NationStates Jolt Archive

It has become widely reported that Bush led hazing of Frat brothers by branding them with a coat hanger.

google: Bush branding coat hanger

Even if it did happen--and I'm certainly in no position to make that determination--something to remember is that 1) hazing was not illegal when Bush was in college, and 2) it was quite common. Hell, it's been illegal in most US jurisdictions for at least the last twenty years and it's still common. Kids die every year in hazing incidents. So going after Bush for something like this is just bullshit--and anyone around here can tell you that I have no love for the guy.

Even if it did happen--and I'm certainly in no position to make that determination--something to remember is that 1) hazing was not illegal when Bush was in college, and 2) it was quite common. Hell, it's been illegal in most US jurisdictions for at least the last twenty years and it's still common. Kids die every year in hazing incidents. So going after Bush for something like this is just bullshit--and anyone around here can tell you that I have no love for the guy.
Personaly I am against all hazing like that ...
That bush partook is rather telling of his personallity (that or his ability to cave to peer pressure)

Sorry but anyone that partook in such incedences are deminished in my eyes
Weather it was bush or someone else
Just because others do it does not excuse their individual choices

Personaly I am against all hazing like that ...
That bush partook is rather telling of his personallity (that or his ability to cave to peer pressure)

Sorry but anyone that partook in such incedences are deminished in my eyes
Weather it was bush or someone else
Just because others do it does not excuse their individual choices
That's true, but I'm sure you'd admit that hazing and torture are far from the same, right?

That's true, but I'm sure you'd admit that hazing and torture are far from the same, right?
Yes I just happen to dispize both

But sometimes the area grey's
Branding seems relitivly grey to me

it goes beyond just humiliating acts to acts of phisical pain ... that can fall into both catagories

Its what frat brothers are supposed to do

That's true, but I'm sure you'd admit that hazing and torture are far from the same, right?

Actually it's hardly a compliment to say that a man engaged in an act that deliberately humiliated and harmed a human being simply for entertainment, and then compare it favorably to the extraction of potentially life-saving intelligence by use of persuasive force. Furthermore, while it is true that hazing is common even today, when it is covered by legislation, the office of the President is one for which the primary qualification determining most voters is Character, and while it might not be suitable to attack John Doe for hazing while Jim Brown is left alone, when John Doe's primary qualification is his Character, the sort of arguments that are acceptable to levy against him are those which would bring his Character Qualifications into question.

College kids acting indecently. Wow. I'm amazed.

Would the puritanical idiot who started this thread please get a flaming life.

:gundge:

That's not the point though.

I suppose it's fine to assume that Bush has not changed his character at all since his college days and that he's still all up for hazing, and criticize his character based on that...

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that the OP is accusing Bush of torture. Hazing and torture are COMPLETELY different.

You can differentiate between the two acts without condoning either.

Its what frat brothers are supposed to do
I have known plenty of frats that have not gone as far as inflicting phisical pain on their brothers

Voulentary humiliation like is the norm, while I find detestable, is a compleatly seperate manner then when you subject them to pain.

While I dont think it should be illegal (as long as the brandee's are aware of what is happening) and they make the informed decision to go through with it, I still find it hardly a sign of a good person to do such to other humans

That's not the point though.

I suppose it's fine to assume that Bush has not changed his character at all since his college days and that he's still all up for hazing, and criticize his character based on that...

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that the OP is accusing Bush of torture. Hazing and torture are COMPLETELY different.

You can differentiate between the two acts without condoning either.
tor·ture Audio pronunciation of "torture" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

Now tell me how branding does not fit inot 1, 2 or 3? Edit: ( note 1 has two subgroups 1.1 and 1.2)

If it is true that he branded someone calling it torture is compleatly right deffinition

Now tell me how branding does not fit inot 1, 2 or 3? Edit:(note 1 has two subgroups 1.1 and 1.2)

If it is true that he branded someone calling it torture is compleatly right deffinition
Torture is something done to prisoners who are captured and held captive. There's no opt-out.

While I don't agree with hazing, it's clearly different from torture (unless you're really that liberal and want to spin EVERYTHING that badly). Hazing is done to potential members of some sort of an organization as a part of tradition. A sort of right to belong. It's essentially a test of commitment. Anyone who does not want to be hazed DOES have the option of opting out and simply not joining the organization.

That's not the point though.

I suppose it's fine to assume that Bush has not changed his character at all since his college days and that he's still all up for hazing, and criticize his character based on that...

But that's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that the OP is accusing Bush of torture. Hazing and torture are COMPLETELY different.

You can differentiate between the two acts without condoning either.

There is a difference between the two acts, nobody is denying that. My contention is that there is a common lack of moral principle that will lead to an individual's decision to employ either without sufficent consideration or restraint. i am personally not adverse to torture in every iteration. i believe that there are occasions in which it is suitable to cause a degree of suffering to one human being to prevent the greater suffering of one or more others, especially innocent non-participants.

