NationStates Jolt Archive

My definition of torture:

" The act of inflicting pain to change another's behavior to something more 'appreciated' by the inflictor of that pain. "

My definition of "ethical" torture:

" The infliction of the absolute minimal amount of pain, in both time and severity, either physical or emotional or both, to elicit a 'required' behavioral change. "

My definition of "useful" torture:

" Torture who's 'sought after' behavior change is 'known' and can be recognized when 'reached', which elicits behavioral change which can be externally and independently checked for 'truth' after the 'session'. "

My definition of "bad" torture:

" Any infliction of pain which is for the purpose of punishment of previous behavior or for the pleasure of the inflictor of said pain. "



I would consider 3rd Grade to be useful and ethical torture. And thus an acceptable policy.



If it's acceptable to ethically and usefully torture 3rd Graders, why is it not acceptable to do the same to terrorists?


How would you define torture..? Is the word itself "undefinable", an only indicative of "bad behavior that hurts someone" such that any use of the word, regardless of what the person using the word means by it, indicates "PROHIBITED" behavior?

If one has no definition of the word, how can one discuss what is and isn't that word?

Is it wise to allow a word to be both undefined and powerful at the same time?

Does the word "torture", like the ancient word "abracadabra", simply sweep away logic and rationality at the whim of it's casting..?!

What does it mean,.. to you? And when it has real meaning to you, what is the difference between "torture" and "learning by the pains of trial and error".

That difference is the crux of how to deal with people who oppose you. How does one "change the behavior" of those who oppose you, and who you have decided are wrong in doing so?

The goal is to change the "terrorists" behavior such that they are not terrorists any longer.

What is the best way to do that?


Your thoughts...?



-Iakeo

Torture, n./v. - torture

Torture used to interrogate terrorists and the torture that is compulery "education" are both harmful to the victim--the former being physical and the later being intellectual--and just plain wrong.

For me, grades 3-8 were torture, but this is besides the point.

I think you have very, "interesting" definitions of torture.

I personally think what you are referring to is discipline.

If you were to replace the word "torture" in your first post with discipline, I think your definition of "bad discipline" would be torture...

The "torture" of a third grader is necessary for his/her own well-being, or so society thinks. The "torture" of a terrorist is njot necessary for his well-being, but it is good for society's well-being. I'd define "bad" torture as the act of inflicting pain on another person to satisfy only your narrow interests. Thus, both 3rd-grade torture and the torture of terrorists is acceptable.

Yeah, I can see how comparing 3rd grade to torturing people can be done. They are totally the same after all. :rolleyes:

Torture used to interrogate terrorists and the torture that is compulery "education" are both harmful to the victim--the former being physical and the later being intellectual--and just plain wrong.

So any infliction of pain (a thing "harmful to the 'victim'") is just plain wrong?

What of the infliction of pain to a murderer by being forced to wear handcuffs on the way to the police station after apprehension, and the subsequent "emotional pain" of being denied 'free opportunity to travel" to anywhere he wants to go? (..such as back to his apparment for dinner)


-Iakeo

Yeah, I can see how comparing 3rd grade to torturing people can be done. They are totally the same after all. :rolleyes:
Goddamn right they are.

Torture, n./v. - torture

That tells me what part of speech the word is, but not what it means.

Try again please. :)


-Iakeo

Does the word "torture", like the ancient word "abracadabra", simply sweep away logic and rationality at the whim of it's casting..?!

Yes and so does "liberal" and "welfare."

For me, grades 3-8 were torture, but this is besides the point.

I think you have very, "interesting" definitions of torture.

I personally think what you are referring to is discipline.

If you were to replace the word "torture" in your first post with discipline, I think your definition of "bad discipline" would be torture...

Interesting..!! :)

Very good. My point of course is that the use of the word "torture" is a "mind-stopper",.. a word that means nothing more than "HOLY CRAP SOMETHING REALLY REALLY BAD AND NEVER TO DO!".

Is it then acceptable to "discipline" a person into changing their behavior in a way the the "discipliner" feels necessary, if the "discipliner" KNOWS that it is best to do the "disciplining"?

And what behaviors are acceptable in this "disciplining"..?


-Iakeo

Begoner21;11690408' ]The "torture" of a third grader is necessary for his/her own well-being, or so society thinks. The "torture" of a terrorist is njot necessary for his well-being, but it is good for society's well-being. I'd define "bad" torture as the act of inflicting pain on another person to satisfy only your narrow interests. Thus, both 3rd-grade torture and the torture of terrorists is acceptable.

Hmmm....

The question then becomes the meaning of "..your narrow interests", of course.

What distinguishes "your narrow interests" from "NOT your narrow interests"..?


