Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Nonethess I think you can still perform without knowing the difference between a Nominative and Genitive.

To say nothing of the ablative and pluperfect. None of this shit actually means much of anything, Hobbes, other than to a language scholar seeking to forensically unpick the way in which ideas are formed into words. English is such an eclectic mix of other languages anyway that for each rule of syntax there are always a great many exceptions to which the particular rule does not apply and these exceptions are nothing more than popularisations of common usage. Even the meanings of many words are themselves changing all the time simply through usage and to lock these words and word structures into some sort of eternal time vault is neither possible nor practical. All languages evolve and in the modern information age they are evolving faster than ever before. Probably in a couple of centuries from now only specialised scholars in language history will be able to read the contents of this forum and make sense of it. (Not that there's an abundance of sense to find).

BigWhit wrote:...
There is leniency for those POWs who are tortured but military personnel are encouraged to withold any truths as long as possible. Besides, if I were being tortured I would rather die than give up any info that could get anyone on my side killed...

I'd have thought the point is that you won't die?

Arising_uk wrote:

BigWhit wrote:...
There is leniency for those POWs who are tortured but military personnel are encouraged to withold any truths as long as possible. Besides, if I were being tortured I would rather die than give up any info that could get anyone on my side killed...

I'd have thought the point is that you won't die?

It would be my objective to stay alive as long as possible, but if I had to choose between staying silent and dying for it or leaking information that would get others killed so that I may live I would choose death. How is my life worth more than the lives of others, especially men who can still fight and defeat the enemy? To do otherwise seems counterproductive and selfish to me.

Sorry I was unclear. My point was that under torture you will probably not die as they stop until you recover and then do it again. So sooner or later all break
,

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Nonethess I think you can still perform without knowing the difference between a Nominative and Genitive.

To say nothing of the ablative and pluperfect. None of this shit actually means much of anything, Hobbes, other than to a language scholar seeking to forensically unpick the way in which ideas are formed into words. English is such an eclectic mix of other languages anyway that for each rule of syntax there are always a great many exceptions to which the particular rule does not apply and these exceptions are nothing more than popularisations of common usage. Even the meanings of many words are themselves changing all the time simply through usage and to lock these words and word structures into some sort of eternal time vault is neither possible nor practical. All languages evolve and in the modern information age they are evolving faster than ever before. Probably in a couple of centuries from now only specialised scholars in language history will be able to read the contents of this forum and make sense of it. (Not that there's an abundance of sense to find).

Indeed. The grammatical rules are designed to be applied to formal Latin, which no one ever spoke. English has a Germanic structure that we have played fast and loose with, overlayed it with multi-syllable French words, with a smattering if "Celtic", Hindi, and Norse of various sort, and grounded our science with Greek and more Latin. We have a collection of junk words from the US, and are still quite promiscuous having disgraceful blends of Greek and Latin sometimes in the same word such as the hideous "tele-vision".

I'm by no means a proper language scholar in any real sense of the word but I've always had quite a dilettante's fascination for etymology because of my early education in Latin and Greek. It never ceases to amaze me how alike all the Romance languages are in terms of word definitions and yet how un-alike they are when it comes to stringing these words together. I know it might sound a bit odd but in many ways it's the language which shapes the culture just as much as the culture which shapes the language. If I read too much German I start thinking like a Kraut and will need to tidy up my sock drawer. If I read too much Italian an irresistible urge will come over me to pinch a young sheila on the arse.

BigWhit wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

BigWhit wrote:...
There is leniency for those POWs who are tortured but military personnel are encouraged to withold any truths as long as possible. Besides, if I were being tortured I would rather die than give up any info that could get anyone on my side killed...

I'd have thought the point is that you won't die?

It would be my objective to stay alive as long as possible, but if I had to choose between staying silent and dying for it or leaking information that would get others killed so that I may live I would choose death. How is my life worth more than the lives of others, especially men who can still fight and defeat the enemy? To do otherwise seems counterproductive and selfish to me.

You don't get to choose your death in torture, unless you can hold your breath for a really long time. That's the method of torture. The point is to extract useful information.

Besides, the life isn't yours to end. Since you didn't create it, you're just the custodian.

Arising_uk wrote:Sorry I was unclear. My point was that under torture you will probably not die as they stop until you recover and then do it again. So sooner or later all break
,

Yes, all break and all speak, but that doesn't mean that you tell them anything true. Like I said, the CIA was encountering this in Gitmo where detainees were giving them shit they pulled out of their ass just to stop the torture. Besides that, plenty of people died from torture at the hands of the Vietnamese.

Walker wrote: You don't get to choose your death in torture, unless you can hold your breath for a really long time. That's the method of torture. The point is to extract useful information.

Besides, the life isn't yours to end. Since you didn't create it, you're just the custodian.

Torture is counterproductive to extracting useful information. The majority of the intel is bunk as most people will say anything to make torture stop. Anyone who thinks torture is an effective method of gathering intel is naive.

I didn't create myself but I do have the power to end it and tens of thousands of people demonstrate as much every year in the US alone (unfortunately).

BigWhit wrote:Yes, all break and all speak, but that doesn't mean that you tell them anything true. Like I said, the CIA was encountering this in Gitmo where detainees were giving them shit they pulled out of their ass just to stop the torture. ...

I agree, torture is a ridiculous method if you don't believe the results and keep doing it.

Besides that, plenty of people died from torture at the hands of the Vietnamese.

Not sure but I guess all of them will have given up all the truths they knew at the time.

Torture is counterproductive to extracting useful information. The majority of the intel is bunk as most people will say anything to make torture stop. Anyone who thinks torture is an effective method of gathering intel is naive.

We agree except I think in a combat situation where the info may be short term but even then.

I didn't create myself but I do have the power to end it and tens of thousands of people demonstrate as much every year in the US alone (unfortunately).

Very difficult when powerless unless you are a buddhist monk maybe.

The purpose of torture is to extract information.

Torture is a method for extracting information.

Purpose is one thing.

Effectiveness is another thing.

Walker wrote:The purpose of torture is to extract information.

Torture is a method for extracting information.

Purpose is one thing.

Effectiveness is another thing.

In ancient Rome the testimony of a slave would be inadmissible in court unless gained by torture. Happily things have changed, somewhat.

BigWhit wrote: Torture is counterproductive to extracting useful information. The majority of the intel is bunk as most people will say anything to make torture stop. Anyone who thinks torture is an effective method of gathering intel is naive.

I didn't create myself but I do have the power to end it and tens of thousands of people demonstrate as much every year in the US alone (unfortunately).

- What is the purpose of torture?

- Custodians are subject to human ignorance.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:In ancient Rome the testimony of a slave would be inadmissible in court unless gained by torture.

How is this known?

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:In ancient Rome the testimony of a slave would be inadmissible in court unless gained by torture.

How is this known?

I know it because I did a BA in ancient history and archaeology. I can't remember the references.
I think it is in Cicero. But there is so much written first hand in Latin literature. This fact is not contentious.

For a discussion try Keith Bradley Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge University Press, 1994

Walker wrote:

BigWhit wrote: Torture is counterproductive to extracting useful information. The majority of the intel is bunk as most people will say anything to make torture stop. Anyone who thinks torture is an effective method of gathering intel is naive.

I didn't create myself but I do have the power to end it and tens of thousands of people demonstrate as much every year in the US alone (unfortunately).

- What is the purpose of torture?

To quell the sadistic desires of the torturers