, we are more than willing to make that one suffer. Overall, we consider this resolution to be....irrational.

I do not believe that being good-hearted is a requirement to being "Civilized." The basic definition (that I go by) of civilization is not having a Lord of the Flies type situation, where there exists a social organization and a method to the madness. Being good-hearted has nothing to do with a social order. A leader could be cruel and inhumane to his enemies, yet his country flourishes and prospers, would that be uncivilized? I believe the term you are looking for is "benevolent" and not civilized. They are two completely different words. I rule my country the way I believe is best, and my country is prospering. Am I uncivilized because I believe that the end justifies the means, and that I am honest about that?

*arches eyebrow* We of Dendrys also believe that the end justifies the means... once you take all the ends into consideration. But how do you know all the ends? It is clear from other discussions, sir, that you have neither knowledge of philosophy nor psychology. Dendrys finds those quite useful subjects to learn, when one is dealing with the application of political theory to human mechanics.

ooc: *chuckles* Ah, now Presgrief reveals his/her role: Utilitarian. How do you feel about Sir Thomas More? Just curious. Or should we define you as more a pragmatist than a utilitarian?

also ooc: Actually, no, Wyzata, I'm trying to clean out the boxes of funeral programmes my family ask me to keep because I'm the only one whose house hasn't been bombed. I only get newspapers occasionally, and I can't afford coffee. Cheers. :roll:

Note that the Saudis hand over the people we ask for from time to time. Yes, I realize they are biding for time.

By falsified information I assume your refering to the Prague Memo (considered unreliable, but never contradicted. Turns out the FBI was wrong about Mr. Atta. Again.)

By Lying I assume you mean Secretary Powell's presentation on the data recovered by UN inspectors which had everyone ELSE convinced he had NBCs too. The same data President Bush used in his State of the Union Address.

The US has been wrong. Eventually the administration comes around and admits that. They have since given up on the Atta connection and the NBCs, but its a little late for that now, we're already in Iraq. As it is, we never would have found out Sadam was bluffing without the invasion.

And as for losing credibility, we said we would invade Iraq if they didn't come clean. We gave the requirements for coming clean. We gave multiple chances for coming clean. Sadam chose to call our bluff. We invaded. Sounds to me like our credibility is fine.

And Pretenses are by defenition false. You mean false premise.

Finally: directly on topic. We aren't talking about mass murder, violent interogation, or even a police state. We're talking about extracting information in very specific, time sensitive, situations. I need to know where the ambush is and I need to know NOW, not whenever it is convenient for the prisoner. In this case, I have to agree with General Wallace and the British Colonel. Get the information, save your men, and carreer be damned.

Torture is within the rights of a state to use against its enemies. This is dirived from the social contract by which the state is given absolute police power to maintain the citizen's right to life. If it is within the right of the state to torture, it can never be removed from the state just because it is "civilised." That's like saying all civilised nations march into combat shoulder to shoulder, line up like gentlemen, and trade volleys.

This is not short sighted. This is a good grasp of the severity of certain extreme circumstances. These are the kind of decisions states must make every hour. If you don't have the stomach for it, you shouldn't be in government. And you certainly shouldn't hamstring the defense forces because of your weakness.

Well said.

Once again, you misunderstand. I am not saying that I don't believe information is needed. I'm saying that I'm not willing to sacrifice my belief that torture is wrong. I am not saying that I don't respect the decisions of those two men; and I applaud them for having the courage to stand up for their convictions while they face the consequences of their actions. I am saying that my nation will not adopt their behaviour as policy, and that I believe the ban on torture is a policy that should be applied to all nations in the UN, though of course each nation and each citizen will have to interpret it as they will.

I have often wondered why people think that "liberal" ideas are a sign of weakness. I begin to suspect that it is because it is very easy for them to live with their own beliefs. I don't think easy beliefs are worthwhile. I fight for mine, daily. I have had to reevaluate mine, often. I have sacrificed things for mine, more than I'd wish. But, this is not relevant to the argument. I'm simply pointing out that your assumption about my ability to withstand the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune without running away to some undiscovered country is incorrect.

Oh, one more thing. Try not to nitpick people's words unless your own words are immaculate. Enough said.

Our young men and women are giving there lives to defend our freedom. I dont see Ireland, or Isreal, or france, germany, or china doing that. No, they are drinking cofee and reading biased newspapers.

Well for starters aren't we all reading biased newspapers? Every newspaper expresses an oppinion in its delivery of the facts.. even if a newspaper were to have ALL the facts regarding any story (which would be damn unlikely) the article we read would be flavoured not only by the oppinions and style of the journalist but also by their editor who must present stories in the poltical stance the paper occupies. Look at any two opposing tabloid newspapers and see how they can both report the same news with the same facts and yet offer contradictory stories.

And as for mentioning countries defending their freedom... Israel and Ireland have been doing it for years against terrorists within and foreign powers trying to influence them. And as for Germany and France did they not do a braver thing than Britain in not backing the US's attack on Iraq? Their people were on the whole against it, and the government reacted accordingly- cudos to them. Oh, and i'm fairly sure the Irish would be drinking either tea or guinness, not coffee :)

Cheers to Roberia, and cheers again! If you're ever on the island, and I ever have cash for a round, I'll buy you a Guinness.

All relations of fact, even the perceptions of a person witnessing an incident, have context. You have to learn to filter the words, to recognise the context and determine whether you still trust the words. I do not trust the US press. I don't necessarily trust the press here either, but I do read it, just so I know why people have the ideas they do. :roll:

First, Liberal ideas in what Locke and Mill meant are not weak. Liberal ideas as you are espousing them are hardly liberal.

The concept of Conservatism is that people are inherently good so some special man can lead and there is no problem(Aristotle's Warrior Poet). That morphs into people are evil and need to be controlled (we're in the middle ages now) by a divinely inspired leader, the divine right of kings. That becomes All people are evil and damned and therefore no one is more able to lead than any other. "No King but King Jesus" we're up to Hobbes and Calvin. Locke takes that further and says that we can play the competing evils of the world off each other and get that which is not bad. Of course, since all men are fallen, no good can come from them. This gets us up to the founding of the United States.

Locke, the classic liberal, talks about the state's police power as essential to the world working. What you propose, stripping the state of the one power it by right has is neither liberal nor strong. If anything it is boardering Marxism (a leftist notion, certainly, but not liberal).

