The Heartless Giant

[Sally]

...is a story about a giant who feels so much emotion in his giant heart that he eventually can't stand it anymore, and so he hides his heart in an egg in a duck in a well in a church on a mountain top that is leagues and leagues away from anywhere. And then, freed of his sympathies, he goes on a rampage.

Apropos, I posit that torture is (in some instances) a crime of compassion. That when a person (or persons, or system), is put into the position of oppressor (their interests are best or *only* served by subjugating others), that person copes with any sympathetic emotion by transferring guilt onto the victim and then punishing the victim for being so weak as to be a victim in the first place.

Compassionate sadism. Discuss.

[Claverhouse]

Well, any time you're feeling especially compassionate try out this new device the Pulsed Energy Projectile (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/mg18524894.500), developed for 'crowd control' and perhaps subduing the harmful desires of people who seek to get away from your interrogation centre.


THE US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture...
One document, a research contract between the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida in Gainsville, is entitled "Sensory consequences of electromagnetic pulses emitted by laser induced plasmas". It concerns so-called Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs), which fire a laser pulse that generates a burst of expanding plasma when it hits something solid, like a person (New Scientist, 12 October 2002, p 42). The weapon, destined for use in 2007, could literally knock rioters off their feet.

According to a 2003 review of non-lethal weapons by the US Naval Studies Board, which advises the navy and marine corps, PEPs produced "pain and temporary paralysis" in tests on animals. This appears to be the result of an electromagnetic pulse produced by the expanding plasma which triggers impulses in nerve cells. The new study, which runs until July and will be carried out with researchers at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, aims to optimise this effect. The idea is to work out how to generate a pulse which triggers pain neurons without damaging tissue.

The contract, heavily censored before release, asks researchers to look for "optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation" - in other words, cause the maximum pain possible. Studies on cells grown in the lab will identify how much pain can be inflicted on someone before causing injury or death.

Hell, it's not ideal, but stern times call for stern measures, Baby, it's cold outside.


Do not try this at home.



Claverhouse :ph34r:



[ At the risk of being attacked yet again for anti-Americanism: I must say that the sheer lunatic and stomach-churning naming of Yank military operations has often left me stunned; but here at least is a primitive, but real humour. The Sunshine Project. ]


[ Pro-vivisectionists, or foul-witted c***s, as I prefer to call them always cite the great benefits accruing to the human race of experimenting on animals... ]

[Shai Gar]

claver, you are a true believer in right wing authority arent you

[Sally]

Yes. Torture. Tazers. Let's inflict the maximum amount of pain on anyone who stands against us. It isn't just control; it's *punishment*. How dare they draw attention to or even suggest our own flaws?

I suppose what I'm wondering is whether there's a difference between (in this instance) pragmatic crowd control and an emotion-driven wish to simply harm. If only in the mind of the person holding the device.

Like torture as a means of extracting information. It's totally unreliable - how do you differentiate the true confessions from the fabrications? It is an act of hate - much like rape, it's a *nonsensical* effort on the part of the perpetrator to punish the victim.

[minger223]

interesting theory... I generally prefer the easier theory that the torturer copes by simply adopting a black-and-white good-and-evil worldview, where the torturer is good and the torturee evil. Or alternatively, the utilitarian-machivellian view that one person's pain is worth the greater good. But your theory is worth stewing over.

[Sally]

I would even take it a step further and say that the pain of many people is worth one person's good, so long as that one person is you. Who are you to look after other people's selfishness when you can look after your own?

I'm beginning to feel that there's no such thing as morality. There's emotion, and there's justification. And that inner conflict applies to situations such as shopping at Walmart as much as it applies to physically tying a person up and inflicting pain.

[Boneca]

Sally, what is your intention with this? Are you just being contrary, or are you really trying to defend sadism?

Transferring guilt the way you describe sounds completely irrational to me, by the way. But I guess you have to be quite mentally deranged to enjoy torture, so I suppose I shouldn't expect to understand it.

[Jacque]

Apropos, I posit that torture is (in some instances) a crime of compassion. That when a person (or persons, or system), is put into the position of oppressor (their interests are best or *only* served by subjugating others), that person copes with any sympathetic emotion by transferring guilt onto the victim and then punishing the victim for being so weak as to be a victim in the first place.

