Liz Cheyney says NIN, Pearl Jam et al opposition to music used as torture "pathetic"

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Prisons, retirement homes, elevators, telephone on-hold music, all of these have been required in the past to pay royalties for music made audible, even if it doesn't target a particular audience for profit motives.

All the examples you mentioned are part of a for-profit company:
A lot of prisons in the states are for profit.
Retirement homes make a profit.
That elevator's part of a building that makes its building owner some profit.
Telephone on-hold music is probably for a line that's owned by a for-profit business.
Sure, they may not be directly be making money from the music but its being provided as (a probably small) part of their services for which they take a profit.


I'm not disagreeing with the point that not for profit public broadcasting of music still needs a license but the examples you mentioned there don't fit that description.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

All the examples you mentioned are part of a for-profit company:
A lot of prisons in the states are for profit.
Retirement homes make a profit.
That elevator's part of a building that makes its building owner some profit.
Telephone on-hold music is probably for a line that's owned by a for-profit business.
Sure, they may not be directly be making money from the music but its being provided as (a probably small) part of their services for which they take a profit.


I'm not disagreeing with the point that not for profit public broadcasting of music still needs a license but the examples you mentioned there don't fit that description.

Either way, the use of music in Gitmo is an example of a public performance that needs to be licensed - it's certainly not a small, social gathering like a house party.

[Slava]

I wonder if these artists would have any objection to their music being played in this manner if it were to "give the detainees more enjoyment during captivity"?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

My position is that torture is wrong. Period. End of argument.

Even if you did agree that torture is justified in certain cases... Is it acceptable to detain 4 people without due process and torture them for every 1 terrorist you do this to? And how will this prevent terrorism in the long run? All these innocents that they're kidnapping and torturing... does that make them more or less likely to consider joining a terrorist organization next time they start soliciting new recruits? You're actively feeding what you're trying to prevent.

As for bombing Japan... "Well, we've done worse than this in the past so this is ok" and "Two wrongs make a right".

As for my edit, its a quote from Billy Madison and meant to be taken slightly tongue in cheek. Don't take it personally - its a joke.

Why do you keep cramming in the part about guilt or innocense or due process or anything else? I simply stated that torture is valid to prevent mass murder in my opinion. I have made no comments on if Guantanamo is legit or not. So before people start calling posts idiotic or incoherent I suggest they proof read first.

I never said two wrong make a right so where did you quote that from? I am honestly having a hard time figuring out your posts. You seem almost rabid in your lust to condemn me for something I did not even allude to.

In the past massive weapons of mass destruction have been used to prevent future killings. Currently they are using some form of torture on a small group of people that may or may not have had positive results with the intent on stopping more terrorist activities. You seem perplexed that I support forms of torture - do you realize this is a legit debate that can be free from hostility? How many people must die before you consider torturing someone for an answer?

And I do take your edits personally, considering you have assigned quotes to me that I never wrote. Perhaps you should think about what you are typing before calling it a joke.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Why do you keep cramming in the part about guilt or innocense or due process or anything else? I simply stated that torture is valid to prevent mass murder in my opinion.

Due process is being mentioned because simply being accused of being a terrorist shouldn't strip you of any and all rights you should be granted.
Guilt vs. innocence is being mentioned cause its a huge problem in real life and is a massive problem currently when 80% of the people they're torturing are the wrong guys. Even if you agreed with torture in a hypothetical situation that only exists in your head, this has to come into consideration when you put your theories into practice.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I never said two wrong make a right so where did you quote that from? I am honestly having a hard time figuring out your posts. You seem almost rabid in your lust to condemn me for something I did not even allude to.

In the past massive weapons of mass destruction have been used to prevent future killings.

"Two wrongs make a right" is coming from.. "Someone tried to commit terrorist activities in the past, therefore its ok to violate international agreements, strip people of their human rights and torture them." edit: this is paraphrasing, not an exact quote.

So what you're saying is... "We've done worse in the past so this isn't a big deal". Is that a fair assessment of your motives of bringing up past use of nuclear weapons? If not, please feel free to expand on your point here.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Slava

I wonder if these artists would have any objection to their music being played in this manner if it were to "give the detainees more enjoyment during captivity"?