At worst it is the logic of a juvenile. That which does not fit into the paradigm must be wrong. Torture is wrong, therefore every argument in its favor must be wrong. This is like arguing with a child and is a waste of all our time.

Information gained after the ambush is useless.

How can you applaud the actions of these two men, if, by your own admission their actions were amoral?

As for nitpicking, one need not be perfect to recognize that which is wrong. I won't nit pick typos (those happen when you write quickly without benefit of a dictionary or an editor) but please know what a word means before you use it. "False pretense" grates on the ear "very unique" and "extremely historic."

Liberal was your choice of terms, I believe. I prefer to see myself as more of a "pluralistic communitarian," with influences from postmodernism, cognitive psychology, and liberal Jewish theology. (Your summary of philosophy is interesting, if somewhat Christian. But I'll save that for another debate.)

Under those theories, it is not crippling anyone to strip them of the power to physically harm someone. It is preventing damage both to the torturer and to the tortured.

I'm not sure what you're after, saying I'm saying that torture doesn't fit a paradigm and is therefore wrong. I'm saying that torture qua policy does damage, and I'm not willing to make the sacrifice of the damage for some tenuous possibility that I'm getting correct intelligence out of a hypothetical spy I've hypothetically caught.

I applaud those men because they made a decision they felt was the best under the circumstances, and they stand by their decisions. I recognise that it is not possible to apply the same rules to all situations, and that sometimes actions and reactions are less predictable. I don't applaud what they actually did, but I do applaud their courage to assert that they did what they had to do.

Your taste in phraseology is not relevant to the debate, so let's drop that bit.

I have often wondered why people think that "liberal" ideas are a sign of weakness. I begin to suspect that it is because it is very easy for them to live with their own beliefs

^^^ Nope. You used it first.

It's a supreme irony that western political philosophy would be Christian. Especially considering how many political philosophers have the title "Saint" in front of their name. It's a supreme irony that a Christian would take a Christian view of politics.

I'm saying that I'm not willing to sacrifice my belief that torture is wrong.

^^^ "Torture is wrong. Therefore any argument against torture is wrong."

You assume it is possible to strip someone of their power to harm another. As long as I have strength I can hurt you. Liberal philosophy says that I have no right to hurt you. That right belongs to an impartial enforcer (the state). If the state ceases to be impartial or an enforcer, then the right reverts back to the original owner, like a-wait for it-SOCIAL CONTRACT.

If I could guarentee that no one would ever hurt anyone else then I wouldn't need police power. As it is, I can't do that, so police power, which includes torture, must remain.

Pluralistic communitarian puts you somewhere to the left of the British Labor party but still right of the Institutional Communist Party of several South American Nations (Argentina leaps to mind). Postmodernism and cognitive psycology fall pretty flat outside the Academy. Observe the last 50 years of experimentation with it in the US and England. I know precious little about liberal Jewish Theology. My only Jewish friends are Reform Orthadox.

You still haven't addressed the time-crunch issue which forced those officers to act as they did.

Finally, my choice of phraseology is irrelevant, but proper English is never triviality.

Check back in a few hours. I have to get to class.

Greetings to my fellow comrads and international leaders!
I, The High Lord and Emperor Hutsahabi Mishimu, wish to addresss the current UN resolution. I have compiled a list of three of the most prolific and widespread problems with said resolution. They are as follows:
1. as previously said, the vauge nature allows for very loose or strict interpratations of said resolution.
2. I WANT TO TORTURE PEOPLE
3. we are nto in a position to debate moral isssues concerning corpral punishment when is comes to the safety of our people.

Au Revoir to my friends and the who oppose me (you will be crushed swiftly and soon!)

Ze Emperor and His Highness, Ambassador Hustsahabi Mishimu

George: nevermind. You just summarily dismissed everything I said either on perceived or imagined technicalities, or on your belief that my beliefs aren't valid, or on your decision to interpret my beliefs as saying something I'm not. You're at liberty to do all of those things, but it makes it impossible for me to have a debate with you.

If you would like for me to offer you some reading that might show you that cognitive psychology and postmodernism (and liberal Judaism; and thank you for your honest remark on that subject) have not only effective applications, but relevant ones, I will gladly do so. (The work on which I have based most of my ideas about punishment and the body is Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, though my perspective is also heavily influenced by personal experience and belief.)

You know, Dend, generally, in an argument, both sides try to question the foundations of the other's argument. George has questioned yours, and I believe he is saying you are misquoting and misrepresenting certain ideas and concepts. If you want to think he is just dismissing your ideas, then you are conceding the point, and basically saying that you cannot back up your ideas with solid evidence and therefore they are invalid in an argument.
On the other hand, you have a remarkable tendency to dismiss the statements of others. I myself have asked you to describe this "torture qua policy" since it seems a fancy way of saying "policy of torture", also you need to explain how torture "hurts the torturer and the tortured." You have ignored these questions, and merely restated them. This leads me to believe not only are you unable to defend your premises, but you also dismiss the arguments of others without even looking at their foundations, meaning that you are not suitable to be debating. All you've done from what I've seen is offer your opinions (which is a prefectly reasonable thing to do), and you've defended them like they were facts, which is not a reasonable thing to do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however opinions can be proven wrong in debates.
On a semi-final note, you have thrown forth multiple statements that you don't seem to be able to defend, and which are unfounded. You have said (mayhaps in another thread) that you know that torture harms the torturer because "I have watched another man go crazy while he tried to torture me to death." Now, this is very hard to believe, and as I am a cynical person, I doubt that it is an accurate statement. Also, you mentioned in another thread that you were talking about "1 million brothers and fathers" who never returned home in WW2, yet someone pointed out that there were a few more casualties than that. Unfortunately for you, you should not make statements like that when calling other people self-absorbed and saying that other nations don't think about anyone else. Perhaps you can logically refute statements, perhaps today just isn't your day. But until you can logically hold your own in a debate, you should state your opinions and then be silent.

Can we have a list of nations not supporting this proposal? We want to include you on our "do not visit" tourist warning list.

Before you do that, please realize that some of us opposing the bill are also against torture. It's just that with no definitions of "torture" and "cruel and unusual" set out, the resolution is pointless. A government can claim that beating prisoners isn't cruel and unusual, and a person being arrested could claim that simply being arrested is torture.

THIS is why LOK is still a member of the UN! While I am niether as eloquent as some of our members nor as well-read, I find the debate is educational for me.