In other words...the torturer is torturing the torturee for having to torture them in the first place...paradoxical.


Compassionate sadism. Discuss.

No. :p

[Sally]

I'm not trying to defend it; I'm trying to understand it. I think that almost every single person on earth has sadistic impulses - the desire to hurt that might have a pragmatic side-effect but is ultimately about emotional satisfaction for the person doing the hurting. People generally curtail these impulses, but in some instances- being a slave owner, being a guard in certain war prisons, the situation dictates that these impulses are correct. Moreover, that compassionate impulses in these situations get transformed into sadistic impulses.

For some, not all. I would say most. I would say just about anyone, given the right situation.

[Claverhouse]

claver, you are a true believer in right wing authority arent you
No, but you would run screaming from the extremely right-wing site in Aussieland which gave the link. ( They show such things to prove the wickedness of the victorious Allies and NWO: can't say they're wrong on that either... )



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Boneca]

I'm not trying to defend it; I'm trying to understand it. I think that almost every single person on earth has sadistic impulses - the desire to hurt that might have a pragmatic side-effect but is ultimately about emotional satisfaction for the person doing the hurting. People generally curtail these impulses, but in some instances- being a slave owner, being a guard in certain war prisons, the situation dictates that these impulses are correct. Moreover, that compassionate impulses in these situations get transformed into sadistic impulses.

For some, not all. I would say most. I would say just about anyone, given the right situation.The only context where I would understand a torturer was if he feared that he himself would be hurt unless he tortured (and this wouldn't even qualify as sadism). But I cannot understand why he would go further than absolutely necessary, or actually enjoying the process.
As for myself, the only time I've ever wanted to hurt someone was when I was assaulted and robbed as a teenager. That feeling lasted for about 30 seconds, and was only directed at the robbers.
Otherwise, the thought of physically hurting another human (or animal for that matter) makes me sick. I guess I'm simply not sadist material.

[Sally]

But would you say that you recognize this impulse in others? Or... Well, how do you explain torture, then? A restrained prisoner cannot do any harm. Nor is torture a reliable means of obtaining information. What do you see when you look at that situation? Do you think that all torturers were born psychopaths? And, if so, is that distinction a concrete one? And even if the person is a psychopath (even if only during that instance), do you think that the action is only a masturbatory reflec - creating pain in others solely because it pleases the torturer?

[Lee]

I'm beginning to feel that there's no such thing as morality. There's emotion
BINGO!

Welcome to my world. *searches for adequate emoticon to express feelings... fails*

[Sally]

How do people live like this? I don't know what happened - I suddenly developed a sense of social responsibility. I wish I could just lose it or resolve it or get it out of my system or, if I absolutely must, figure out a way to work with it.... ~_~

[Lee]

How do people live like this? I don't know what happened - I suddenly developed a sense of social responsibility. I wish I could just lose it or resolve it or get it out of my system or, if I absolutely must, figure out a way to work with it.... ~_~Are you saying you have developed morality? where there was none before?

edit: once upon-a-time I had a sense of right and wrong, it dissapeared, I still behave morally to those around me, but I no longer believe any of it.

[Boneca]

I find torture very hard to explain. I can, with a stretch of mind, understand some violence, such as the wish to inflict fear, but why you would cause pain to somebody who is already helpless is beyond me.

But if I would hazard a guess, I'd say that you could probably learn to like it. If you see others that you look up to or identify with enjoy torture, maybe you'd somehow become conditioned into thinking torture is something good?
After all, they say that men who beat their wives often had abusive fathers (although I don't know how much of that statement is actually true). Of course domestic violence is more about control and domination, not actual torture, but it is also an abnormal behaviour in otherwise seemingly normal people, so the comparison could still be relevant.

[Sally]

I didn't feel responsible for others; my morality was that it was wrong to assume that you know what's best for anyone else, and therefore shouldn't worry about managing or even influencing others, even if those others made it a point to obstruct the wills of other others.... I didn't read the news; I was vaguely aware of societies' abuses of power; didn't really care. Figured things would never be perfect for everyone, but things in my society were generally all right.

Then a regime change occurred, and I found myself deeply offended by just about everything the administration was doing (doing blatantly! not decently in the shadows so that I could continue in blissful ignorance!) and now I find myself wanting to figure out *some way* to affect the system...... Or else just resign myself to impotence. I think I'm really aiming for impotence.

