Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Foxnews introduces: Doublethink

  1. Nov 9, 2005 #1
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174858,00.html

    John Gibson talking about torture tell us this:

    Doublethink means, according to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four:

    the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 35, 176-177)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 9, 2005 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Burnsys, you forgot to state what you want to discuss. Political torture? Then the post goes here, but you need to state what in the linked article you wish to discuss. Doublethink? Then the post goes in Social sciences.

    I am not going to allow any more threads that do not have a clearly defined topic for discussion. Everyone needs to clearly state what they wish to discuss. Otherwise you get 5 different interpretations of what the topic is and it's just a mess.
     
  4. Nov 9, 2005 #3
    The point of the thread is to show a new tendecy in the media (and so in the population) to use doublethink, as we are against torture but we need it..... or we are invading irak becouse it has WMD but we use them..... or we need to get ride of a cruel dictator, but we support a lot of others dictators.....or we stand for democracy in the world but if we don't like a democracy we bomb it back to the stone age..

    Doublethink: holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously
    somenthing Americans are getting used to...
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2005
  5. Nov 9, 2005 #4
    That statement is inconsistant in oh so many ways.
     
  6. Nov 9, 2005 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could you explain your case for why you consider that article an example of doublethink? Because:
    That is not what the author says. The author specifically says he is against torture, he does not say 'we need it'.
     
  7. Nov 9, 2005 #6
    And what does he means there?? maybe i am not understanding ok, but he is saying torture should not be outlawed, in other words Torture should be legal?? and he is saying CIA agents should be not be stoped from using torture??
     
  8. Nov 9, 2005 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think this is just a case of you misunderstanding. He is saying it should be legal but also saying that we should not use it. Those are two different things and the reason for that (as he explained) is not so that we can use it, but rather so that we can confuse our enemies about our intentions.
     
  9. Nov 9, 2005 #8

    Art

    User Avatar

    But how will the enemy be confused? If you say categorically it will not be used then even if torture is legal your enemies will know it is a hollow threat. In fact the only way to convince them it is real is to actually torture them but that contradicts your statement that it will not be used. Somewhat paradoxical don't you think?
     
  10. Nov 9, 2005 #9
    reminds me of this phrase "possesion is 9/10 the law"
     
  11. Nov 9, 2005 #10
    And if it is legal, then what will stop you from using it??
    It will be legal, the media will be saying they are using it, but you will not be using it???? that is nonsense....
     
  12. Nov 9, 2005 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Ethics.
    Huh? Why would the media say we are using it if we aren't (yeah, I see the irony in that....)?
    That's exactly the point.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2005
  13. Nov 9, 2005 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Look, Burnsys, this is very similar to nuclear deterrence. Every President since WWII has had a policy that included the use of nuclear weapons and most did actual work toward developing new ones. So did that affect the perceptions of our enemies regarding our willingness to use them? You bet!
     
  14. Nov 9, 2005 #13

    Art

    User Avatar

    You're analogy doesn't stand up. The US hasn't used it's nuclear deterrent; well not since other countries had a deterrent of their own; whereas I don't know whether you've noticed or not but the US HAS been torturing prisoners. This new proposed legislation is designed to stop them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 9, 2005
  15. Nov 9, 2005 #14
    Whose ethics?

    Politicians in general?

    George Bush in particular?

    Your reasoning here is terribly flawed. The terrorist rely on instances such as the US torturing suspects to fuel their propaganda and recruitment campaign.

    Instead of addressing the root causes of terrorism directed towards the US, this just feeds the resentment. Terrorist are not States. Condoning Torture, and I would suggest that refusing to make it illegal leaves one with the perception that we are endorsing it.

    To end terrorism we must address the root cause. Poverty, ignorance and oppression.

    If you wish to perpetuate terrorism, just keep thinking and acting like a terrorist.
     
  16. Nov 9, 2005 #15
    :rofl: :rofl: Something your goverment knows nothing about.


    becouse you want your enemys to think you are using it???

    But at that time, the rusians had the chance to retaliate....
    What is stoping US from using torture?? the fear that terrorist use torture too???
    Invalid analogy

    Edit: And US used nuclear weapons when they had the chance and when the enemy wasnt going to retaliate...
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2005
  17. Nov 9, 2005 #16
    Ethics??? A politician with Ethics? Either on the right or left we all know they have none...

    Come on Russ, you are better than this, how can you honestly say this:
    With a straight face..
    especially when just before you state:
    The message that is pertained in both these statements contradict one another!
     
  18. Nov 9, 2005 #17

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This whole notion of deterrence is absurd. We are talking about people who strap bombs to their children and themselves.

    Expect US soldiers to be tortured as a direct result of this controversy.