As far as the current resolution before this body, we have chosen to vote against it. NOT because we condone torture-we do not. We have voted against it because it is so poorly written that it can be read to deny all rights of a nation to imprison anyone. Since nations clearly have a need to do so from time to time, we cannot support this.

The question of what constitutes torture has not been answered-and, frankly, it can not be answered.

Akuma, one thing you haven't learned is when to pick your fights.

I am not interested in trying to debate with someone who, before even asking how I'm applying those ideas, or trying to express what he believes those ideas are, says they're not relevant or not useful. I did choose to leave the offer open: if George wants to know why I think those ideas are relevant and important to this debate, I'll tell him.

With regard to your concerns about my argument points, I would gladly address them with you if you did not take such a hostile approach to everything I say. This is not wimpiness; this is efficiency. I am interested in discussing these points with people who will respond intelligently and with good information. You have responded by taking things personally and making unveiled implications that you don't respect me either as a debater or as a thinker. That is your prerogative, but it doesn't make me want to debate with you. And frankly, this site is for recreation; if you were my student, I'd take the time with you, but I have no investment in you, so I'm not interested.

As for your frequent imprecations that I have no guts: hopefully someday you'll realise that walking away from a debate that is only going to get people mad takes guts. Hopefully someday you'll figure out that having hope after 25 takes guts. Hopefully someday you'll respect other people out of the blocks, instead of assuming that they don't know anything.

Cheers.

Little orange kittens: you rock. I respect what you said and endeavour to share your attitude toward the UN and these forums.

Personally, I'll stick by what I said: that I'm voting for it knowing it will need to be amended, but believing that as a stopgap, it's a good idea.

Dendrys:

You said you believe torture is wrong.

I rebutted by saying that torture is the right of a nation, and therefore can not be wrong in all cases.

You said the two officers in Iraq did the right thing.

I pointed out the paradox that it is impossible to do the right thing and the immoral thing at the same time.

You said that it is not an infringement on rights to strip away someone's ability to hurt another.

I pointed out that it is impossible to take away that ability without killing the other person.

I have undermined your arguments and dismissed them as irrelevant.
At this time the appropriate response is to undermine MY arguments and dismiss MY arguments as irrelevant.

Not stomp off in a huff like a two year old.

Now, do you want to try and debate like men or sulk like a child?

George, I hate to do this, but how old are you?

There is a bit of a difference between choosing not to fight a particular fight and just not wanting to play. I have about twelve games going right now with people who challenge my ideas in interesting, informed ways. I'm going to go play those, unless you say something that makes me think that talking to you might be fun, or might be a good exercise for me. But, after about fifteen years of competitive and professional debating, I don't find dismissing people's arguments to be the most effective area, nor do I think it's something I want to practice in my free time. Undermining takes a bit more homework than you've done. You'd actually have to demonstrate that my ideas don't apply or don't hold in real life, which you have not done. I offered to show how they do apply and do hold, but you're ignoring that.

Granted, that's no way to handle an actual UN situation, since real people with real lives are at stake; but this is not real life.

I'll deal with your points, some of which are interesting, if and only if you quit making this personal. I know that's hard to do, but you're not going to get very far in your future profession by telling your coworker that if he decides not to ask you on board a committee, he's being childish.

If you done want the End of Barbarics Punishments go see this proposal: Ens of Barbarics Punshment...

"You'd actually have to demonstrate that my ideas don't apply or don't hold in real life, which you have not done."

Dendrys, the point of this game is not to demonstrate that our nation would be the best in real life. This is a game, not real life. I believe George has shown that your arguments are not the most stable in this situation, and with these circumstances. And if you say you don't choose to play, you took a long time to figure that out. You _still_ have not responded to George's points, nor my own. If you choose to not defend your own arguments, well, I'm not sure what to say about that...but this is a forum. Things here are up for debate. And debates are much more fun when both sides defend themselves and challenge the other side. Not just say what they want, make hard-to-believe statements, and then run away when people challenge what they say.
Also, you say I take what you say to be hostile and a personal attack, but I don't think I do. I'm merely challenging your ideas and your beliefs, because I do not think they are solidly thought out. Instead of just saying anyone who argues with you is "making this personal" why don't you try responding to our challengs with challenges of your own? All you've done is say we are wrong when we challenge you, and you haven't a scrap of defense other than stating your points and dismissing other people. And by dismissing, I mean you ignore us, or won't respond to our statements. When George says he dismisses your arguments, I believe that he means he has shown your arguments to be unsound and invalid, thus they should be dismissed. He is not ignoring them or being childish, because he is pointing out the fallacies in your arguments, which clearly shows he has been listening to you.

I find it odd that nobody has entered an argument of 'slippery slope' yet.

The leader of the nation of Senryu has had some experience with technicalities of law in the nation you call America.

They started off with not imprisoning people for no reason. Good. Senryu agrees. Then, it was not torturing those who are imprisoned. Sure. No harm in that. Then, it was not torturing those who aren't imprisoned... which is okay... but even if they're engaging in said torture of their own free will, which is kind of odd.

Today, those anti-torture laws (you may know them as anti-hazing laws) are so severe that, if you ask a person to meet you at a certain place and time--even if it's something reasonable, like 6pm at McDonalds--it is a misdemeanor, under the heading of hazing.

Granted, these rules are usually not enforced, but Senryu would rather see them not exist than be enforced to keep people in prison on technicalities.

I have answered several of those points. I have offered to answer them in more detail. I have received responses that have nothing to do with my answers, other than to say I haven't answered or that my answers don't demonstrate enough chutzpah, in your point of view.

I'm not going to waste time hunting down my last 50 posts for you, but if you look, you'll find where I explained 1) why torture harms the torturer as well (before and after you asked); 2) what the ideas of Foucault (a postmodernist) have to do with my stance; 3) what my challenges are to you (e.g., why saying that you do it because you have always done it does not constitute a bit of ineffectual logic); 4) what my responses are to your challenges (e.g., asking where you're getting some of your challenges from my text); 5) why I may not think the resolution is completely finished, but will vote for it anyway; 6) what sort of a debate I am interested in having, which you have yet to show me you're interested in joining.

I find it odd that nobody has entered an argument of 'slippery slope' yet.

...

Granted, these rules are usually not enforced, but Senryu would rather see them not exist than be enforced to keep people in prison on technicalities.

