From: Adam Watt (adamwatt@mac.com)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 23:11:27 BST
On Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 09:14 pm, SWZwick@aol.com wrote:
> But what does the MOQ say about the abuses? Or, for that matter, true
> torture? This is an interesting question: to what extent were the
> abuses in Iraq psychologically-driven, and to what extent were they
> logically-driven?
>
> Logically, such abuse (and torture in general) can be opposed on the
> ground that it doesn't work. People may cough up some "information",
> but it is rarely "good" information. Furthermore, when one side
> indulges in torture or abuse of prisoners, the other side is more
> inclined to do so as well. Abuse of POWs simply does not bring the
> desired results, so employing it is illogical. The intellectual level
> thus opposes it.
>
> But something in our neurology, which is our biology, tells us that it
> will work, so we do it. Perhaps we believe that it will in fact get
> the desired results (despite evidence to the contrary), because we're
> hard-wired for aggression. Or perhaps it makes us feel good. Or
> perhaps we are responding to the pressure from our superiors to
> deliver results at any price.
>
> The question is whether the kind of humiliating treatment delivered to
> those prisoners in Iraq represents a biological impulse overriding an
> intellecutal impulse or not. That's what makes it moral or immoral.
>
> Isn't that what this forum is supposed to be about?
>
> How did Chomsky get into this? The critiques of the guy are valid --
> he tends to take things in isolation that don't exist that way, and
> then forgets to place them back into context to test his conclusions.
> And he's never said anything we didn't already suspect at some time or
> another. He offers no proofs of anything new, but rather proves a
> bunch of things we already know, and then leaps into wild associative
> rants that don't really hold up -- because there really isn't much to
> them. He's good at shooting down skytalkers, but then he just
> replaces it with his own skytalk. Sort of like a Rush Limbaugh for
> the left.... I'm tempted to say that he also appeals to a
> neurological desire we have for the illusion of certainty and moral
> correctness, not unlike those soldiers who abused those prisoners.
> And since his arguments don't hold up (since they don't really exist),
> he also represents a case of the biological overriding the
> intellectual. According to the MOQ, this makes him immoral.
Based on what, exactly, are you making these claims of immorality.
Which text?
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 23:15:56 BST