= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ciphergoth comments on Christopher Hitchens and Cryonics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (75)
There are several examples of people asserting that waterboarding isn't torture and agreeing to undergo the experience. I know of none who have thought so afterwards.
Of course, one will undoubtedly step forward - talk is still cheap, even after such an experience. The real test would be if anyone would volunteer to undergo it twice.
Wait. "waterboarding isn't torture" is not a question on which changing one's belief is evidence of rationalism. Asking or answering the question at all is a political ploy only. The rationalist reaction is to taboo the word "torture" and reduce the question to something physical and testable.
I don't know anyone who claims waterboarding is pleasant, or something that one would volunteer for in most cases.
The question of whether waterboarding is torture has at least a little bit of factual underpinning-- that's why it's possible for the experience to change people's minds about it.
In particular, people who say that waterboarding isn't torture are apt to claim that it isn't painful enough for anyone reasonable to object to it being used.
Tabooing a word isn't the only response that's rational, especially because that is a not even well-known technique. In this circumstance, what Hitchens change of mind essentially meant is that he agreed afterwords that the experience was so unpleasant that any definition of "torture" that captured his intuition of the term would have to include waterboarding. Cyphergoth's point stands: Hitchens was willing to change his mind when confronted with evidence. Whether there might be a marginally more rationalist thing to do is somewhat besides the point.
I agree with all commenters that experiencing waterboarding led Hitchens to change his mind about the amount of unpleasantness/harm in the experience.
I wonder how he'd react to 3^^^3 copies of himself getting dust specs in their eyes.
I agree with your proposal to taboo the word "torture" here in order to properly understand the situation, and that its use is essentially political. Nonetheless Hitchens's expectation of what it might be like as an experience was very much violated, and instead of just giving us all bravura to appear consistent, knowing that he wouldn't have to do it again, he said so, and I respect that.
If I taboo the word "torture", I get: people would rather face the humiliation of a climbdown over their public statements on it than do it a second time.