Good point, Senryu, but as with all slippery slope problems, it comes down to the question of where you are willing to slide to. Dendrys suggests that using torture to question people causes more problems than it solves; and therefore we will slide on past that one. We would, however, be concerned that during the course of interpretation, people would come to think no physical punishments can be used; and we DO hold that it is acceptable to require prisoners to work, though we would regulate what can be done to encourage them to complete their tasks.

Balance. It's all about balance.

Wow. Ya' work late a couple nights in a row, and find out you missed all the fun!!!!!

Very happy to have opened this can of worms. I just read the most interesting discourse on any topic since my arrival here. Kudos, everyone!

Wow. Ya' work late a couple nights in a row, and find out you missed all the fun!!!!! :P

Very happy to have opened this can of worms. I just read the most interesting discourse on any topic since my arrival here. Kudos, everyone!

I've already brought most of this up in the 'VETO THE TORTURE BILL!' thread, but hoping that it might reach a different audience in this forum, I've decided to post an excerpt of it here.

...any person who reads the resolution must understand that the definition of torture is too vague to accurately say what falls inside the term's borders. I vote against the bill not necessarily because I am for torture, but because it's just a bad bill. I like kittens, but if there was a bill that said "I want to give a bajillion dollars to house the homeless kitties because they're cute," I'd veto it because it was a bad bill.

I regret that I cannot debate this issue more, like Akuma, Dendrys, and George, but to be honest, I've not the education nor the free time to do so. I encourage the spirit of debate, and perhaps it will make others think before they vote. Thank you for your time, and please continue to spread the word.

Chairman Teeth
People's Spokesman

It isn't a good idea to hold yourself up as an example. I want it noted by the community that the following personal attacks are as a direct result of Dendrys opening the door by using his own credentials as an argument.

George, I hate to do this, but how old are you?

I'm 19, nearly twenty. In my life I've lived in the US, Germany, and Belgium. I've traveled extensively through those countries and also France, the Netherlands, England and Scotland, and Austria. I have close friends and aquaintances from those countries, plus Russia, Japan, China, Taiwan, Belerus, and Mexico.

I spent the last summer working in The Office of the Majority Whip for the US House of Representatives.

My library is quite extensive in political philosophy dating back to Aristotle and includes certain people I don't agree with, like Marx and Lenin. It also includes ethical philosophy from Aristotle to Mill and Chesterton and Lewis.

Age is not the only factor when considering competence.

There is a bit of a difference between choosing not to fight a particular fight and just not wanting to play.

Yes. Its called Ring and Run.

I have about twelve games going right now with people who challenge my ideas in interesting, informed ways. I'm going to go play those, unless you say something that makes me think that talking to you might be fun, or might be a good exercise for me.

Loosely translated, "unless you just roll over and die, I'm not going to argue with you."

This is the tactic of a bully and not true fighter.

But, after about fifteen years of competitive and professional debating,

This hardly impresses me. Especially considering your recent arguments have consisted of "uh, uh, uh, NO FAIR!"

I don't find dismissing people's arguments to be the most effective area, nor do I think it's something I want to practice in my free time.

I have rebutted your arguments by declaring them invalid. That is a perfectly legitimate form of proof. It's called proof by contradiction in mathematics. I have given reasons why they are invalid. The counter-proof is "no, the contradiction proof is wrong. Here is where it is wrong." Not, "uh, uh, uh, STOP DOING THAT!"

Undermining takes a bit more homework than you've done. You'd actually have to demonstrate that my ideas don't apply or don't hold in real life, which you have not done.

Ahem:
I rebutted by saying that torture is the right of a nation, and therefore can not be wrong in all cases.

I pointed out the paradox that it is impossible to do the right thing and the immoral thing at the same time.

I pointed out that it is impossible to take away that ability without killing the other person.

This is my argument that your beliefs and arguments do not hold in real life. Therefore, I dismiss them. Your next step is not "Well their valid whether you think so or not," it is "They are valid for X reason and your logic is faulty on Y principle."


I offered to show how they do apply and do hold, but you're ignoring that.

Your stating that you can show how they apply does not alone prove that the statements apply. Show me an argument.

Granted, that's no way to handle an actual UN situation, since real people with real lives are at stake; but this is not real life.

I'll deal with your points, some of which are interesting, if and only if you quit making this personal. I know that's hard to do, but you're not going to get very far in your future profession by telling your coworker that if he decides not to ask you on board a committee, he's being childish.

I am not making this personal. The "childish" comment was made to bait you into anger. A good debator would have spotted it a mile away. You fell into it like a rank amatuer.

Who is asking whom onto a committee? I'm still waiting for a response to my posts that does not consist of "I'm too good to answer your questions." Why are you too good to answer my questions?

In my future profession people who can't control their outbursts don't last very long. In my chosen field, insults, veiled or otherwise, are hurled all the time. The good people deflect them. The poor people charge headlong into the spikes set for them.

Of course, if you follow your previous threat to ignore me until I do things like you think it should be done (until I agree with you, in other words), I won't be expecting a response. Such is to be expected from the bully.

While the nation of Krystalis proudly agrees with the proposal's ideals as it stands now the obvious lack (and reasonings already mentioned) of definition of many of the terms is by far invalidates the 'ideal'.

After all, laws are built on words, not ideals, and courts may only define laws as they have been defined in the past with precedent.

The addition of a threat of a large fine, while nice in practice, again creates a problem. If each nation were allowed to define 'cruel and unusual' in their own way it would be different, however there is an unknown body (probably the UN itself) which now must take up its busy time not only defining cruel and unusual but in standardizing it regardless for various cultures and creeds and fine nations who do not practice the overly general and sweeping definition.

On the point of an amendment, with UN proposals statistically passing when up for a vote it is highly likely that it would pass merely on the fact that nations seem to not think prior to voting in the affirmative.

double post...

Once again, I am being asked to defend a question in which I sought information as though it had been an attack. Obviously the disclaimer contained in the question did not influence your interpretation of it, and neither did the implied purpose in the question as informed by what I proceeded to say. The purpose in my asking was because I wondered why so much of this argument is evidently, for you, boiling down to a question of maturity; and I wondered whether it might be because you are at an age where the question of whether something is mature or not tends to matter a good deal. You are, I see, at that age. I attempted to establish in a subtle fashion that I am not. I was not subtle enough, and you chose to see my attempt as inflammatory. I can't help you with that.

I acknowledge that age is not the only factor and applaud you for your experience. I'd also point out that I do know a thing or two myself, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask that if you want respect, you show some.

