Based on this, do you agree that torture derives from a general tendency to invalidate?
If so, can invalidation be viewed as a simple bell curve applicable to every human situation:
- far left is zero invalidation of the perceived.
- Far right is murder, death and destruction of the perceived.
Or, is the prevalence of invalidation as evident through action more complicated, deforming actual incidents within the bell to the right or left in all human situations.
Torture is not invalidation. You invalidate a person's worth by ignoring them, or killing them.
When you torture you are giving a person lots of time and attention, thus demonstrating that the person tortured has something you want.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Torture is not invalidation. You invalidate a person's worth by ignoring them, or killing them.
When you torture you are giving a person lots of time and attention, thus demonstrating that the person tortured has something you want.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Torture is not invalidation. You invalidate a person's worth by ignoring them, or killing them.
When you torture you are giving a person lots of time and attention, thus demonstrating that the person tortured has something you want.
That's incorrect.
Torture is a form of invalidation.
Invalidation can require time and attention.
If you disagree with something, then you have to say why. Other wise this is contradiction, and not argument.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Torture is not invalidation. You invalidate a person's worth by ignoring them, or killing them.
When you torture you are giving a person lots of time and attention, thus demonstrating that the person tortured has something you want.
So if I torture my dog I'm validating him just because I'm showing him attention? Ha! How fucking stupid.
Yes the person you are torturing MAY have something you want but torture is a syptom of invalidation that typically comes with war. Opposite side of a conflict will often dehumanize their enemy to ease the conscious of the war fighters and make them less hesitant to kill. Torture is worse than combat as it usually brings someone to the brink of death for extended periods of time in the hopes of drawing out important information. The problem is that if someone says they don't know anything, they're assumed to by lying - because someone who did know something would say as much to protect their information - and the torture continues. So someone who doesn't actually know anything will make something up just to offer some information in hopes of making the torture stop.
It's inhumane, sadistic, and as an intelligence gathering technique nearly worthless.
BigWhit wrote:
So if I torture my dog I'm validating him just because I'm showing him attention? Ha! How fucking stupid.
Sick, yes. Morally inexcusable, yes. Fucking stupid, no. A dog which is routinely mistreated will not seek to escape from its torment, even when given an opportunity to do so. Neither will a child in the same situation. Neither will a battered woman at the mercy of a drunken and violent sadist. These are basic biological facts which apply uniformly to all social animals.
BigWhit wrote:
So if I torture my dog I'm validating him just because I'm showing him attention? Ha! How fucking stupid.
Sick, yes. Morally inexcusable, yes. Fucking stupid, no. A dog which is routinely mistreated will not seek to escape from its torment, even when given an opportunity to do so. Neither will a child in the same situation. Neither will a battered woman at the mercy of a drunken and violent sadist. These are basic biological facts which apply uniformly to all social animals.
Bullshit. I ran away from home for that very fucking reason as a kid.
Women sometimes stay with their abusive "lover" but sometimes they leave or even shoot the motherfucker. Please be less accurate, I dare you.
“Well, that ain’t nothin …” (casual conversational invalidation)
Whether or not the invalidated seeks to leave an atmosphere of invalidation is a separate issue. Invalidation may be the least negative option perceived. People will often choose the fearful known over fear of the unknown.
Torture invalidates human dignity, sense of self worth, and freedom of choice. Torture denies freedom. However, torture is not the farthest right on the bell curve of invalidation. Neither is murder.
Like torture, murder is a form of invalidation. Erasing current and future memories of the murdered by rewriting history, destroying physical evidence such as statues and culture, is farther along the bell curve. Denying the murdered the opportunity to even create a history, and then destroying even that memory of potentiality (abortion) is likely the most extreme invalidation.
The human drive to invalidate can be observed in human actions all along the bell curve, from innocuous daily conversation, to propaganda, to acts of war.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Torture is not invalidation. You invalidate a person's worth by ignoring them, or killing them.
When you torture you are giving a person lots of time and attention, thus demonstrating that the person tortured has something you want.
That's incorrect.
Torture is a form of invalidation.
Invalidation can require time and attention.
If you disagree with something, then you have to say why. Other wise this is contradiction, and not argument.
"Invalidation" is meaningless
Should you assert that Unicorns have made invalidation meaningless I shall disagree without saying why. Even absence of the Unicorn conjecture does not prompt the onus of rationality.
BW. With all due respect, and with full compassion for your personal situation, I was making a generalised statement about the behaviour of social organisms from the point of view of a biologist. Perhaps I failed to to make clear that all such statements related to matters of science are only true within a finite and unmeasurable order of probability. Those who follow my posts on other science related topics will probably have picked up on this nuance within my comment.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Torture is not invalidation. You invalidate a person's worth by ignoring them, or killing them.
When you torture you are giving a person lots of time and attention, thus demonstrating that the person tortured has something you want.
So if I torture my dog I'm validating him just because I'm showing him attention? Ha! How fucking stupid. .
Yes you would be being stupid - but there is no surprise there. And you example is also stupid, again - no surprise.
I said that you were not invalidating. I said that the person tortured had something you want, which is the case, even if it was a dog.
If you had enough imagination to understand why you keep kicking dogs in the balls, you might understand yourself much better.
Invalidation is an undeniable, powerful motive force. With life as the measure, invalidation is the scale of evil.
That’s right.
The scale ranges from innocuous desire for the improvement of humanity, to the common extremes already mentioned.
Philosophically and psychologically, invalidation is a key point of inquiry relevant to the times and human nature.
Invalidation is the sphere of evil, as a conceptual principle.
Acts of invalidation are subsets of the principle.
Certainly this does not invalidate, invalidation. Invalidation has its place, as evidenced by its existence. This is a simply a statement of how it is, in the world of non-acceptance.
The other sphere is acceptance, which is the source of peace, and beauty.
