Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Harbal wrote:
fiveredapples wrote:"severe pain" seems vague
Not when you're experiencing it, it doesn't. Are you sure you're a genius? It's just that you sound more like an idiot.
LOL...you idiots expose yourselves every time you post something. Notice again how you explain nothing. Just another pronouncement from the Lobotomy Left.

The point was a simple one, dunce: "Severe pain" is vague because it doesn't specify. Using this criteria, you're going to run into cases which the definition doesn't help us sort as either torture or non-torture because 'severe pain' is a vague notion. That doesn't mean we can't readily identify clear cases of severe pain or clear cases of not severe pain, but there will be some cases which people will honestly disagree about and this definition will not help them settle their dispute. That's how it's vague, you giant waste of time.
Last edited by fiveredapples on Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Conde Lucanor »

fiveredapples wrote:Before some of you go into apoplectic Liberal seizures, I want to announce that I'm not here to continue or rehash my 'CIA water boarding is morally permissible' debate. My focus here is to analyze a particular definition of torture often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding.
I don't know about that debate, but if I were making the case against the CIA water boarding practice by invoking the UN definition, I would just simply point at the fact that the United States is signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture, so it has accepted the definition of torture of the UN as a fair one and has agreed (by signing and ratifying the convention) to comply with it. The CIA, as a part of the government that signed and ratified the convention, is forced to comply with it, too. Of course, the US government could decide it no longer believes in what the UN convention defines as torture and formally abandon its desire to comply with such rules, but also of course, it would make the US lose its right to protest similar practices done by other states, so as not to be ashamed in the international forums for carrying double standards ("when I do it it's OK, when you do it, it's not"). If one could still condemn it morally, at least it would make it somehow legal. That would be the logic of the US not accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC (International Criminal Court), so that its military can carry on with its usual war crimes with complete impunity.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Conde Lucanor wrote:I don't know about that debate, but if I were making the case against the CIA water boarding practice by invoking the UN definition, I would just simply point at the fact that the United States is signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture, so it has accepted the definition of torture of the UN as a fair one and has agreed (by signing and ratifying the convention) to comply with it.
No comment on this opinion. I'm saying that THAT debate is not the topic of this thread. I think I've made the topic of this thread abundantly clear: I'm analyzing the UN's definition of torture. That project can be done without invoking the CIA water boarding example. It's just a matter of trying to understand, conceptually, the UN's definition and seeing if it meshes with our conception of torture. And, yes, some of us might have a different conception of torture, so we might disagree on whether it meshes or not, but we can't agree or disagree until we're first clear on what the UN's idea of torture is.

So, you'll understand as I politely ignore the rest of what you've said, as it does not pertain to the topic of this thread. But I think you have made a sincere attempt to contribute here.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

My definition of torture; tied to a chair having to listen to fiveredapples.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

I would think you'd enjoy it the way you keep following me around.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Conde Lucanor »

fiveredaples wrote:No comment on this opinion. I'm saying that THAT debate is not the topic of this thread. I think I've made the topic of this thread abundantly clear: I'm analyzing the UN's definition of torture. That project can be done without invoking the CIA water boarding example.

Actually, your OP clearly states that your focus is "to analyze a particular definition of torture often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding", so at least you're bringing up your motivation to analyze the UN's definition of torture, which then becomes part of the topic. Might have granted you the benefit of the doubt, because it's true that you can focus just on the definition itself, if you had not invoked the CIA water boarding example quite a few times again in the rest of the thread. One wonders if actually the whole project, as presented in this thread, can divorce from the CIA water boarding example.

But OK, enough of it: let's put the water boarding example out of the topic. On with the UN's definition of torture.
fiveredaples wrote: It's just a matter of trying to understand, conceptually, the UN's definition and seeing if it meshes with our conception of torture. And, yes, some of us might have a different conception of torture, so we might disagree on whether it meshes or not, but we can't agree or disagree until we're first clear on what the UN's idea of torture is.