[Sally]

Well you just might be one of the kindest people I've ever met. :} Genuinely kind, even, not like some people I know who have been conditioned (or conditioned themselves) to deny their sadistic impulses.

I think there's definitely a link between torture, domestic violence, and rape. Anything that creates and/or enforces roles of weak and strong. I read a book on rape once that described the average rapist as a man who feels that he is failing in his role of Protector Provider etc - he lost his job, or he feels dominated by his wife - and that the rape was a mental breakdown in which he irrationally tries to regain his position through the domination of one proper victim, a woman. And it struck me as so sad - for the victims, but especially so for the men who are raised to be so dominant, and consequently feel so insecure. I think the whole society's sick.

Every society's sick, really, in some way or another, but I think that, if you can understand a problem, you can try to alleviate it. Or at least, I hope so.

[Boneca]

Well you just might be one of the kindest people I've ever met. :} Genuinely kind, even, not like some people I know who have been conditioned (or conditioned themselves) to deny their sadistic impulses.That's a compliment that I'm not used to get (as an "unfeeling" INTP). Thank you.

Yet what you say makes me a bit curious. I wonder, why do people have these sadistic tendencies at all? Is it something inherently human (and I just happen to lack the "sadism gene"), or is it caused by society/childhood trauma/personal experiences?
I agree with you that a lot of violence has its ground in insecurity, but is that really all there is to it? If, as you say, most people have sadistic impulses, would that imply that most people are insecure? Or is it rather that only insecure people give in to their impulses, and the actual wish to hurt is caused by something else?

[Sally]

I don't know. I know that I get very frustrated by weakness in others. In some circumstances, anyway. Gullibility. Being illogical. Being prejudiced. Being emotionally sensitive. I have a sense that they deserve what they get. That there's a way that people 'should' behave, which is logical, and that deviation brings its own righteous consequences. Which is exactly the sort of attitude that bothers me in others, but there you go.

And then there's white, middle-class American guilt. I reap the benefits of living in a kleptocracy that runs roughshod over the rest of the world. Part of me hates the victims for being victimized, for the guilt that I don't feel I deserve because I just happened to be born in this kleptocracy. A small part, but then I can just imagine living someplace like Israel, where the ousted population is *right there*, hating you, and either you deny your own way of life or you deny the part of your mind that feels that they have the same rights that you do. You adopt the policy that might makes right and you vent your inner conflict on them (and maybe some or most people are able to assume dominance without any inner conflict, and that's where I'm different).

I don't think that everyone's like me, but I do see situations and attitudes all around the world that seem to fit my sadistic model. I think most people just don't want to recognize the darkness within themselves and inherent within their societies. They dismiss sadistic instances as exceptions rather than rules. And even if I am in the minority with my sadistic coping strategy (passive in my case, in the situations in my life so far), it seems that the tendency is prevalent enough that society should compensate for it rather than encourage it - in every instance.

But then, it suits society to do things like wage war and manipulate the economies of other societies..... Which is a whole other realm of philosophical debate.

[Sally]

Really, for no other reason than that I like this story:

After rampaging for many years, the giant is captured by the local king and imprisoned in a giant vault. Years and years go by, and eventually, the king's youngest son hears rumors about the heartless giant imprisoned under the castle. Full of curiousity, he goes to investigate, and winds up being tricked into friendship by the giant. The giant tells him how he deserves his punishment, for he has done great wrong and now must suffer for it. Against the giant's "protests," the prince steals his father's keys and releases the giant. The giant immediately betrays the boy and resumes his old habit of pillaging. The entire kingdom is shocked by the fact that some madman set the monster free. The boy keeps mum as his father, his oldest brother, and his middle brother all set off to defeat the giant. None return. Finally the young prince himself sets out, armed only with a toy drum. He finds the giant and offers to become his slave as punishment for setting him free. The giant laughs and tells the boy it wasn't his fault but accepts his services anyway. The boy tricks the giant into revealing the location of his heart, then undergoes a series of trials to recover it. He brings the egg holding the heart back to the giant and offers to trade its safe return for the safe return of the giant's surviving victims, including the prince's brothers. But before the boy can give the heart back to the giant, his newly-freed brothers seize the egg and destroy it before the giant's eyes.

.

And on that note, good night.