Skip to main content

View Diary: What's Your Definition of "Reality-Based" Thinking? (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you've presented and argument based on authority (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grover, VClib

    Not an argument based on objective reality. Your argument is that a bunch of people agree on it being torture therefore it is torture. That isn't how objective reality works. You're saying that a bunch of people agreed on a definition of torture and the agreed that it was wrong. That means that the definition of torture is a matter of agreement. I mean, there are plenty of other things that I would consider torture that they probably don't, how can we distinguish if we just use the finding you cite? What makes their definition any better than one someone else makes up?

    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

    by AoT on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:15:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  My last answer in this Socratic method debate: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica

      Objectively, without having to resort to any authority, as a human being, I know that strapping somebody on a wooden board, covering their heads with a black hood, and pouring water over their noses and mouth and face to the point they feel they are drowning in order to force them to disclose information, is torture.

      It is the essence of torture.

      When you say "there are plenty of other things you would consider torture," you'r not advancing your argument in anyway.  Torture has a very specific definition.  If those things you would consider torture do not meet that definition, then objectively, is not torture.

      I'm done.

      •  That is the definition of subjective knowledge (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grover

        You're saying you know that something is true because you know it's true. By that reasoning all I have to do is find someone that knows the opposite of you and that would prove the opposite.
        And let's be perfectly clear here. I completely agree with your position on waterboarding. It's torture and it's unconsciounable. But that isn't the point here. The point is how we arrive at that position.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:04:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you familiar with the Socratic method? (0+ / 0-)

          For example, let's say that I agree with you that what I'm saying is "subjective" and then we agree to start the discussion about torture from a blank slate.

          So I ask you about what you think is torture, and you tell me, and then I tell you my understanding of it.

          And then we take each statement and we reduce it to its essence, and you start talking about pain, suffering, fear, terror, the feeling of drowning, and we keep it at it, and then once you reduce each concept to its essence, you can't escape the final conclusion: waterboarding is torture.

          You can't do that with any argument, as you suggest.

          Let's say that I engage in a similar debate with one of the Koch brothers.  And he posits that the government should not get involved in preventing too much of a gap in income inequality; that the markets will take care of making sure everybody in society will benefit from this approach.

          The same thing, you take every concept in the argument and you reduce it to its essence, and the inconsistencies and fallacies will start to manifest themselves pretty quickly.

          Anyways, it's a little disappointing to see this statement from you:

          By that reasoning all I have to do is find someone that knows the opposite of you and that would prove the opposite.
          I expect that when debating a Tea Partiers, with their denying of science and all, but not from you.

          Again, nobody can know the opposite about waterboarding because it is torture.  That's a truism.  And again, a truly Socratic method of debate will find it so.

          But if you like, we can agree to disagree and let the readers decide for themselves.

          •  I reread The Last Days of Socrates (0+ / 0-)

            and have a degree in Philosophy. I'm quite aware of the Socratic method. I don't find it especially useful for the current discussion, primarily because it would help determine what I think is torture, but it wouldn't illuminate the broader issues here.

            And what you're talking about isn't the Socratic method. Using the Socratic method would mean that one of us makes a statement about what we think torture is and the other asks a series of questions. It isn't a give and take, it's a teaching method.

            you can't escape the final conclusion: waterboarding is torture.
            You keep saying this but not showing it.
            I expect that when debating a Tea Partiers, with their denying of science and all, but not from you.
            You missed the point there. It wasn't that I believe what you block quoted, it was that using the method of proof that you used we end up in a situation where who we refer to is the important thing, not some essential truth about torture. You're saying that reality is a fixed thing and that something like torture has a fixed meaning and fixed set of things that are torture. I don't agree with that. Torture is a social construct. I think it's a useful construct, but it isn't some hard truth about the world. But because of that it is malleable and people can disagree about what it and isn't torture.

            And again, I agree that waterboarding is torture. I think it's horrible and we need to prosecute the people who did it or are doing it. But that wasn't the point here.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Fri May 24, 2013 at 09:56:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ray - you picked a bad example (0+ / 0-)

        In the view of many people torture is when you have major organ failure or lose the function of one of your limbs. Under those rules waterboarding isn't torture.

        Picking torture as your example was just a bad choice.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Thu May 23, 2013 at 10:18:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site