That really doesn't matter much. It seems obvious to me that the UN's definition, as often happens in organizations that have to work on a particular field and focus on things it can measure and control, is just an operational definition, that is, the practical definition that allows everyone to know what is that is being dealt with. Operational definitions care less about the broad array of philosophical concepts surrounding a given term, and care more about what it can empirically accomplish by narrowing the scope of the subject. The practice of law also requires a lot of operational definitions, and that's why some legal terms not necessarily apply in common language. That is why the UN's definition starts by saying "for the purpose of this convention...", making it clear that in other contexts the definition would not be relevant. In social sciences dealing with geography and population, like Demographics, you see, for example, the operational definition of "urban population". Everyone interested in philosophical and scientific inquiries about what urban population is, might spend years dealing with the subject and discussing it, even creating different schools of thought, without a definite conclusion. The same with torture: you can speculate all you want and review all the possible philosophical interpretations of the term, but someone has to put hands to work to deal with governments playing Torquemada against its political enemies. And so, if you're signatory of the convention, you cannot then try to work around the operational definition to avoid compliance and come up with something like: "oh, well, when we water boarded the poor guy, we had another philosophical approach to the concept of torture (which just casually fits our political interests)".
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Summing up where we've gotten after my long-winded posts.

The salient conclusion is that the UN definition doesn't include a clause about people forfeiting their right to consent or not consent to certain actions in lieu of being active participants in an immoral or criminal activity. The italicized is (perhaps necessarily) vague because it's part of a definition -- we're not going to delineate all the immoral and criminal acts the clause is supposed to encompass -- but an essential part, for reasons we'll discuss soon.

The interesting thing about the concept of 'torture' is that it seems to only apply to cases in which a person has not lost this right to consent or not consent. In other words, if the only reasonable way to stop you from carrying out some grand criminal act is by causing you severe pain, then it doesn't seem that we are torturing you in doing so.

Again, I know some people don't subscribe to such a conception, but I think it's the more popular conception. And this conception breaks down once we start inflicting some truly gruesome acts upon you, I believe, but then the implication would seem to be that torture is sometimes morally permissible. That last statement requires a bit of an explanation, but I don't want to give it (again) here. And, again, I know that some people's conception of torture is that it's (inherently) morally impermissible, much like murder is inherently morally impermissible or criminal. But, like I've said, I don't think 'murder' and 'torture' are alike in this regard. So, if you have a different conception of torture, then I'm not here attacking your conception. What I am doing, though, is presuming that you're in the minority.

Note: I will just use some form of "inflict severe pain" for short, instead of writing "intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone" every time.

We should note that the UN does not believe that an act of torture is determined strictly by the severity of the pain involved. If the UN thought that, then its definition would be something simple, such as "Torture is an act of intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone." So the UN thinks that inflicting severe pain is sometimes warranted, meaning (for the UN) that it's not going to count as torture. This explains why they added the 'purpose clause', because they want to give the cases in which inflicting severe pain is torture (because there are cases in which it isn't, according to the UN's own rationale).

So how does the UN decide which cases of inflicting severe pain are cases of torture and which cases of inflicting severe pain are not torture? It'll help to look, again, at the 6 Cases they list in which inflicting severe pain counts as torture:

1) obtaining information
2) obtaining a confession
3) punishment
4) intimidation
5) coercion
6) discrimination

Well....sorry to cut off here. I'll pick this up next post.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Conde Lucanor wrote:Actually, your OP clearly states that your focus is "to analyze a particular definition of torture often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding", so at least you're bringing up your motivation to analyze the UN's definition of torture, which then becomes part of the topic.
Well, no, it doesn't become "part of the topic." My motivation for the topic doesn't become the topic, especially when I've specifically stated the very narrow topic. CIA water boarding is irrelevant to this topic, because we could have this discussion without ever bringing up CIA water boarding, so how could it possibly be part of the topic?
Conde Lucanor wrote:It seems obvious to me that the UN's definition, as often happens in organizations that have to work on a particular field and focus on things it can measure and control, is just an operational definition, that is, the practical definition that allows everyone to know what is that is being dealt with.
That's fine, but there is such a thing as a poor or inadequate practical definition. I don't understand the stubbornness on this trivial point. If the UN definition leaves out something important, then it's a poor definition, and saying it's just a "practical definition" doesn't mitigate that point.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Harbal »