-Iakeo

Yeah, I can see how comparing 3rd grade to torturing people can be done. They are totally the same after all. :rolleyes:

No they're not..!! :)

I'm not conflating the two,.. I'm comparing the two as to how the "subject" in either case is purposefully inflicted with pain to acheive the ends of the "inflictor" of that pain.

They are similar only in that both the student and the "terrorist" are being coerced into some behavioral change by the infliction of pain.

The question is when is the purposeful infliction of pain acceptable, and when is it not..?


-Iakeo

Yes and so does "liberal" and "welfare."

Most words are like that, actually.

The amount of "spellcasting power" of a word is directly proportional to the 'brain power' of those who are most affected by (not users of) it.

Thus,.. when conservatives use the word "liberal", and liberals go nuts, it shows the lack of brain power, in this regard, of liberals to the concept of "liberal-ness",.. of which they (the affected ones) have very little clue.

Same goes for ANY person overly affected by "incantations" of their "foes".


-Iakeo

Interesting..!! :)

Very good. My point of course is that the use of the word "torture" is a "mind-stopper",.. a word that means nothing more than "HOLY CRAP SOMETHING REALLY REALLY BAD AND NEVER TO DO!".

Is it then acceptable to "discipline" a person into changing their behavior in a way the the "discipliner" feels necessary, if the "discipliner" KNOWS that it is best to do the "disciplining"?

And what behaviors are acceptable in this "disciplining"..?


-Iakeo

You make a good point. The word itself has a lot of stigma, and I have a few greusome images associated with it.

When my Great-Grandfather wrote left handed, they broke his knuckles to change his behavior. I'd consider that to be torture (ie-bad discipline).

When I got into a little mess involving too much alcohol and hugging a toilet and a bit of a mess in my dorm (and the common area), I was forced to do some rather demeaning work, such as preparing a poster warning against the consumption of alcohol. While I think this was demeaning, I did decide not to drink as much in the future, as being found passed out can result in demeaning activities, which I suppose is good discipline.

Meh. 3rd grade wasn't torture for me, however 4th grade was.

But yes, if you go to an American public school it can be torutre. :( Just not as extreme as the terrorists have it.

Most words are like that, actually.

The amount of "spellcasting power" of a word is directly proportional to the 'brain power' of those who are most affected by (not users of) it.

Thus,.. when conservatives use the word "liberal", and liberals go nuts, it shows the lack of brain power, in this regard, of liberals to the concept of "liberal-ness",.. of which they (the affected ones) have very little clue.

Same goes for ANY person overly affected by "incantations" of their "foes".


-Iakeo

No. The target of the world "liberals" is really the "conservatives" because it turns them into mindless zombies going "rawr, down with liberals" and "mmm brains."

You make a good point. The word itself has a lot of stigma, and I have a few greusome images associated with it.

When my Great-Grandfather wrote left handed, they broke his knuckles to change his behavior. I'd consider that to be torture (ie-bad discipline).

That was not a good use of torture, to me either. But would a bit LESS pain and no real physiological damage still be BAD torture?

I think not. It was "acceptable" at the time to try to "mainstream" lefties into righty-ness, and therefore it was THEN acceptable to change the kid's behavior via an "infliction of pain" (disinsentive).

But there were more "ethical" (less painful and long lasting) ways to do that then, so they should have chosen more "ethical" ways to carry out their requested behavioral changes.


When I got into a little mess involving too much alcohol and hugging a toilet and a bit of a mess in my dorm (and the common area), I was forced to do some rather demeaning work, such as preparing a poster warning against the consumption of alcohol. While I think this was demeaning, I did decide not to drink as much in the future, as being found passed out can result in demeaning activities, which I suppose is good discipline.

And doing demeaning work, to change your behavior, is a very risky TORTURE (because of the high probability of 'kick-back' behavior), but it apparently worked on you.

You may call it "disciplining" if you like. I like to call it "pain infliction", and if I want to be provocative I'll call it TORTURE.

The purpose of using the word TORTURE is simply to provoke.

That is the ONLY valid use of the word, as it is a meaningless word otherwise.

Those against TORTURE use it to stain their opponents.

Those for "information extraction" from their foes will never use the word.

But how can we figure out what the proper "disciplining" methods are for our "foes" if the argument isn't about proper levels of pain, but about the meaninlessness of a word..?


-Iakeo

No. The target of the world "liberals" is really the "conservatives" because it turns them into mindless zombies going "rawr, down with liberals" and "mmm brains."

I disagree.

Who uses the word "liberal" for effect..?

The "spellcaster" seeks to gain control over others by the use of words. This is a volitional "want" of the spellcaster.

The affected one is the one that is being controlled, just as the dog returns when the whistle is blown (if so trained).

When a "liberal" goes bonkers at being called a liberal he's being controlled.

When a conservative uses the word "liberal" to incite a crowd of conservatives, he's also controlling them, but only by invoking the "magical" difference between "them" and "us".