My problem with the suggestions put forth above is not that Bush doesn't know the difference between hazing and torture, or that a man who would commit hazing would necessarily torture another human being; in fact, i find the title of the thread misleading. i do however, feel that a man who would deliberately commit a harmful and degrading act should not be placed in a position to choose when torture is and is not acceptable, because of the implications his judgement might have, especially in reflection to My country.

Torture is something done to prisoners who are captured and held captive. There's no opt-out.
<snip>

Amazing thats not in any english dictionary I have access to?
Prey tell where are you coming up with this deffinition of yours

In fact of all the dictionary's I have access to I cant find one that mentions status of being a prisoner or being incarserated as a condition to torture

Now I am really intrested in where the deffinition comes from ... I cant find it anywhere

Context. Connotation.

In a dictionary, there's no difference in a lot of things, despite meaning far different things.

Now tell me how branding does not fit inot 1, 2 or 3? Edit: ( note 1 has two subgroups 1.1 and 1.2)

If it is true that he branded someone calling it torture is compleatly right deffinition

i hate to be caught on both sides of an argument, because it can be misleading to people who don't immediately pick up that a weak argument for the case in which i believe is most correct can be as damaging as a good argument against it.
There is a fallacy commited in UT's argument, i believe.
i do not believe that all three definitions of Torture listed follow from their definitive examples to the military context in which Torture is being used to reflect on the Commander in Chief. i would especially object to both second definitions and the third in this case, which are colloquial uses, and are not representative of the military act, in that it leaves out key elements of causality.

When Indian tribes make its members hold on to red hot sticks is that tourture as well. People joining a frat do it by choice and its an iniciation you'll not forget.

And if you can't do that stuff around uni when can you.

i hate to be caught on both sides of an argument, because it can be misleading to people who don't immediately pick up that a weak argument for the case in which i believe is most correct can be as damaging as a good argument against it.
There is a fallacy commited in UT's argument, i believe.
i do not believe that all three definitions of Torture listed follow from their definitive examples to the military context in which Torture is being used to reflect on the Commander in Chief. i would especially object to both second definitions and the third in this case, which are colloquial uses, and are not representative of the military act, in that it leaves out key elements of causality.
None the less they are standard deffinitions ... argue with dictionary writers not me on standard usage
Miriam usues a simmilar deffinition

Even as such torture does not require a status of incarseration

someone calling branding torutre requires no real stretch of linguistics in fact it would be correct per the primary deffinition alone

To boil this all down, anyone that was branded by Bush during his college years was branded because he wanted to join a fraternity. NOT AGAINST HIS WILL.

The "victim" of the hazing/branding allowed it to happen. He had a choice and he chose to be branded in order to join the fraternity because joining the fraternity meant that much to him and he felt like proving to the other frat brothers that that is how much the fraternity meant to him.

Context. Connotation.

In a dictionary, there's no difference in a lot of things, despite meaning far different things.
Maybe but thats not the falt of the person calling branding torture ... it compleatly fits the deffinition

To boil this all down, anyone that was branded by Bush during his college years was branded because he wanted to join a fraternity. NOT AGAINST HIS WILL.

The "victim" of the hazing/branding allowed it to happen. He had a choice and he chose to be branded in order to join the fraternity because joining the fraternity meant that much to him and he felt like proving to the other frat brothers that that is how much the fraternity meant to him.
Agreed ... which is why I find the actions on both sides should be compleatly legal

That does not mean people should not find them detestable

Agreed ... which is why I find the actions on both sides should be compleatly legal

That does not mean people should not find them detestable
But equating hazing and torture is an entirely new level of fucktardation.

The ambiguity of the word Torture is, as i predicted too late, it seems, becoming a quagmire for this argument to flounder in. If nobody is claiming that Bush ordered the Torture of living things (As distinct from Hazing by the definition given below) in wartime, and under the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice's acts regarding Laws of Armed conflict, i would resolve that for the use of Torture be restricted to the definition given by the United Nations' Convention Against Torture as follows:

"For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and unusual punishment commited under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted."

Remember: The United States, that is THIS VOTING BODY, ratified this Convention. If you do not agree with this definition, you are in the voting minority.

But equating hazing and torture is an entirely new level of fucktardation.
like I said this is a grey area
It compleatly fits both deffinitions

lol if you have a problem with the deffinitions might want to argue with the people that record them (dictionary writers)

Untill then it is compleatly alright to call it torture if it fits the deffinition

"For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and unusual punishment commited under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted."

Remember: The United States, that is THIS VOTING BODY, ratified this Convention. If you do not agree with this definition, you are in the voting minority.
Hazing isn't punishment.

