Muhammad Idrees Ahmad responds to my post on torture: I am reminded of what Slavoj Zizek had to say [in the New York Times] about the whole debate. He asks what does it say about a society if people were able to debate a thing such as, say, rape. Does it really signal moral superiority that people actually talk about torture and express their moral indignation? He asks, would you want to live in a society where a similar debate on rape was taking place, where people actually had to take a position on rape?
Related posts:
{ 7 comments }
In a similar vein, if torture is off the table how about deception. Certainly not as clear, but when is it justified? Did you sandbag Seliger?
If debate on torture degrades our moral context, what about debating Zionism? I am sick of it.
Perhaps it is necessary to debate it with the unimformed, but I dont want to see any more of it here. If anyone defends it just ignore them.
The only thing to talk about is what to do about it, and no one mentions that. It is making me painfully depressed.
If we cant say anything useful lets turn to other topics.
Shame on all of us.
You appear to have missed the point completely. Rape would never be debated because you'd never find someone who would argue FOR it. The mere fact that torture is being debated signals that the society has yet to establish that torture is an equally reprehensible practice morally. It is wasn't an argument against debate.
Maybe I missed his point but I did not miss my point. The whole handwringing passivity of this 'debate' is making me sick. I am gone.
Phil is right – rape goes hand in hand in all societies where torture is taking place. Sexual abuse and rape are about power and humiliation, and very effective as well as satisfying for perpetrators.
I challenge anybody to set up Stanford Prison Experiment with females in the mix and not see sexual putdowns emerge in the first 72 hours.
There are two scenarios for rape use: one is in acute phases of the conflicts, in a heat of the battle, and in it's immediate aftermath.
I do not remember any armed conflict that would not include rape of the civilians. In some societies the shame means it is grossly underreported, as in Balkans.
The second scenario is in use by security services, and it is very prevalent and here it is hand-in-hand with torture. Torturing people gives perpetrators a sense (earned) of superiority tinged with invincibility and unlimited power (remember the phrase " if the prisoner dies, you are doing it wrong"?).
The sense of entitlement directly follows.
The purpose of torturing is to break the resolve of the prisoner and make him/her unsure of its values and beliefs and then abandoning those values and beliefs. The sexual abuse and humiliation is a very useful and cost effective way of reaching these goals in female prisoners, and it has a useful side effect of satisfied workforce. Works well in male prisons as well as seen in Abu Ghraib.
We are back to this old canard of necessity of treating all humans as…. well… humans.
i said above i would not return to this blog and i meant it, but ive been drawn back by Eva Smagacz comment above.
now i see the space is being entered by leftist pigs such as 'the fanonite' who reminds me of my bolshevik grandmother. i know these people who get off on rage and hatred and i find it degrading to be within earshot of them, and even more degrading to respond to them. it drags me back to thier own dynamic, to the thread of selfrightous jewish rage that runs from my grandmother to my mother to me, that i am still trying to eradicate at this late date. this is the last time i will acknowledge the presence of the pig 'the fanonite'.
eva if you see this add a comment saying so and i will add my thoughts on what you said above.
HI Paul,
I try to read all comments.
Don't you think that rape is a useful addition to torture, and if you allow one to happen, the other will follow?
Comments on this entry are closed.