As far as your choices in interpreting what I said next: if you don't want to look at any possibilities other than what you just said, then I'm not interested in debating with you. I have explicitly stated what I was willing to do to engage in debate with you: to show you my sources, or to discuss what your interpretation (not your summary dismissal) of those philosophies informing my end of the debate are, since you evidently want to debate the issues but have not yet addressed how or why you're not going to regard my point of view with intellectual curiosity. Indirectly, I believe I have implied that I'd consider discussing your sources with you in another context. You obviously have not heard any of that.

Declaring something invalid doesn't make it invalid. I have explicitly stated that I am willing to offer what I believe to be my beliefs' basis in validity, and you have, up until a sentence toward the end of this last post, refused to acknowledge that I made the offer.

If you were interested in further debate, I would ask that you elaborate on what you said earlier about postmodernism and cognitive psychology not having validity outside the Academy, so that I can understand where you are coming from; or that you explain what right thing and what immoral thing you think I've said must be simultaneously done.

double post

While the nation of Krystalis proudly agrees with the proposal's ideals as it stands now the obvious lack (and reasonings already mentioned) of definition of many of the terms is by far invalidates the 'ideal'.

After all, laws are built on words, not ideals, and courts may only define laws as they have been defined in the past with precedent.

Agreed on your last sentence there, Krystalis... however, don't you think that it would be fair to say that the process of setting up operating definitions is usually left to the Courts -- that in fact, it is the role of the Courts to determine the definitions by which laws would be applied to the world?

Granted, this leads naturally to another argument NOT to vote for the resolution... because it would be only as effectual as the Court systems are liberal, no? (ooc: but, will it up my Civil Liberties rating and therefore, to my way of running my nation, be worth my vote?)

Dendrys thanks Krystalis for offering the only two really potent arguments against the bill that Dendrys has yet seen:

The addition of a threat of a large fine, while nice in practice, again creates a problem. If each nation were allowed to define 'cruel and unusual' in their own way it would be different, however there is an unknown body (probably the UN itself) which now must take up its busy time not only defining cruel and unusual but in standardizing it regardless for various cultures and creeds and fine nations who do not practice the overly general and sweeping definition.

There is presently no institution enabled to review the acts of nations and establish fines and precedents of interpretation, and frankly Dendrys is concerned about how such an institution would operate or who would run it or serve in judiciary capacities within it. ooc: Meaning, it's not practical from a game point of view.

On the point of an amendment, with UN proposals statistically passing when up for a vote it is highly likely that it would pass merely on the fact that nations seem to not think prior to voting in the affirmative.

And Krystalis is quite right that amendments are historically quite difficult to pass... a good argument for voting against this bill, then drafting a new one.

Dendrys will consider this further, but wished to thank Krystalis and ask other nations their thoughts on these points.


Respectfully submitted,
Nialle Sylvan
Speaker for the Trees

First: Torro, Dendrys. I gave you a very good warning that I was baiting you and like a wild animal you went right for it. Spike!

Having demonstrated that point, I will stop baiting you. You won't have to think about the implications and intent behind my posts.

Once again, I am being asked to defend a question in which I sought information as though it had been an attack. Obviously the disclaimer contained in the question did not influence your interpretation of it, and neither did the implied purpose in the question as informed by what I proceeded to say. The purpose in my asking was because I wondered why so much of this argument is evidently, for you, boiling down to a question of maturity; and I wondered whether it might be because you are at an age where the question of whether something is mature or not tends to matter a good deal. You are, I see, at that age. I attempted to establish in a subtle fashion that I am not. I was not subtle enough, and you chose to see my attempt as inflammatory. I can't help you with that.

You obviously didn't hate it enough or you wouldn't have asked.

Your disclaimer was a poor attempt to deflect the attack you knew was coming. Your post was very clear in its meaning. Your current post is very clear. You are older and more mature than I. You have more experience and a broader knowledge. My answer shows that my base is equally expansive.

As I said, I called you childish to raise your ire. It clearly worked. You, however, continue to make broad statements with no backing and then complain when we attack your groundless propositions. This is the same as the child who refuses to believe he can't fly despite the fact the ground keeps smacking him in the face.

At least for the child he doesn't know any better.

I acknowledge that age is not the only factor and applaud you for your experience. I'd also point out that I do know a thing or two myself, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask that if you want respect, you show some.

You keep a using that word I donn a think it means what a you think it means.

Bonus points for knowing the reference.

You keep saying you know somethng. You keep saying you have evidence. You keep saying your logic is infallible. We left opening statements a long time ago. You're called. Show your cards already.

As far as your choices in interpreting what I said next: if you don't want to look at any possibilities other than what you just said, then I'm not interested in debating with you. I have explicitly stated what I was willing to do to engage in debate with you: to show you my sources, or to discuss what your interpretation (not your summary dismissal) of those philosophies informing my end of the debate are, since you evidently want to debate the issues but have not yet addressed how or why you're not going to regard my point of view with intellectual curiosity. Indirectly, I believe I have implied that I'd consider discussing your sources with you in another context. You obviously have not heard any of that.

Exactly. You present arguments. I present an interpritation of the arguments (active listening: great skill) and then, based on that interpritation, I attack the argument. Based on those attacks, I declare the arguement invalid. Then, you get to declare my interpritations invalid. You've done that. However, you have not yet said why my arguments are invalid. Until you present an interpritation of my arguments and attack them, I can't attack your interpritations of my interpritations of your arguments.

We're left discussing debating style.

I could easily ask you why you don't give my view the same "intellectual curiosity" you ask of me, but I won't, because I already know. You think I'm wrong. And I think you're wrong. We are trying to convice each other. This is OK.

The problem is, I haven't seen much attempt at convincing on your part. I've seen a lot of "how dare you question me," culminating in "how old are you?" A blatent attempt to lower me and my arguments by attacking my youth. This has nothing to do with my arguments. My arguments would be just as valid (or invalid) if they were offered by a 90 year old.

I answer because I am not afraid of my age reflecting on me. My arguments answer for themselves.

I'm fine arguing here, but if I missed an invitation to take this outside, I appoloize.

Declaring something invalid doesn't make it invalid. I have explicitly stated that I am willing to offer what I believe to be my beliefs' basis in validity, and you have, up until a sentence toward the end of this last post, refused to acknowledge that I made the offer.

It is true that calling a sheep's tail a leg does not make it so, but I have not simply "declared something invalid." I have presented holes in your arguments, a paradox, and a pure false assumption. Based on that, I think your argument is bad. Again, you continue to say you have evidence. Your bluff is called. Show them cards or fold.

But though I have not simply declared invalid, you have oft claimed validity with no basis. I have reread the post many times and I have not found your evidence that torture hurts the torturer. However, I let it go because I know the evidence, whether you do or not. The relevant report is in the book "On Killing" in the third section under the title "Atrocity."

It is the existance of this report which compels me to limit the option of torture to very limited cases where time is critical. Even then, I probably wouldn't do it, and even then I would require a law to be in place allowing it. Those officers may have done a moral thing, but they broke the laws they were sworn to uphold.

That is the first, last, and only time I do your homework for you.

If you were interested in further debate, I would ask that you elaborate on what you said earlier about postmodernism and cognitive psychology not having validity outside the Academy, so that I can understand where you are coming from;

I said to refer to the last 50 years of American history. I stand corrected, I will yet again do your homework for you.

From a political science standpoint, the current stock of cognitive psychology and postmodern views on the criminal justice system spring directly from the 1950's and '60s civil rights movements.

Postmodernism, which loves great diversity, said that mental illness was simply a new way to live, like being black or a woman.

Cognitive Psycology, which focusses a great deal on how the mind controls our actions, agreed that any variation in the way the mind worked was responsible for mental problems.

Cognitive Psychology explained why lobotomizing prisoners worked so well. If the undesirable activity comes from the cognitive parts of the brain, then separating the cognitive parts of the brain will create a very docile, nay, model, prisoner.

Postmodernism said that these problems in the cognitive part of the brain were normal variations. Serial Killers have a right to be crazy and there is nothing wrong with a serial rapist's fetish for women. I am not joking, these were real defenses for a while. Thankfully, they never worked. On a smaller level, the Twinky Defense is a variation of this.

Cognitive pyschology espoused this enlightened form of incarceration where all criminals would be treated as if they had a mental disorder. "Cognitive Theropy" would correct the problem and a rehabilitated criminal would reenter society. I think our 4 in 5 recidivism rate would work against that theory.

Worse still, famous Serial Killers the Boson Strangler and the Hillside Strangler (the said serial killers and rapists) both claimed mental disorders that could be "cured" by "cognitive theropy." Fortunately, the prosecutors managed to prove that these killers were faking it.

The theories are logically sound, that is, they work in the Academy and the laboratory. I've just shown how they failed in the real world. These notions have since been expunged from our CJ system.

This evidence is drawn from "United States Public Policy" by Dr. Mark Rushefsky, my psycology notes (book title unknown) lecturer was Dr. Mary Newman.

or that you explain what right thing and what immoral thing you think I've said must be simultaneously done.

I'm saying that I'm not willing to sacrifice my belief that torture is wrong. I am not saying that I don't respect the decisions of those two men;

Negation of the negative is affirmation of the positive. Only a sadist or a fool admires people who do immoral acts. You are a sadist, a fool, a liar, or one with poor English skills.

I have answered your charges. My appologies that it took so long. Now answer mine or I will need to find someone who doesn't curl up in the fetal positi...

Sorry. I promised to stop baiting you. Someone who will answer back.

Hon, I can't help that you continue to think I'm mad. I'm tired, of dealing with people who need to think they've scored "points." Put your rhetorical fireworks back in the box, and we'll talk. I called up the question of your age because I needed to understand why maturity was such a big factor for you in your arguments, and now I know.

I do think about implications and intents in all posts, because they contribute to the context through which I have to figure out what you're saying. The disadvantage of message boards is that you can't tell when I'm laughing, and I can't tell when you are. If I know your context is that you're here to play Puck, I can respond to that, or I can respond to you as the sort of Romeo-going-on-Jaques you appear to be at present. If that assessment is incorrect, please correct me.

Exactly. You present arguments. I present an interpritation of the arguments (active listening: great skill) and then, based on that interpritation, I attack the argument. Based on those attacks, I declare the arguement invalid. Then, you get to declare my interpritations invalid. You've done that. However, you have not yet said why my arguments are invalid. Until you present an interpritation of my arguments and attack them, I can't attack your interpritations of my interpritations of your arguments.

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." The way in which your argument is invalid, I reiterate, is that declaring something invalid does not constitute valid invalidation. You still had not told me why cognitive psychology and postmodernism didn't apply to the present argument, or what you understood those terms to mean, or how your philosophy invalidated what I was arguing, e.g. that torture causes more trouble than it solves by instigating destructive cultural turbulence.

To cop an analogy: the reason I wanted you to explain in more detail why you dismissed cognitive psych. and postmodernism is because you dismissed them summarily, and the only possible answer to summary dismissal is to accept it and move on, or to appeal the dismissal. I appealed on a point of law: that you had not backed up your dismissal with more of your reasoning, or, to continue the analogy, that you had cited no case law in your motion to dismiss. When, at the end of this last post, you finally offered a brief in support of your motion, I was able to offer a resistance and reply brief, when I saw there are specific points that could be discussed, not merely accepted or appealed.

(Incidentally, I am intellectually curious about where you got some of your impression of early modern philosophy, because it is different from mine; but I reiterate that I would rather save that for another time.)
_____________________________________________________________

Now. On to answering some points relevant to the debate:

Who is "On Killing" by? I'd be interested in reading it; your response to it makes me think it's something I should know as I develop my own arguments, because I find your argument compelling but need to read more detail and check some of my own sources.

From a political science standpoint, the current stock of cognitive psychology and postmodern views on the criminal justice system spring directly from the 1950's and '60s civil rights movements.

Postmodernism, which loves great diversity, said that mental illness was simply a new way to live, like being black or a woman.

I have yet to find a cognitive psychotherapist or postmodernist who would agree with that second statement, or that second statement with cog.psych substituted as the subject. I believe you might find that cognitive psychologists hold that mental illness is, by definition, an inability to apply one's beliefs to one's behaviour in ways that are socially acceptable, constructive, helpful to one's survival, and/or conducive to function at work or in family or friendships.

Postmodernists vary, but I believe Foucault would say mental illness is a phenomenon defined by culture and responded to in varying ways during history (ways on which he is quite the expert, oddball but I love him); Derrida would remark on the fact that mental illness is still misunderstood, since there appear to be diseases of excess as much as diseases of deficiency, and both kinds can have a 'beauty' but that 'beauty' as he would define it is definitely not equal to 'function' as the Modernists would define it. Lyotard might, in his faboulously lateral way, imply that mental illness has function within society, but he'd never claim that it was a function with a valuation equal to other functions; he wasn't much into that valuation thing except insofar as it contributed to his guerilla culture games.

Cognitive Psycology, which focusses a great deal on how the mind controls our actions, agreed that any variation in the way the mind worked was responsible for mental problems.

I'm not clear on that one. Could you elaborate? I think I agree, both with the statement and with your assessment that it is part of cog.psych, but I'm not sure.

Cognitive Psychology explained why lobotomizing prisoners worked so well. If the undesirable activity comes from the cognitive parts of the brain, then separating the cognitive parts of the brain will create a very docile, nay, model, prisoner.

I'm still not clear... I don't believe I know any cog. psychologists who would place a high value on surgery. For one thing, this is not neurology; it's psychology, which deals with the self, not the chemical basis of self. The point of cog. psychotherapy appears to be teaching people how to interact in a functional way despite whatever weird fundamental beliefs or chemical problems they might have. If a cognitive psychologist wanted to docile-ify a prisoner, s/he would do that by teaching the prisoner new behaviours, not by physically affecting the prisoner.

Postmodernism said that these problems in the cognitive part of the brain were normal variations. Serial Killers have a right to be crazy and there is nothing wrong with a serial rapist's fetish for women. I am not joking, these were real defenses for a while. Thankfully, they never worked. On a smaller level, the Twinky Defense is a variation of this.

No. Simply, no. What'shisname of Helter Skelter fame might claim the above, but no self-respecting philosopher would fail to blanch at your statement. I don't know whom you are paraphrasing, but either you misunderstood, or you put different people under the heading of postmodernism than any academic in the field. Postmodernism might claim that mental dysfunction is a normal part of human society, but it would never claim that human society doesn't have a need, even a mandate, to try to find ways to keep the dysfunction from having destructive effects. It is possible that some of that effort might come down to deciding not to think of some things as dysfunction, e.g., a belief in the paranormal (weird, hard to work with, but not dysfunctional). But Foucault was much more interested in the question of how to punish people effectively (he felt this was being done in our time by getting people to internalise an idea that they were being watched: the idea of Big Brother as deterrent, without the necessity of a true Big Brother), and Derrida was interested in the question of selfhood and how selfhood is disrupted. Those who dealt with applications of these ideas of selfhood and punishment held that now that we no longer think of the body as the property of God or a King, but as the sovereign territory of the person living in the body, torture is a violation of the sovereignty of the human.

Cognitive pyschology espoused this enlightened form of incarceration where all criminals would be treated as if they had a mental disorder. "Cognitive Theropy" would correct the problem and a rehabilitated criminal would reenter society. I think our 4 in 5 recidivism rate would work against that theory.

See above. As a liberal, I think the 1 in 5 non-recidivism rate is pretty impressive; if 20% of my students remember anything I said in ten years, I'd be thrilled. But with regard to the threat constituted by the 80%, that means we need to work on ways to get the criminals to internalise a behaviour-regulation pattern. You may think torture will produce this effect, but I don't think you're right, because I think physical torture is a method designed around the assumption that the body is the property of the State or Religion, and will only cause resentment and an increase in recurrence or escalation of criminal behaviour in the present day.

I'm working partially from the essays of Dr. Oliver Sacks, my own psych. lecturer friend at an institution down the street from me, and a psychotherapist friend who works in my building; so I don't have as much basis in books for my understanding of cog. psych., but I do think I am working with more recent developments in this young field. Not that I am discounting that you may be right in your assessment of a possibly fallacious history, but I don't think you'd find any cog. psych. practitioners now who would recognize what you're saying as related to what they do.

or that you explain what right thing and what immoral thing you think I've said must be simultaneously done.

I'm saying that I'm not willing to sacrifice my belief that torture is wrong. I am not saying that I don't respect the decisions of those two men;

Negation of the negative is affirmation of the positive. Only a sadist or a fool admires people who do immoral acts. You are a sadist, a fool, a liar, or one with poor English skills.

You cut off my quote before I said what decision I respected. To stand up for their own actions, to be accountable. I don't know that I wouldn't commit murder in one particular instance I could describe to you; and I would have to answer for my crime, but I would still feel I had done the greatest good by my act, because I would have done it for light grey reasons with very few dark grey effects. I'm not going to agree with you that what I said was contradictory, because it would only be contradictory if what I said could be evaluated in terms of absolutes, and it can't.

You're quite right that doing the moral thing isn't always the right thing. But not doing the moral thing can also be doing the wrong thing, especially when you're not doing it for amoral reasons.

Here's the other example. Morality is by definition concerned with right and wrong. It is quite impossible to do the right thing, yet not do the moral thing.

Postmodernism: Overall is a reaction to modernism (curiously defined by most postmodernists I've read as between 1850 and 1980. Every philosophy professor I've ever had placed modernism in the late 1500). Modernism was concerned with the individual's identity: re: Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophies. This is opposed to the ancient view of the indivual's place in the greater society. Moderns concerned themselves with where the indivual ended and the outer world began. Some came to the conclusion that the individual was only in the mind (Descartes), others went so far as to suggest there was no individual, only the world.

Postmodernism comes from this last school: denying there is a limit. With this comes a denial of categorization, since everything is the same. "A mouse is a pig is a dog is a boy."

Ergo, since everything is the same, all differences are arbitrary: like who is and is not mentally ill. Without classification, law and incarceration become very hard to justify. This is the extreme it approached in the US.

As for no philosopher justifying a serial killer, you're probably right. Lawyers did. What is important is that it happened. The system broke down.

Cognitive Psyc: They didn't recomend lobotomizing, they just explained why it worked. It was the predecessor to their arguments. Sorry I didn't make it clearer.

There is, in fact, a large branch of Cognitive Psych devoted to nuerology, just as there is a branch devoted to Social Pyschology, where I'm sure most of your readings were derived.

There is also a category of Cog. Psych that focuses on behavior modification. A lot of it is quite Huxleyish, but the point is that they theorized that a criminal could be cured. We had 80% recidivism before them, during them, and after them. They didn't accomplish anything. We returned to the idea that a criminal couldn't be "cured" since, for most criminals, crime is a conciouse choice, not the result of a chemical imbalance. Of course, the infamous Twinky Defense shows that the old Cog. Psych. views are making a resurgence in the law.