None the less they are standard deffinitions ... argue with dictionary writers not me on standard usage
Miriam usues a simmilar deffinition

Even as such torture does not require a status of incarseration

someone calling branding torutre requires no real stretch of linguistics in fact it would be correct per the primary deffinition alone

It's not a question of standard usage. It's a question of contextual usage. If standard usage were permissible in all cases, the english language, imbued as it is with synonyms, homonyms and double-meanings, would be practically unusable. i would urge you not to argue this point with a Linguist, which i am.

<snip>

"For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and unusual punishment commited under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted."
<snip>

The important part bolded

We are arguing if it can be called torture That is defined by the english language NOT the convention

Hazing isn't punishment.

That's correct, and i specifically noted that the definition remain distinct from the definition of Hazing. Way to give attention to detail before forming criticism.

It's not a question of standard usage. It's a question of contextual usage. If standard usage were permissible in all cases, the english language, imbued as it is with synonyms, homonyms and double-meanings, would be practically unusable. i would urge you not to argue this point with a Linguist, which i am.
Sometimes it is...
Does it make the person who uses the deffinition technicaly wrong?

If hazing isn't punishment, then how can hazing be considered torture is
"an extreme form of cruel and unusual punishment"?

Hazing isn't punishment.
Lol got to love the english language

punishment
One entry found for punishment.
Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
It can fit that deffinition as well ... see 3

The important part bolded

We are arguing if it can be called torture That is defined by the english language NOT the convention

Oh please. The argument you're presenting is entirely contextual. Would you have your teacher arrested because your fellow classmate said "Man, that test was torture!"
Why not? It fits the linguistic definition; you cannot argue that taking a test for which he or she was not prepared caused him or her mental anguish and suffering. Does that make your teacher a criminal? You can't win an argument by attacking words, UT. You can only win an argument by making valid points against supplied positions. Contextual speech and proper precision of language is the difference between saying "i had to help my uncle, Jack, off a horse." and "i had to help my uncle jack off a horse." trust me, i make my living off of proper, contextual use of language.

UT, I'm not responding to you any more. Why? Because you lack any real world sense of context or connotation. Who the fuck gives two shits about what a dictionary says? Language, be it English, Russian, whatev the Asians speak, Pig Latin, or wtf else is not about what a book of word meanings says.

Oh please. The argument you're presenting is entirely contextual. Would you have your teacher arrested because your fellow classmate said "Man, that test was torture!"
Why not? It fits the linguistic definition; you cannot argue that taking a test for which he or she was not prepared caused him or her mental anguish and suffering. Does that make your teacher a criminal? You can't win an argument by attacking words, UT. You can only win an argument by making valid points against supplied positions. Contextual speech and proper precision of language is the difference between saying "i had to help my uncle, Jack, off a horse." and "i had to help my uncle jack off a horse." trust me, i make my living off of proper, contextual use of language.
Law is a compleatly different matter then calling it such
He is compleatly right to call it torture ... that does not mean it has to fall within punishment guidlines

If hazing isn't punishment, then how can hazing be considered torture is
"an extreme form of cruel and unusual punishment"?

HELOOOOOOO, i addressed this twice now, don't you get it?
i specifically said that the definition of Hazing is distinct from the definition of Torture. Distinct, as in Different. As in they're NOT the same thing. i'm not arguing that they're the same thing. i'm arguing that the same moral deficit allows for both.

Law is a compleatly different matter then calling it such
He is compleatly right to call it torture ... that does not mean it has to fall within punishment guidlines

Maybe you didn't read what you just wrote, so i'll quote you here, so you can.
If you're thick enough to say in the same sentence that someone is justified in calling an act torture, INDISTICT from literal, military definitions of torture, and yet not hold his "torturer" accountable for it, i'm not even going to bother continuing this debate. Your problems with basic use of the english language are going to make it impossible to reason with you.

UT, I'm not responding to you any more. Why? Because you lack any real world sense of context or connotation. Who the fuck gives two shits about what a dictionary says? Language, be it English, Russian, whatev the Asians speak, Pig Latin, or wtf else is not about what a book of word meanings says.
That is fine I have no problem with that
it is your right do to as you please

You were arguing it was wrong to call it torture ... which was un true

Do I find his actions punishable no ... to I find them detestable ... yes thats the point
If you wish to move beyond if it is or is not right to be called torture fine ... do that I have no problem with arguing more then that.
But unless you can show it is not right to give it the lable of torture this arguement is moot

I can't show that it's not right to call it torture in the same way Christians can't prove the existence of God and atheists can't disprove the existence. I do finding it surprising that context and connotation are not things that not all English speakers are intuitively capable of however.

Either way, I'm only here to contest the innappropriate thread title.