This happens on both sides,.. but the use of the common label of each side side on its opponent is VERY different:

What happens when conservatives say "LIBERAL" to a liberal?

What happens when a liberal says "CONSERVATIVE" to a conservative?

The Liberal groans and moans and snarls.

The Conservative says, "Yes,.. you have something to say, I presume?"


Liberals have been MADE to believe that the label "LIBERAL" when used by a Conservative is a huge insult, and insults (regardless of truth) are fightin' words.

Conservatives have come to see that when Liberals use the label "CONSERVATIVE" it's (also) an insult, but it's also the truth and a good description, and that truths are not appropriate to use as fightin' words.


-Iakeo

But how can we figure out what the proper "disciplining" methods are for our "foes" if the argument isn't about proper levels of pain, but about the meaninlessness of a word..?
-Iakeo

Therein lies the question. Semantics is a funny thing. The "liberal"/"neocon" thing is a riot.

I also love how employees became "Team Members".

It seems today that people are more concerned with marketing their ideas, dressing them up to sound less greusome (softening a target, 'rapid oxidation' instead of an explosion).

The information age has allowed a plethora of ideas to be volleyed all over the world in a matter of seconds. Its like a supply and demand chain. Since there is so much being said, less people want to listen. Those ideas that get heard are the ones that either a: shock and offend people, but western society is becoming more tolerant to blood and gore, or b: market the idea by its words. A few quick words that are meaningless but sound pretty always attract more attention, and ultimately prevail. I am willing to bet that there are more ideas than words, so when a word gets associated with multiple ideas, we get arguments about the meaning of words like "torture").

Which inevitably leads to arguing about the meanings of words instead of the ideas themselves.

Not that this illuminates the torture issue or anything, I just had to get this off my chest.

My definition of torture:

" The act of inflicting pain to change another's behavior to something more 'appreciated' by the inflictor of that pain. "

Stop right there. You've misdefined it. Torture is not simple the infliction of pain. By definition in needs a degree of severity.

tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture&x=0&y=0

When my Great-Grandfather wrote left handed, they broke his knuckles to change his behavior. I'd consider that to be torture (ie-bad discipline).

They who? Parents? School teachers?

Anyhow, that's just fucked up.

They who? Parents? School teachers?

Anyhow, that's just fucked up.

It was done by one of his teachers. Back then, left-handedness was believed to be a sign of the devil. (Sinister= Latin for left-handed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakenuinui
My definition of torture:

" The act of inflicting pain to change another's behavior to something more 'appreciated' by the inflictor of that pain. "


Stop right there. You've misdefined it. Torture is not simple the infliction of pain. By definition in needs a degree of severity.

tor‧ture  /ˈtɔrtʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur‧ing.
–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

You may use what definitions you like. The point is that the "severity" of any pain, purposefully inflicted or not, is an intrinsic quality OF PAIN.

My point, in this whole discussion, is to show that since even mild pain, such as sending a child to stand in the corner to make them "change their behavior", is in fact torture. The only REAL question is how much pain is acceptable to induce behavioral change. THAT is what we should be discussing, not the relative meaninglessness of the word "torture" itself.

My definition of "torture" also has a "severity" characteristic in it.

Torture is the purposeful infliction of pain to elicit a behavioral change. This pain, obviously, must be "severe" enough to prompt the "inflictee" to have reason to change his behavior. That is the nature of pain. It is somethng to be "avoided", usually by behavioral change.


-Iakeo (Iakenuinui was banned, yet again,.. and for what?)

Actually, compulsory education is mind control.

Actually, compulsory education is mind control.

Is "mind control" a form of torture?

Is "shaping a mind", regardless of intent, which entails some measure of discomfort in the "controllee", a form of torture?

How often are you, personally, an inflicter (inflictor?) of torture and/or "mind control"...?

-Iakeo

Is "mind control" a form of torture?

Is "shaping a mind", regardless of intent, which entails some measure of discomfort in the "controllee", a form of torture?

How often are you, personally, an inflicter (inflictor?) of torture and/or "mind control"...?

-Iakeo

Yes, yes, and often.

Yes, yes, and often.

Wow.

Me too.

But I try to do so ethically and with as much effectiveness and humanity as possible.

He who denies they "torture" and "mind-shape" (mind control) people are simply delusional, and get around the implications by word play that vindicates them of responsibility to shape the future.

In other words, "a frown is warfare and torture".

The question is why that frown was worn, not whether frowning is "evil".