    No useful information can be expected from a person who will say anything to stop the pain.

    Innocent people will be tortured

    This opens the door for the government to torture US citizens.

    Fox news is selling double-think. You either sanction torture or you don’t. I think the comparison to Orwell is completely appropriate.

    This is like some kind of nightmare that won’t end. Either we stop this outrage now or so ends the moral high ground for the U.S. Comparisons to the Nazi’s or worse would be entirely appropriate.
     
  19. Nov 9, 2005 #18
    Sorry Russ but generally when something is unethical laws are instituted to prevent it from occuring. To say "Torture is unethical but I will not prevent it" isn't exactly contractictory but it is definitely cowardly.
     
  20. Nov 9, 2005 #19

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Just a small quibble, but it's not the politicians that are in a position to either torture someone or not. It's the soldiers and their officers. Hopefully they have a better ethical sense than a politician does, but even so, I agree that their should be a clear-cut policy here. Trying to confuse the enemy just ends up confusing our own troops, who then end up tortuing people.

    That said, Gibson is not holding an inconsistent or hypocritical position. It's just a stupid position.
     
  21. Nov 9, 2005 #20
    the "ethics" of the CIA is to do everything in their power to gather intelligence. its perfecty ethical for the cia to torture people to gather information if they deem it worth the time to do so. this isnt the boyscouts were talking about here.
     
  22. Nov 9, 2005 #21
    Can you clarify this? It appears inconsistent to me:
    contrasted with
    The entirety of the editorial, with just those three words excised, form a consistent defense of the policy of sanctioning torture, in circumstances. It's rather toothless, IMO, to say "I'm against routine, pubically advertised, unnecessary torture... when it doesn't get useful results".
     
  23. Nov 9, 2005 #22
    Read it again:
    Next paragraph:
    So, he believes that:
    1) Institutional torture should not happen.
    and, simultaneously
    2) The CIA should be permitted to commit torture.

    In the context of talking about a government institution, it's will is determined by it's policy. We do not presume it has freewill. We do not presume it "wants" anything. If we want to stop the CIA from doing something, we make it policy not to do it. We make it illegal. If we state that it should not happen, but we also state that it should not be made illegal, we are being inconsistant.

    This is not a debate on, for example, prostitution where, for example, Townsend's position is that it is immoral and that it shouldn't happen, but, because we presume humans to have free will and to have rights, Townsend would say that it should not be illegal, because that would violate their rights.

    As I stated above we do not presume the same about the CIA, therefore we can not make the same argument. If we say that something should not happen but do not make it policy, and illegal we are clearly being inconsistant. According to Burnseyes, this is also Doublespeak.

    ...


    Not that we should take this guy seriously anyways. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116991,00.html
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  24. Nov 9, 2005 #23
    By the way, I entirely agree with the Orwellian assessment; this is the most disgusting form of "spin" we've seen yet. The author has no morals. With his complacency, is there anything he wouldn't do, in self-interest?

    For the record, here's possibly the most disturbing statement ever published in print so far this year (excluding the Fox cable network):

    I'll let this one stand without commentary.
     
  25. Nov 10, 2005 #24

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Saying that doesn't make it so, smurf. There are plenty of unwritten rules in place with government institutions. For instance, until Roosevelt, no president had ever served more than two terms. It was legal to do so, but Washington established a precedent of two terms and no one had ever broken it by seeking a third term. Nobody ever saw a need to codify this rule until it was broken. Even after it had been broken, it would not have been inconsistent for someone to say that no president should ever seek a third term, but that we should not outlaw it.

    Inconsistency is purely a matter of logic. Two statements are inconsistent with one another when it is impossible for both to be true. This holds for imperatives as well. In fact, he really only seems to be making one statement: It should be against official institutional policy for any agency other than the CIA to conduct torture, but it should be only an informal policy for the CIA. Again, I think this is a stupid position to hold, but it is not logically impossible for that statement to be true.

    Just to add, this line of argumentation doesn't make any sense. It's as if you're saying that the CIA will engage in any and every possible behavior that is not explicitly outlawed. Agents do have free will to some extent - they make judgement calls. They don't do every single thing it is within their lawful right to do. Heck, to do so would require infinite time, which they rather obviously do not have.

    Again, I agree with you that, if we want an agency to not engage in a certain behavior, then the smart thing to do is to outlaw it. It's moronic to hold a different position, but it does not entail a logical impossibility.

    No, we are being confused, unclear, sending mixed messages, and leaving open doors that should not be open, but we are not making two imperative statements that logically cannot both be true.
     
  26. Nov 10, 2005 #25
    Okay, fair enough, I guess. But (I'm sure you'll agree) it's stupid.

    The fact that the two term rule was broken certainly doesn't help the argument any either, hehe.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook