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

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
     
  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: 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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?