fiveredapples wrote: And it's easy enough to give such examples, particularly in cases of self-defense, where we might find it necessary to shove an attacker into a giant vat of acid as the only means of saving our lives. We can simply stipulate that we know dying by acid is severely painful, so we have intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering upon our attacker. Do we think that we have tortured him? Clearly not.
The intention behind shoving the attacker into the vat of acid is to avoid the attack, not to inflict severe pain. The fact that this point did not occur to you suggests you are a moron. The rest of your initial post is also full of holes. After all your crowing I was expecting something better, although I can't deny feeling some pleasure at how poor it is.
Last edited by Harbal on Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Conde Lucanor »

fiveredapples wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:Actually, your OP clearly states that your focus is "to analyze a particular definition of torture often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding", so at least you're bringing up your motivation to analyze the UN's definition of torture, which then becomes part of the topic.
Well, no, it doesn't become "part of the topic." My motivation for the topic doesn't become the topic, especially when I've specifically stated the very narrow topic. CIA water boarding is irrelevant to this topic, because we could have this discussion without ever bringing up CIA water boarding, so how could it possibly be part of the topic?
As said before, I'm willing to set aside of the topic the water boarding issue. But that does not mean you didn't bring it to topic in the first place, perhaps unintentionally, but the fact is that you could have just said that your focus was "to analyze a particular definition of torture" and avoid adding "often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding". You said afterwards that this reference was not needed to be brought up for having a discussion, but you brought it up, it must have been your mistake, you wish to correct it, and that's OK for me.
fiveredapples wrote:
Conde Lucanor wrote:It seems obvious to me that the UN's definition, as often happens in organizations that have to work on a particular field and focus on things it can measure and control, is just an operational definition, that is, the practical definition that allows everyone to know what is that is being dealt with.
That's fine, but there is such a thing as a poor or inadequate practical definition. I don't understand the stubbornness on this trivial point. If the UN definition leaves out something important, then it's a poor definition, and saying it's just a "practical definition" doesn't mitigate that point.
Being trivial is perhaps the greatest strength of the argument: the UN's definition does not pretend to be the universal definition of torture, so analyzing it in terms of its universal philosophical validity (as it is the nature of your inquiry) is pointless. It's like analyzing each definition of crimes in local or international laws, for example: rape, genocide, war crime, enslavement, etc., and pretending they should have universal validity, in all contexts, or otherwise be called "poor definitions". Those definitions are just there for the practical purposes related to the enforcement of those laws. That's not the same sphere of practicality as you would have analyzing the definition from sociological, philosophical or political perspectives, all of which can have a say on the application of the theoretical definitions in given societies. The UN, ICC, human rights organizations, legal councils, etc., although may be interested in addressing such matters, ultimately have to define their scope of work and jurisdiction, and come up with definitions that make their work possible. In the case of the UN convention, it defined what it considers torture, asked the involved parties if they agree by signing the convention, and then follows their compliance. That makes it an adequate practical definition, unless it didn't work for the UN to carry its purpose, which has not been shown to be the case. So, for them, no trivial philosophical endeavors and workarounds to waste their time with.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Skip »

"For the purpose of this thread, waterboarding is excluded from the general discussion of torture. "

Whoever creates the document gets to frame its context and delimit its parameters.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

Conde Lucanor wrote:As said before, I'm willing to set aside of the topic the water boarding issue. But that does not mean you didn't bring it to topic in the first place, perhaps unintentionally, but the fact is that you could have just said that your focus was "to analyze a particular definition of torture" and avoid adding "often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding". You said afterwards that this reference was not needed to be brought up for having a discussion, but you brought it up, it must have been your mistake, you wish to correct it, and that's OK for me.
You're just having trouble admitting that you're wrong.

All you're saying is that because I mentioned the motivation for wanting to analyze the the UN Definition of Torture that I've thereby made the motivation part of the topic. And the reasoning behind this odd belief of yours is what? Absolutely nothing. You just keep repeating it.