"On Killing" was written by LTC David Grossman, US Army, retired. A West Point Psychology professor.

As for physical punishment, early branches of Cog. Psych. (which were perhaps more behavioralist) did studies with electrical shocks to prove that pain was a very good motivator to change behavior in animals. The relevent studies can be found in Colonel Grossman's book.

There. See how much more civilized the debate is when we talk in arguments?

You're quite right that doing the moral thing isn't always the right thing. But not doing the moral thing can also be doing the wrong thing, especially when you're not doing it for amoral reasons.

Here's the other example. Morality is by definition concerned with right and wrong. It is quite impossible to do the right thing, yet not do the moral thing.

Yee-eess, but different philosophies attribute different definitions. Morality in the postmodern context deals with the idea that what is morally right is not always right, though it may be more right than what is morally wrong, and therefore is a good idea. Let me clarify that when I say "right," "wrong," "moral," etc. I am speaking from the philosophical standpoint that absolutes may not exist, and that there are simply better and worse readings, or more informed or less informed readings more accurately, on what is moral or right in a given context.

Postmodernism: Overall is a reaction to modernism (curiously defined by most postmodernists I've read as between 1850 and 1980. Every philosophy professor I've ever had placed modernism in the late 1500). Modernism was concerned with the individual's identity: re: Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophies. This is opposed to the ancient view of the indivual's place in the greater society. Moderns concerned themselves with where the indivual ended and the outer world began. Some came to the conclusion that the individual was only in the mind (Descartes), others went so far as to suggest there was no individual, only the world.

Yes, with amendments: modernism was also a reaction to the "superstition" it perceived to exist in the medieval period, a time when people shifted to viewing the world not by what faith or leader declared to be true, but by what individuals could reason to be true. Bit of a corollary to the idea of selfhood being important: the self is also empowered to reason. This, however, gave rise to the false pop conclusion that there is a right thing you can reason toward, and/or that debates about the human condition also have right or wrong answers that can be reached in a sort of Euclidean moral universe. Postmodernists, reacting to this, would say that there are a lot more dimensions to politics and morality than "right" and "wrong," particularly in that there can be no transparent communication between people (if you say a mouse is a pig, I'm going to interpret that with my context and may end up answering a completely different proposition than what you had in your head) and that context -- society, public beliefs, current philosophy, food, medical condition, etc. -- influences rightness and wrongness as perceived by people.

Postmodernism comes from this last school: denying there is a limit. With this comes a denial of categorization, since everything is the same. "A mouse is a pig is a dog is a boy."

There I disagree. Postmodernism asserts that language is a negotiated convention between people and has no inherent truth to it, so a mouse would be a pig would be a dog would be a boy if people didn't insist on stipulating that those things are different. Not that mice and pigs ARE the same -- postmodernism does not deal with the question of the REAL except as it influences people's perceptions, language use, political interactions, etc. In this way, postmodernism fails to be postexistentialism, because it doesn't answer the question of whether there is order or chaos, being or no being. It only concerns itself with what people think the universe is or isn't, and why they think that.

Ergo, since everything is the same, all differences are arbitrary: like who is and is not mentally ill. Without classification, law and incarceration become very hard to justify. This is the extreme it approached in the US.

Would be true if your premise were true. But since postmodernism is more concerned with whether, why, and how we classify, and how that affects us as political units and communities, you'll have some oddballs (largely disdained by the academic community) claiming that we should embrace a sort of chaos of the real and either make up new languages, new rules and new tolerances, or go to chaos; and you'll have most of the respected professionals asserting that definitions affect treatment of criminals affect results affect society, therefore make definitions that have effects conducive to survival. The fact that pop philosophy (in the US this time) has once again distorted what the professionals are up to is simply the result of bad PR, a chronic problem in the philosophy field. *shrug*

As for no philosopher justifying a serial killer, you're probably right. Lawyers did. What is important is that it happened. The system broke down.

Lawyers are mercenaries. That's why I don't want to be one anymore. But, more to the point, you can't assert that what lawyers did affects what postmodernism is; only that they misapplied the idea. Again, the postmodernists would assert that something ought to be revised so that a better "reading" of "right" can be obtained, and the more practical postmodernists would want to do it in such a way as to create better effects within society, given the context of society. (I know that sounds weird and hyperanalytical, but there's the nature of the beast. Postmodernism will have to be followed by a more proactive philosophy. But I get ahead of myself.) Cog.psych would assert that what's going on in the criminal's head will likely be affected in non-positive, non-constructive ways by "getting off." Not necessarily, but likely.

Cognitive Psyc: They didn't recomend lobotomizing, they just explained why it worked. It was the predecessor to their arguments. Sorry I didn't make it clearer.

There is, in fact, a large branch of Cognitive Psych devoted to nuerology, just as there is a branch devoted to Social Pyschology, where I'm sure most of your readings were derived.

Granted.

There is also a category of Cog. Psych that focuses on behavior modification. A lot of it is quite Huxleyish, but the point is that they theorized that a criminal could be cured. We had 80% recidivism before them, during them, and after them. They didn't accomplish anything. We returned to the idea that a criminal couldn't be "cured" since, for most criminals, crime is a conciouse choice, not the result of a chemical imbalance. Of course, the infamous Twinky Defense shows that the old Cog. Psych. views are making a resurgence in the law.

I don't think that demonstrates that the idea behind that is false, just that the practice is unrefined. Cog.psych works when the patient chooses for it to work. Motivating the patient with physical abuse probably doesn't produce the effect of making them want it to work. Maybe that means we need a different approach, one that doesn't rely on people wanting the treatment to work; but torture isn't going to cut it, because there's not a whole lot we can do about the fact that people have to make choices to make things happen, especially in the context of the present popular understanding of what self is and what choices and rights are reserved to us as individuals.

"On Killing" was written by LTC David Grossman, US Army, retired. A West Point Psychology professor.

As for physical punishment, early branches of Cog. Psych. (which were perhaps more behavioralist) did studies with electrical shocks to prove that pain was a very good motivator to change behavior in animals. The relevent studies can be found in Colonel Grossman's book.

Thanks, I'm looking it up. I do think they have gotten past the idea of shocking people to make their behaviour improve, though. Not that Prozac is a complete cure for that which they tried to shock out of people before, but it's better than frying their neurons. Current cog.psych holds that the beliefs, the chemical basis, for the person can't be helped by cog.psych, only the actions people choose to make based on those beliefs.