That is fine I have no problem with that
it is your right do to as you please

You were arguing it was wrong to call it torture ... which was un true

Do I find his actions punishable no ... to I find them detestable ... yes thats the point
If you wish to move beyond if it is or is not right to be called torture fine ... do that I have no problem with arguing more then that.
But unless you can show it is not right to give it the lable of torture this arguement is moot

i would argue that you're incapable of giving a definition of torture that both complies with International Law and does not contratict your own posts. You seem more than willing to accept any definition of torture that you can find printed, but you say that the definitions are distinct from legal "guidelines" which would conceiveably govern such cases. On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge and use the legal guidelines of the United Nations' Convention on Torture, so your legal and logistical definition apparently is completely individual, and applicable therefore to nobody but yourself.
QED, dude.

I can't show that it's not right to call it torture in the same way Christians can't prove the existence of God and atheists can't disprove the existence. I do finding it surprising that context and connotation are not things that not all English speakers are intuitively capable of however.

Either way, I'm only here to contest the innappropriate thread title.

nice to see that we agree on something, even if it is just the title. Keep at it, you CAN prove that it's inappropriate to define Bush's actions as the same sort of torture being ordered as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Both the English language and International Law are on your side; just do a little research! :)

Maybe you didn't read what you just wrote, so i'll quote you here, so you can.
If you're thick enough to say in the same sentence that someone is justified in calling an act torture, INDISTICT from literal, military definitions of torture, and yet not hold his "torturer" accountable for it, i'm not even going to bother continuing this debate. Your problems with basic use of the english language are going to make it impossible to reason with you.
Me being the thick one?
I said what I mean

There is a military and a an generalistic deffinition to torture

As this thread was NOT on the topic of military punishment origionaly (not specificaly) both the military or the general deffinition would suffice

The topic (as far as I can tell from the OP) did NOT specify that we need to be restricted to the millitary deffinition (as for example if he had sugested bush be brought up on charges)
In that case we would be working in pure military or legal deffinitions

But that is not the case

In no way did I make apparent that I wish this "torturer" be acountable for anything other then his lack of charicter in perpretrating branding in a hazing ritual

If you thought any differently either I stated something wrong or something was lost in translation

nice to see that we agree on something, even if it is just the title. Keep at it, you CAN prove that it's inappropriate to define Bush's actions as the same sort of torture being ordered as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Both the English language and International Law are on your side; just do a little research! :)
Who was comparing them to such?

Edit: they both fit the deffinition for the term but I did not say they were comparable legaly or morally

http://www.apt.ch/un/definition.shtml

The Association for the Prevention of Torture.


My summary is this...
Torture is: ['cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'] ['that causes extreme pain or suffering, whether mental or physical, intending to gain information, punish, intimidate, or as an act of discrimination against the victim'] ['and is inflicted against any person in the custody, care, or control of the perpetrator'].


Hazing, while it is perhaps degrading treatment, and it might cause extreme physical pain, is not inflicted upon people against their will nor inflicted by a caretaker of any kind. Therefore, based on international conventions, hazing cannot be defined as torture. Even if it is pointless and stupid, it's not technically torture.

In paying tons of money to go to college or university (which I am), the last group of people I want to associate with are a bunch of boozed up frat jerks that think branding one another is good for a laugh - but if those are the kinds of people that someone wants to call their friend, power to them for being either a) overly spineless and needy, or b) masochistic. Not all people in frats are jerks; naturally there are lots of good people in frats, too, but you can find just as many (if not more) decent people by just talking to a few around campus instead of relying on $$ to buy a bunch of shake-n-bake comrades you probably won't be able to stand.

i would argue that you're incapable of giving a definition of torture that both complies with International Law and does not contratict your own posts. You seem more than willing to accept any definition of torture that you can find printed, but you say that the definitions are distinct from legal "guidelines" which would conceiveably govern such cases. On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge and use the legal guidelines of the United Nations' Convention on Torture, so your legal and logistical definition apparently is completely individual, and applicable therefore to nobody but yourself.
QED, dude.
Where did I define a legal deffinition?

Who was comparing them to such?

Edit: they both fit the deffinition for the term but I did not say they were comparable legaly or morally

Ohhhhh, i understand NOWWWWW!
You were saying that they fit the definition of torture from the dictionary, but that he shouldn't be held accountable because they can't be compared to each other, and THAT's why we're having a debate entitled "Bush Used Torture in College?"

Get out, dude. You've lost all ground for continuing, and you don't have a leg to stand on. If you have a dead horse to beat just to make it look like you weren't wrong, flog it elsewhere.

Ohhhhh, i understand NOWWWWW!
You were saying that they fit the definition of torture from the dictionary,
Yes they dobut that he shouldn't be held accountable because they can't be compared to each otherNo bexause I dont find his actions rizing to the level of requiring legal punishment for because the ritual was voulentary
and THAT's why we're having a debate entitled "Bush Used Torture in College?"

