 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I do not sign onto the idea that people have to behave in this argumentative, something for nothing, tit for tat, aggressive, destructive manner, and since I don't agree to behave that way, I happen to notice when other people behave that way.
A discussion to me, can be, a subject, and the subject is viewed from an angle of view, and words are used to convey the angle of view that the subject is viewed from, and then, another angle of view is introduced into the discussion, and if the next angle of view is exactly the same as the first angle of view, then the same exact words would be used to describe the second angle of view, and so the discussion, by the introduction of the second angle of view, would be mere repetition.
The value of a discussion, when not conducted by people who agree to be argumentative, as a goal, is in comparing competitive differences between one angle of view that expresses one way of seeing the subject, and another angle of view that is not the same angle of view as the other angle of view, and therefore it is possible, through competition, to increase the quality of the perception of the subject.
The value-of-competitive-discussion angle of view can illustrate, and exemplify the concept, as it compares to argumentation-for-the-sake-of-argumentation, personal attacks, for the sake of argumentation, so as to be "better" at injuring your opponent, with lies, threats of violence, and if need be - torture.
Compare the two:
A.
Discussion as a method of getting something for nothing, discussion as a method of gaining at the expense of someone else, discussion as a political means of injuring someone by lying about them, discussion as a method of dragging someone through the mud by publishing false statements meant to discredit a targeted victims, discussion as a method of publishing false propaganda and then shoot all the messengers who challenge the false nature of the false propaganda, discussion as a method of modifying the behavior of the participants in the discussion, discussion as a method of conditioning the responses of the participants in the discussion, discussion as a political tool to reinforce a specific agenda - such as legalizing torture.
B.
Discussion as a method of increasing the quality of perception as many competitive viewpoints are entered into the discussion so as to directly compare the various viewpoints, finding the differences, and the similarities, and moving the perspective, theoretically, closer to the truth, or moving the perspective from a less accurate perspective, to a more accurate perspective.
The A Path, above, focuses attention on the people involved in the discussion, not the subject.
The B Path actually intends to focus attention on the subject.
If the subject is: What is the purpose of discussion? - then having only the Path A to parrot, to know, to disseminate, communicate, and inform, is lacking a comparative competitor. Having both Path A, and Path B, as two competitive examples of: What is the purpose of discussion? - offers a competitive viewpoint to the one viewpoint, instead of a monopoly viewpoint, there is, by introduction of a competitive viewpoint, a competition of viewpoints, not one viewpoint, and therefore the subject can be viewed from both, not one, angle of view, so as to see which one works best for whom?
Torturers, in secret prisons, may prefer one, and only one viewpoint, and they may actually be working toward the goal of making sure that there is only one viewpoint ever heard, while, on the other end of that power struggle, there are the victims, who have a very hard time swallowing the one viewpoint, since the one viewpoint appears only to apply to those who have the power to torture, and the one viewpoint appears not to be well suited for those who happen to be getting the screws - for some strange reason.
Back to this subject.
QuoteMy question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives?
If the viewpoint intends to support the use of torture, as a means of accomplishing some goal, then that could be confessed, and it could be confessed openly or it could be confessed covertly.
Such as:
QuoteCan you relax or should we meet up??
Now this fellow forum member, who has the handle chopperscfl is painting me as a nervous person who, according to my fellow forum member, needs to relax, while my fellow forum member suggests that, failing to relax on my part, constitutes a requirement that we meet up.
QuoteJosf, let's keep things peaceful.
I am not un-relaxed, therefore I can't relax from a non-un-relaxed state. I can see this right here, in my peaceful home, right now. How is the peace, here in my home, threatened, now?
Path A:
QuoteCan you relax or should we meet up??
I wish to take Path B instead. I'm not going to settle for the path of lies, it isn't good enough for me, no thanks.
I think that the focus of attention upon me, is unwarranted, typical but unwarranted, and as for the thinly veiled threats, or promises, who can ever know? - I can inform the threatening forum member that I've lived a fairly good life so far, and a sudden end now, or even a drawn out torturous end now, at his hands, as he tortures me to death, if that is his true intentions, so as he can get whatever he wants, when I fail to relax, to his satisfaction, and then my failure to relax causes him to meet me, to get whatever he wants, well, that is how I end the living thing - if that happens.
That is Path A - focusing attention on me, not focusing attention on the subject.
I prefer Path B.
On Path B someone asks this:
QuoteMy question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives?
It matters not to me who asks the subject question, unless the person asking the subject question begins to travel down Path A, then the unwelcome introduction of lies, and threats, from that person, turns the discussion into something personal, unfortunately.
What matters to me is that the subject question is a self-contained monopoly viewpoint, or falsehood, if it is not merely ignorant. The subject question reports that many lives are in danger, now just mine is in danger, as an example, and the subject solution to the reported subject problem, of many lives being in danger, is torture, so the obvious competitive viewpoint is a competitive viewpoint that points out that torture doesn't save lives, not by extracting information from the torture victim, or any other method, when compared to a more effective method.
When only torture is reported as the method of extracting information as a means of saving lives, there is a monopoly of methods, call it method B, by which the reported problem will be solved by the people reporting the problem, and by the same people reporting the one, and only, solution. The lack of a competitive solution, call it method A, ignores the value of competition, therefore it is ignorant of the value of competition. When the value of competition is then reported, by way of anything, anyone, anywhere, just so long as the competitive viewpoint is in view, and when in view the competitive viewpoint is rejected, and personal attacks are chosen instead of the competitive viewpoint, what is that - exactly?
Is one answer good enough, the official answer is the only answer needed, and failure to relax about being "given" the official, single answer, constitutes a required visit from someone, out of the darkness, so as to bring about a confession - perhaps?
Yes, of course, I see now, torture saves lives, yes, yes, of course, how could I have been so blind before, it saves my life, so long as I relax, and so long as I parrot the official line, I can avoid the visit, and save my life, and my wife's, and my children's, just so long as I relax, wow, yea, now I'm calm, I was sooooo nervous, I'm calm now, thanks, I see the light.
Torture saves lives.
Torture saves lives.
Confess or else.
I got it - thanks so much. Now I can relax - whew!