-Iakeo

My definition of torture:

" The act of inflicting pain to change another's behavior to something more 'appreciated' by the inflictor of that pain. "

My definition of "ethical" torture:

" The infliction of the absolute minimal amount of pain, in both time and severity, either physical or emotional or both, to elicit a 'required' behavioral change. "

My definition of "useful" torture:

" Torture who's 'sought after' behavior change is 'known' and can be recognized when 'reached', which elicits behavioral change which can be externally and independently checked for 'truth' after the 'session'. "

My definition of "bad" torture:

" Any infliction of pain which is for the purpose of punishment of previous behavior or for the pleasure of the inflictor of said pain. "



I would consider 3rd Grade to be useful and ethical torture. And thus an acceptable policy.



If it's acceptable to ethically and usefully torture 3rd Graders, why is it not acceptable to do the same to terrorists?


How would you define torture..? Is the word itself "undefinable", an only indicative of "bad behavior that hurts someone" such that any use of the word, regardless of what the person using the word means by it, indicates "PROHIBITED" behavior?

If one has no definition of the word, how can one discuss what is and isn't that word?

Is it wise to allow a word to be both undefined and powerful at the same time?

Does the word "torture", like the ancient word "abracadabra", simply sweep away logic and rationality at the whim of it's casting..?!

What does it mean,.. to you? And when it has real meaning to you, what is the difference between "torture" and "learning by the pains of trial and error".

That difference is the crux of how to deal with people who oppose you. How does one "change the behavior" of those who oppose you, and who you have decided are wrong in doing so?

The goal is to change the "terrorists" behavior such that they are not terrorists any longer.

What is the best way to do that?


Your thoughts...?



-Iakeo

When we start waterboarding third graders I'll think they are the same. For now we'll just assume the Geneva conventions have it correct and not torture people. :rolleyes:

When we start waterboarding third graders I'll think they are the same. For now we'll just assume the Geneva conventions have it correct and not torture people. :rolleyes:

Hey, when I was in college, some guys made me wear panties on my head, and walk around half naked, and drink several gallons of unsweetened ice tea after eating a pound of unsalted butter...

come to think of it, they did that to guys every year for decades....

And we were driven out into the remote countryside, and blindfolded, and then made to urinate - on an electric fence...

And then we could be members of the club!

You may use what definitions you like.

It's not a matter of what definition I like, it's one of what is standard. You've started off with a non-standard definition. If you mean infliction of pain, say infliction of pain, not torture, as they mean different things. Otherwise we have no basis for communication. As Liuzzo points out, waterboarding is torture. Standing in the corner is not.

-Iakeo (Iakenuinui was banned, yet again,.. and for what?)

When was the last date you logged in to your nation?

When we start waterboarding third graders I'll think they are the same. For now we'll just assume the Geneva conventions have it correct and not torture people. :rolleyes:
Damn you, Liuzzo! :D I was going to say I have yet to see a 3rd grade classroom with waterboarding facilities... Beat me to it! :p

As for the OP - your lighthearted use of the word torture is way out of place, comparing torture with a chance of education more than puzzles me.

When we start waterboarding third graders I'll think they are the same. For now we'll just assume the Geneva conventions have it correct and not torture people. :rolleyes:

But you do torture people. That's my point. You just don't like to CALL it torture.

And this is our impasse. We disagree on the definition of words, and that's fine.

But,.. you don't have to agree with me to understand what my definitions of words imply, do you?

(( If you say you DO have to agree to understand, what does that say about you? ))


-Iakeo

Damn you, Liuzzo! :D I was going to say I have yet to see a 3rd grade classroom with waterboarding facilities... Beat me to it! :p

As for the OP - your lighthearted use of the word torture is way out of place, comparing torture with a chance of education more than puzzles me.

Contrast, dear GN,.. CONTRAST..!

How are torture and 3rd grade similar? They both (usually) involve pain of one sort or another.

I'm using the CONTRAST between the "scenes" of "a torture room" and "a 3rd grade classroom", while keeping in mind that we're talking about the subject of PAIN, to illustrate that the key issue about the "ethicalness" of the use of torture hinges on the severity and effecacious use pain (in all it's forms) to acheive a particular behavioral change in the "subject" ("pupil").

This discussion is only "out of place" if you don't wish to talk about and clarify a major issuse in the world today, which is one of the ethics of "intentional (forceful) behavior change".

By the way, "intentional (forceful) behavior change" is something that EVERYONE who doesn't think that humanity is perfect at the moment wants, because it's the only way that people will then change into being more "sensible" (whatever that may mean to you personally).

Anyone who tries to "do good" (which I dare say is every one of us) tries to intentionally change others behaviors to create a "more good" world.

The question is what are the actual behaviors that we find acceptable to accomplish these changes?

That's the question. What's your answer?

(The ususal answer is "Torture ain't one of them, so I'm not doing that", which is fine,.. but that tells me what you WOULDN'T do, not what you would do. )


-Iakeo

Howdy there Iakeo. Nice to see you again. Sadly, your visit will be short, it seems, what with you being permanently banned from NS and all.