We are having the debate because the OP did not give us any indication as to if we should restrict our arguement to lega/military deffinitions or general english deffinitions

As such I took the general approach you the specific ... hence where the contention came into play

Get out, dude. You've lost all ground for continuing, and you don't have a leg to stand on. If you have a dead horse to beat just to make it look like you weren't wrong, flog it elsewhere.?
I like it right were I am at thank you

Well, I've provided a fresh definition cited from international law if we need something new to squabble over. That being said, I'm inclined to agree with Upward Thrust.

Like I said, based on the definitions I found, if the victim volunteers and his/her safety is not exclusively in the hands of someone else (ie: they can still walk away without doing it) then it isn't torture.

Otherwise, you should say that getting a tattoo is torture. It clearly is not.

It baffles me that Americans have shot better presidents then Bush, and yet elected him for a second term. Anyway, the guy didn't torture anyone at college (based only on the info available), even though I don't have any love for him. What he's done with his country's prisoners is another matter, but that's not the topic of this thread so I won't touch it.

Yes they doNo bexause I dont find his actions rizing to the level of requiring legal punishment for because the ritual was voulentary

We are having the debate because the OP did not give us any indication as to if we should restrict our arguement to lega/military deffinitions or general english deffinitions

As such I took the general approach you the specific ... hence where the contention came into play
?
I like it right were I am at thank you

If you're willing to stick around while you make a fool of yourself to anyone willing to read, i am too, at least until i start feeling bad about it.

So you're taking a positon now that Bush is not guilty of torture by his actions in college, even though you've been disagreeing with me in spite of my constant posting of the exact same thing? Fair enough. i won't restrict your free speech, even if you insist on using it against yourself.

No OP gave us strict instructions to use a military definition to talk about the comparability of the Commander in Chief of the United States' Armed Services' actions to the military act of forceful coercion of detainees. You're one hundred percent right there. Personally, i'm willing to believe that's because they have better things to do, but if you're willing to interpret their inactivity as a bastion of your rectitude, again, i won't stop you from speaking your mind.
You "Took the general" as you said, whereas i "Took the specific." Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to specify when you're talking about a word for which the language we speak provides many independant and, in some cases, exclusive definitions, but again, i'm just as willing to defend your right to be wrong as i am to defend my own right to speak against it.

Well, I've provided a fresh definition cited from international law if we need something new to squabble over. That being said, I'm inclined to agree with Upward Thrust.

Like I said, based on the definitions I found, if the victim volunteers and his/her safety is not exclusively in the hands of someone else (ie: they can still walk away without doing it) then it isn't torture.

Otherwise, you should say that getting a tattoo is torture. It clearly is not.

It baffles me that Americans have shot better presidents then Bush, and yet elected him for a second term. Anyway, the guy didn't torture anyone at college (based only on the info available), even though I don't have any love for him. What he's done with his country's prisoners is another matter, but that's not the topic of this thread so I won't touch it.

La dee da. Do yourself a favor and read my posts. i'm not, repeat NOT, for the third time, equating torture to hazing. i'm equating the respective lack of moral principle in each circumstance.

If you're willing to stick around while you make a fool of yourself to anyone willing to read, i am too, at least until i start feeling bad about it.

So you're taking a positon now that Bush is not guilty of torture by his actions in college, even though you've been disagreeing with me in spite of my constant posting of the exact same thing? Fair enough. i won't restrict your free speech, even if you insist on using it against yourself.

No OP gave us strict instructions to use a military definition to talk about the comparability of the Commander in Chief of the United States' Armed Services' actions to the military act of forceful coercion of detainees. You're one hundred percent right there. Personally, i'm willing to believe that's because they have better things to do, but if you're willing to interpret their inactivity as a bastion of your rectitude, again, i won't stop you from speaking your mind.
You "Took the general" as you said, whereas i "Took the specific." Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to specify when you're talking about a word for which the language we speak provides many independant and, in some cases, exclusive definitions, but again, i'm just as willing to defend your right to be wrong as i am to defend my own right to speak against it.
Ok I have a feeling this is all more of a problem between attitudes and position in the arguement

Let me try to clarify my position if I can maybe it will help

One
There is a general and a specific meaning of the word torture

For lack of direction one can say he was guilty of the general but not of the specific (the specific being the one mandating punishment)

As such while it can be said (I would choose not to) that he was guilty of torture I do not find his actions punishable as per the specific deffinition

My only arguement origionaly was that by someone not using the specific deffinition it could be said he was guilty of "torture" (again I would choose not to as emotional connotations of the word "torture" detract from the arguement as it would be borderline appeal to emotion)

Now how we ended up here I dont know ... I have been attempting to overcome your condecending tone and have a real debate but it is hard when someone is not willing to reciprocate

Please let us just move on as we are adding nothing to the arguement

Alright, before everybody goes batshit crazy, let's look at the sources we've found - all by searching Google. How many of you found legitimate news sources, as opposed to "cutiegirlXoXo91"'s weblog or some clearly biased personal website?

