Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I think the heart of the matter is that Governments torturing people is as appalling as porn producers torturing people. But Glenn attacked the Gov. while trying to defend the porn guy. He says it's a matter of law, not of humanity. Aka Smith differs. She thinks they are both wrong. I agree.
Using the word "heart" is not Glenn-speak. Once, a while back, he said he felt pity for Sarah Palin and I was rather heartened by that statement.
Here in UT humanity is useful only as an abstract matter of law -- but people forget that the law is always defined by people in power. Moreover, when there is money to be made, as there is in human trafficking, prostitution, and porn, the libertarian impulse that so drives many of Glenn's more devoted admirers always makes excuses upon the side of a mythical choice or freewill -- a concept that has never been scientifically proven but has been enshrined in the religion that so many of them claim to disdain. So much for human consistency.
Of course choices come easier to people who already have power or money of the privilege of their race or sex institutionalized within the system itself. The state will fade away for the radical Marxist or libertarian the day hell freezes over. In the mean time, we all have our choices.
I am going to bed now hyblaean and hope I can sleep. I think I will take some pills.
"And finally, if he is indeed fully guilty of conning young adult but naive women into being exploited and abused, I agree that that is wrong and evil; but compared to torture, to years of solitary confinement of teenagers, to assassinations, to mass killings, to support of vile dictators, well, I feel fairly comfortable judging his crimes as significantly lesser than those of the Bush Administration."
I have no idea who said this, but it's always stuck- "If you kill one man you're a murderer, if you kill thousands of men you're a king, if you kill them all then you're a god."
leaders can be dangerous.
Don't worry, I'm going away.
I love reading you. You are my favorite voice on Salon. Be well and sleep well.
There are several problems with the analogy of porn and battlefield torture. (Disregard for a moment that what one person defines as torture, another would not. Consider "torture" your definition of torture, the details are not important here).
In civilian context it is immoral and illegal to kill most of the time, in war context there exists a designated group of people (the "enemy") the killing of whom is not only legal but sort of compulsory.
Many times not killing the enemy will result in one's death, too many refusals to kill enemy designees will result in the enemy winning, which no moral person should allow to happen to his neighbors, relatives and sundry acquaintances. Torture of the few, compared to the killing of the many, is the diminutive lesser of two evils. It is a bad thing nevertheless, and the tortured does not participate willingly. He/she often ends up dead, or maimed for life, mentally and physically.
This is just to show that war and peacetime are two very different worlds, with different goals, mindsets and morals.
An S&M porn film is one in which the participants cooperate voluntarily. These are generally people who are sexual masochists or sadists with an exhibitionist bent. The masochist positively enjoys experiencing pain in an erotic context. Yes, Virginia, there are actually people like that.
On the surface (taking the analogy at face alue), it is bizarre for a government to leave torture by a soldier unpunished while punishing the "torture" performed by the producer of an S&M porn flick.
A bit below the surface it looks different and the analogy begins to break down. Whereas torture in war context is part of war activities and is often seen (agreeably or disagreeably, but SEEN) as necessary, and the tortured, but often the torturer also, are not willing participants, "torture" in the porn flick context is a voluntary and enjoyed acivity between consenting individuals.
But at the deepest level the analogy totally disapepaers. The reason for that is that "torture" in an S&M movie scene is not any more actual torture than crying in a "normal movie", for instance Hilary Swank's performance in $1M Baby, is actual depression, EVEN THOUGH during the moments of acting the pangs of emotional or physical pain are truly felt.
Torture should be viewed as a subplot or war, to be avoided as much as avoiding wars is possible. There are other subtypes of torture, such as child abuse, satanistic rituals, that a clearly criminal.
S&M porn movies are not torture and they have no basis for comparison with military or other forms of torture.
Making and selling S&M movies should be legal NOT because "if Abu Ghraib is legal then S&M movies shoud be legal" but because they are voluntary activities among consenting adults. Even if military torture were absolutely illegal and punishable by death, making and selling S&M movies should still be legal. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Here in UT humanity is useful only as an abstract matter of law -- but people forget that the law is always defined by people in power.
People here obsess over who is in power and who is not precisely because we know that the law is always defined by the powerful. Since when have the powerless ever had any say in things?
Moreover, when there is money to be made, as there is in human trafficking, prostitution, and porn, the libertarian impulse that so drives many of Glenn's more devoted admirers always makes excuses upon the side of a mythical choice or freewill -- a concept that has never been scientifically proven but has been enshrined in the religion that so many of them claim to disdain. So much for human consistency.
It is possible to be libertarian enough to wish to allow people to do as they choose with their own bodies and socialist enough to believe that they should be given the training and skills to do what they wish and have backup if they fall on their face. It's also possible to be authoritarian enough and capitalist enough to wish to allow people to literally starve before they do something which you personally find distasteful.
Which is more important in your eyes, making illegal that behavior you wish made illegal, *or* making sure that economic pressures are never ever brought to bear on people that encourage them to make the choice to do what it is you wish made illegal?
The carrot or the stick, that is the question.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