The topic thread is the UN Definition of Torture. Period. If I tell a story about why I want to analyze this definition, then that story doesn't become part of the topic. So if I was sleeping with your mom, and something about the curves of her hips and sweat from her brow during our love-making made me think of the UN Definition of Torture, then how would your mom's hips be part of the topic? LOL...you're preposterously bad at philosophy, so you make pronouncements and want me to "admit" that I was wrong. LOL. I don't need to announce that CIA water boarding isn't part of the topic, but I did, because if you look at the topic, you would know that the UN Definition of Torture can be discussed without ever mentioning the CIA water boarding cases, so you lose. It's simple logic. Now, either you sit down and read this ten times until you understand it, or you keep making a fool out of yourself by insisting that I have somehow changed my mind about the topic.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Conde Lucanor »

fiveredapples wrote:
All you're saying is that because I mentioned the motivation for wanting to analyze the the UN Definition of Torture that I've thereby made the motivation part of the topic. And the reasoning behind this odd belief of yours is what? Absolutely nothing. You just keep repeating it.

The topic thread is the UN Definition of Torture. Period. If I tell a story about why I want to analyze this definition, then that story doesn't become part of the topic.
It's quite simple. And I already proved why you're only trying to fool yourself, because not only you invoked the water boarding issue in the introductory statement to the topic (which would be enough to prove my point), but you kept coming back to it. Do I need to refresh your memory of your own posts? Seems like I will have to:
fiveredapples wrote:My focus here is to analyze a particular definition of torture often invoked in arguments against CIA water boarding.
fiveredapples wrote:I know some of you will jump on this to defend your thesis that CIA water boarding is torture
fiveredapples wrote:I was very much unimpressed with the comments and those who commented on my CIA water boarding thread.

fiveredapples wrote:This thread topic is an example of what I gained from the CIA water boarding discussion.
fiveredapples wrote:this debate is less threatening than the CIA water boarding debate to those who believe torture is morally impermissible
All of that from whom said that invoking the CIA water boarding issue was not necessary to discuss the topic. Evidently, since you won't admit that is your mistake, you're accepting it was on purpose, and so your idea is that only you get to talk about it, only you get to digress, and is off-limits for the rest.

Actually, I couldn't care less for the CIA water boarding issue being or not the centre of the thread (I already said I was willing to set it aside, to deal with your other failed arguments), but since it's openly stated in your posts, anyone can pick it up, quote it and say what he/she wants. If you want to have a strict control of the debate, so that no one talks about an issue you don't want to be dealt with, then you need to be more cautious about what you write and more competent in moderating the debate. It's simple: don't post it. Just moaning and groaning like a child for what you want grown-ups to do, won't be very convincing.
User avatar
fiveredapples
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by fiveredapples »

None of those statements show or remotely suggest that 'CIA water boarding' is part of the topic.

Dude, you're not good at this. This is the last time I'll entertain your irrelevant comment about CIA water boarding on this thread.

Question: Can we analyze the UN Definition of Torture without discussing CIA water boarding? Answer: Yes. That's what tells you that CIA water boarding is not part of the stated topic: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture.'
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture'

Post by Conde Lucanor »

fiveredapples wrote:None of those statements show or remotely suggest that 'CIA water boarding' is part of the topic.
So, by your own words, those comments of yours were completely irrelevant.
fiveredapples wrote:Dude, you're not good at this. This is the last time I'll entertain your irrelevant comment about CIA water boarding on this thread.

Question: Can we analyze the UN Definition of Torture without discussing CIA water boarding? Answer: Yes. That's what tells you that CIA water boarding is not part of the stated topic: Analyzing the UN definition of 'torture.'
You just don't get it, even though it's right in front of your eyes: it doesn't even matter if the CIA water boarding issue is part of the topic or not. You think it's off-topic, but still talked about it several times. You posted completely irrelevant comments (according to you) on your own thread. What would impede anyone else to talk about it, even if it's off-topic? What would impede anyone from quoting your irrelevant CIA water boarding statements and commenting them on this thread? The answer is: nothing.
Post Reply