And another thing... when pledges are/were hazed, they willingly pledged. As in, nobody was FORCING them. It's not like Bush ran into the street, found a stranger and branded him with a coathanger. They subjected themselves to the hazing by [b]willingly pledging.[/i]

Anyways as I said while I dont find him to be legaly responsable, what are peoples viewpoints on what these sort of actions say about his charicter?

Alright, before everybody goes batshit crazy, let's look at the sources we've found - all by searching Google. How many of you found legitimate news sources, as opposed to "cutiegirlXoXo91"'s weblog or some clearly biased personal website?

And another thing... when pledges are/were hazed, they willingly pledged. As in, nobody was FORCING them. It's not like Bush ran into the street, found a stranger and branded him with a coathanger. They subjected themselves to the hazing by [b]willingly pledging.[/i]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16875-2004Jul26_2.html
Mentioned in there
Sounds like it was also ran in the yale's newspaper

Ill keep looking

Anyways as I said while I dont find him to be legaly responsable, what are peoples viewpoints on what these sort of actions say about his charicter?
Boys will be boys. Everybody's done something (alot of somethings) stupid in their life, and nobody can play the "saint" card in anything, and look down on something as silly as poking someone with a hot coat hanger.

Ok I have a feeling this is all more of a problem between attitudes and position in the arguement

Let me try to clarify my position if I can maybe it will help

One
There is a general and a specific meaning of the word torture

For lack of direction one can say he was guilty of the general but not of the specific (the specific being the one mandating punishment)

As such while it can be said (I would choose not to) that he was guilty of torture I do not find his actions punishable as per the specific deffinition

My only arguement origionaly was that by someone not using the specific deffinition it could be said he was guilty of "torture" (again I would choose not to as emotional connotations of the word "torture" detract from the arguement as it would be borderline appeal to emotion)

Now how we ended up here I dont know ... I have been attempting to overcome your condecending tone and have a real debate but it is hard when someone is not willing to reciprocate

Please let us just move on as we are adding nothing to the arguement

Your opinion, which i still find ridiculous, has been inconsistent. The clarification is apprectiated.
i'm more than willing to reciprocate in a debate, but i expect a certain level of familliarity with syntax and language you have shown no sign of being capable of expressing.
My argument has been since my first post, and remains, that a person whose character makes him regard the one act (that is, hazing) as acceptable makes him morally and ethically inelligible to do his job as President, because one duty of the office is determining if and when the second act (Torture of enemy combatants in wartime for the purpose of extracting proportionately valuable intelligence) would be appropriate is impaired.
i do not believe you are capable of asserting yourself or your position distinctly, and i am leaving now, wishing i had the last hour of my life back, in spite of my beliefs.

Boys will be boys. Everybody's done something (alot of somethings) stupid in their life, and nobody can play the "saint" card in anything, and look down on something as silly as poking someone with a hot coat hanger.
I dont find being branded perticularly silly
Though Dont get me wrong I hardly willing to say "he did it" and it was "this bad"
I was more working within the hypothetical of it being a full blown brand and that he did do it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16875-2004Jul26_2.html
Mentioned in there
Sounds like it was also ran in the yale's newspaper

Ill keep looking
That's a good source, although slightly biased against Bush (The one being interviewed hates Bush.)

Still doesn't talk about Bush doing the hazings himself.

My point regarding willful hazing still stands.

Your opinion, which i still find ridiculous, has been inconsistent. The clarification is apprectiated.
i'm more than willing to reciprocate in a debate, but i expect a certain level of familliarity with syntax and language you have shown no sign of being capable of expressing.
My argument has been since my first post, and remains, that a person whose character makes him regard the one act (that is, hazing) as acceptable makes him morally and ethically inelligible to do his job as President, because one duty of the office is determining if and when the second act (Torture of enemy combatants in wartime for the purpose of extracting proportionately valuable intelligence) would be appropriate is impaired.
i do not believe you are capable of asserting yourself or your position distinctly, and i am leaving now, wishing i had the last hour of my life back, in spite of my beliefs.
Ahhh more quality condencending tone bordering on ad-hominim ... grats and have a good night

That's a good source, although slightly biased against Bush (The one being interviewed hates Bush.)

Still doesn't talk about Bush doing the hazings himself.

My point regarding willful hazing still stands.
I happen to agree on your willfull point ... though (as stated in my other post after that ... working within the hypothetical) I dont find branding someone to be a very good telltale sign of their charicter

I happen to agree on your willfull point ... though (as stated in my other post after that ... working within the hypothetical) I dont find branding someone to be a very good telltale sign of their charicter
Again, boys will be boys. People will do stupid things. Sure, I'm a God-fearing Christian, and I try my hardest to be the nicest, most respectful, most outgoing person I can be, but that doesn't mean that I haven't done alot of stupid things in my life. People make mistakes. People recover from their mistakes and move on. It's just a way of learning.

I highly doubt that what Bush did ~40 years ago reflects his character today, just like I doubt that you soiling your diaper when you were a baby means that you dirty your pants today. :)

Again, boys will be boys. People will do stupid things. Sure, I'm a God-fearing Christian, and I try my hardest to be the nicest, most respectful, most outgoing person I can be, but that doesn't mean that I haven't done alot of stupid things in my life. People make mistakes. People recover from their mistakes and move on. It's just a way of learning.

I highly doubt that what Bush did ~40 years ago reflects his character today, just like I doubt that you soiling your diaper when you were a baby means that you dirty your pants today. :)
For a lot of things I would be most inclined to agree

Something causing pain like that just for me (personally) goes beyond just mistake (specialy at collage age ... what you do in collage effects the rest of your life academicaly, if you are suposed to be old enough to take that weight on the accidemic side I find no reason to expect less out of you socialy)

Ahhh more quality condencending tone bordering on ad-hominim ... grats and have a good night

Of course i'm attacking your person rather than your position, of the two your person is the only consistent factor. i know i said i was leaving, and i hate to give the impression that i just want the last word, but i feel that i am justifiably upset when one hour ago you gave a dictionary definition of the word torture, and said that in your opinion, what Bush did fit the definition you gave. i contested that your argument was flawed, based on the objection that none of the definitions to which the act was fit conformed to the accepted definition of the act of Torture by the context of the discussion: that is, its comparability to torturing prisoners for intelligence gathering purposes. Now, one hour and a half later, you're saying that your position is effectively my own, and that what Bush did should not be termed as Torture. i think it is acceptable for me to be upset about that inconsitency when you color your conterpoints with slander but won't acknowledge their aim.

For a lot of things I would be most inclined to agree

Something causing pain like that just for me (personally) goes beyond just mistake (specialy at collage age ... what you do in collage effects the rest of your life academicaly, if you are suposed to be old enough to take that weight on the accidemic side I find no reason to expect less out of you socialy)
Well, you've just gotta accept that there are some pretty stupid things that went on and still go on in college nowadays, especially in fraternities... and yes, even sororities. Sex, drinking, and with the drinking comes alot of equally stupid things. Not saying I approve of any of what we're talking about, but it's something that you can't reflect on - can't fix the past, but you can fix the future :)

Comparing hazing to torture is ridiculous. However, if the post is meant to convey Bush as having a mindset (or lack thereof) who because he conducted hazings and thus would find little to no trouble at all with looking the other way or even giving a thumbs-up to torture, then I could see a valid point.

Of course i'm attacking your person rather than your position, of the two your person is the only consistent factor. i know i said i was leaving, and i hate to give the impression that i just want the last word, but i feel that i am justifiably upset when one hour ago you gave a dictionary definition of the word torture, and said that in your opinion, what Bush did fit the definition you gave. i contested that your argument was flawed, based on the objection that none of the definitions to which the act was fit conformed to the accepted definition of the act of Torture by the context of the discussion: that is, its comparability to torturing prisoners for intelligence gathering purposes. Now, one hour and a half later, you're saying that your position is effectively my own, and that what Bush did should not be termed as Torture. i think it is acceptable for me to be upset about that inconsitency when you color your conterpoints with slander but won't acknowledge their aim.
Maybe the reson as you say our positions are effectivly the same is because they are?
The only difference is I am acknoledging that the OP could in fact call it torture by standard english deffinitions while still not rizing to the specific deffinition required legaly/militarily ?

Comparing hazing to torture is ridiculous. However, if the post is meant to convey Bush as having a mindset (or lack thereof) who because he conducted hazings and thus would find little to no trouble at all with looking the other way or even giving a thumbs-up to torture, then I could see a valid point.
Agreed while it does not meet the deffinition of legal/military torture it does say a lot about ones personality

(like I argued before in the generalistic sense it could be argued that it fits the deffinition but that is moving to the realm where it could be considered appeal to emotion)

Well, you've just gotta accept that there are some pretty stupid things that went on and still go on in college nowadays, especially in fraternities... and yes, even sororities. Sex, drinking, and with the drinking comes alot of equally stupid things. Not saying I approve of any of what we're talking about, but it's something that you can't reflect on - can't fix the past, but you can fix the future :)

Saying that a person is still capable of being a functional member of society in spite of reprehensible actions during College is a far cry from saying that someone who comitted the same reprehensible actions is qualified in character to make decisions daily that affect not only the lives of his constituents, you and me and every other American Citizen, but also the lives of those with foreign allegiance who are being detained on ground that said person fabricated.

Saying that a person is still capable of being a functional member of society in spite of reprehensible actions during College is a far cry from saying that someone who comitted the same reprehensible actions is qualified in character to make decisions daily that affect not only the lives of his constituents, you and me and every other American Citizen, but also the lives of those with foreign allegiance who are being detained on ground that said person fabricated.
Absolutly agreed :fluffle: :fluffle:

Maybe the reson as you say our positions are effectivly the same is because they are?
The only difference is I am acknoledging that the OP could in fact call it torture by standard english deffinitions while still not rizing to the specific deffinition required legaly/militarily ?

i'm saying that our positions have BECOME the same, because your position has been inconsistent.

Absolutly agreed :fluffle: :fluffle:

nice to see it didn't take another hour and a half for it to happen.

i'm saying that our positions have BECOME the same, because your position has been inconsistent.
Nope ... not really ... not unless I managed to state something wrong ... its possible
But that would be less because of the inconsistancy of my position more to the possiblity of miscommunication

nice to see it didn't take another hour and a half for it to happen.
Lol it happens sometimes ... forums sometimes leads to things getting muttled
Oh well sometimes thats half the fun

Saying that a person is still capable of being a functional member of society in spite of reprehensible actions during College is a far cry from saying that someone who comitted the same reprehensible actions is qualified in character to make decisions daily that affect not only the lives of his constituents, you and me and every other American Citizen, but also the lives of those with foreign allegiance who are being detained on ground that said person fabricated.

I highly doubt that what Bush did ~40 years ago reflects his character today, just like I doubt that you soiling your diaper when you were a baby means that you dirty your pants today.

Good luck finding someone to be the president if doing anything "reprehensible" during college excludes them from being able to do the job.

Good luck finding someone to be the president if doing anything "reprehensible" during college excludes them from being able to do the job.

i'm not saying that in order to be considered for the US Presidency a person's history has to be free of misdeeds. i'm saying that there is a lack of moral and ethical groundwork in a person's character if he will allow and participate in the suffering and humiliation of a fellow living thing, especially when years later, when supporters of that person contend that this person should not be judged by his actions in college, this same president is moving for further levity in the definition of torture as applied to prisoners that he has detained on fabricated causes as enemy combatants of an unjust and unnecessary war.

i'm not saying that in order to be considered for the US Presidency a person's history has to be free of misdeeds. i'm saying that there is a lack of moral and ethical groundwork in a person's character if he will allow and participate in the suffering and humiliation of a fellow living thing, especially when years later, when supporters of that person contend that this person should not be judged by his actions in college, this same president is moving for further levity in the definition of torture as applied to prisoners that he has detained on fabricated causes as enemy combatants of an unjust and unnecessary war.

Hell, i'd go even further and say that, for example, JFK was one of our nations greatest presidents, and that the many, many reasons for that INCLUDE that he nailed Marilyn Monroe.

It has become widely reported that Bush led hazing of Frat brothers by branding them with a coat hanger.

google: Bush branding coat hanger

Bush was a member of the Skull and Bones fraternity. If that's true, then John Kerry did it too.

It has become widely reported that Bush led hazing of Frat brothers by branding them with a coat hanger.

google: Bush branding coat hanger
lol, good thread title!

It has become widely reported that Bush led hazing of Frat brothers by branding them with a coat hanger.

google: Bush branding coat hanger


Heh, gotta love conspiracy theories, right? Bush, like his father and grandfather, was a member of the Phi chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon at Yale. I myself am a member of the Alpha Beta chapter at DePaul. At my chapter, I have the privilage of being ritual chair for several years and, as a result, I am quite familiar with the initiation practices of the fraternity. Different chapters have different traditions, some of which I do not approve of, but the branding rumor is something of a misunderstanding.

There is a tradition of some brothers getting DKE brands, but it isn't done as part of the initiation. Wearing a brand is something akin to getting a tattoo, it is a show of pride, but it is not obligatory. It is never done without consent and it is never done to a pledge. Period. In fact, I don't think I know a single brother who chose to wear a brand that had it done within a month of initiation.

Branding as a form of hazing doesn't make sense. A pledge who had a brand forced on them could walk away, go to the police, and have signed evidence of an assault. Beyond that, wearing the letters of a fraternity is a sign of membership. There is no reason to put your letters on someone who isn't a member, someone who hasn't earned the right to wear them. The stories just don't add up.

As for torture. Well, what Baby Bush did after he gave up whiskey and cocaine, and found Jaysus, well, please don't blame us.