I wonder if Bach would have been outraged having his music used to torture teenagers hanging out at 7-11.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

nm

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Due process is being mentioned because simply being accused of being a terrorist shouldn't strip you of any and all rights you should be granted.
Guilt vs. innocence is being mentioned cause its a huge problem in real life and is a massive problem currently when 80% of the people they're torturing are the wrong guys. Even if you agreed with torture in a hypothetical situation that only exists in your head, this has to come into consideration when you put your theories into practice.

"Two wrongs make a right" is coming from.. "Someone tried to commit terrorist activities in the past, therefore its ok to violate international agreements, strip people of their human rights and torture them." edit: this is paraphrasing, not an exact quote.

So what you're saying is... "We've done worse in the past so this isn't a big deal". Is that a fair assessment of your motives of bringing up past use of nuclear weapons? If not, please feel free to expand on your point here.

I never said anything about being accused of being a terrorist or whatever it is you keep trying to bring into the argument. I was very clear, I think torture can be justified if it can prevent murder. IF IT CAN PREVENT MURDER!!! If someone is not a terrorist, how is torture going to prevent a murder? Debate Guantanamo elsewhere. I was very specific about when I think torture is worth it.
You may find guilt vs. innocence really important, but I am not sure why you keep bringing it up with me, since I have no comments, good or bad, on the subject. I am not partaking in that debate, yet you keep trying to ram it down my posts. I also agree with capital punishment, do I have to be clear that I mean only on guilty criminals?
Go take a course somewhere on how to correctly quote someone...you cannot paraphrase and use quotation marks. On top of that, you can paraphrase but must only maintain the integrity and meaning of what someone wrote. You on the other hand are inventing a bunch of things you seem to wish I had wrote, but I never did and then putting quotation marks around them. Are you trying to mislead people into incorrectly attributing quotes to me? Or are you simply making a mistake? If it is a mistake simply stop doing it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Who Would Jesus Torture?

Pedro? Jose? If he's really sick Marisol?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I never said anything about being accused of being a terrorist or whatever it is you keep trying to bring into the argument. I was very clear, I think torture can be justified if it can prevent murder. IF IT CAN PREVENT MURDER!!! If someone is not a terrorist, how is torture going to prevent a murder? Debate Guantanamo elsewhere. I was very specific about when I think torture is worth it.
You may find guilt vs. innocence really important, but I am not sure why you keep bringing it up with me, since I have no comments, good or bad, on the subject. I am not partaking in that debate, yet you keep trying to ram it down my posts. I also agree with capital punishment, do I have to be clear that I mean only on guilty criminals?
Go take a course somewhere on how to correctly quote someone...you cannot paraphrase and use quotation marks. On top of that, you can paraphrase but must only maintain the integrity and meaning of what someone wrote. You on the other hand are inventing a bunch of things you seem to wish I had wrote, but I never did and then putting quotation marks around them. Are you trying to mislead people into incorrectly attributing quotes to me? Or are you simply making a mistake? If it is a mistake simply stop doing it.

I'm paraphrasing you in an attempt to clarify your points and state them more simply. I believe the integrity of what you were saying was kept in tact. If you do not, I openly asked you to clarify them yourself.

Also, since this thread is regarding real torture techniques to be used on real people in the real world I think it would be beneficial to discuss it in real terms and not vague hypothetical situations that can never, have never and will never happen. That's what this thread was started about and that's what people have been discussing. If you want to debate movie script-esque fantasies where torture will save the world go do it elsewhere.

[flip]

I'll just add my two cents.


I think this is as much about artistic integrity as it is about the legality of torture. Personally I'm not against torture in all scenarios the way some are. I am however against the type of atrocities being committed at Gitmo.

To me the real issue is that Keep America Safe seems to think that these artists have no moral authority. It seems to me that she is suggesting that anyone who doesn't dedicate their lives to keeping the poor from having health care, ending legal abortions, keeping homosexuals as second class citizens etc are wasting their lives and need to join Keep America Safe.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

I'm paraphrasing you in an attempt to clarify your points and state them more simply. I believe the integrity of what you were saying was kept in tact. If you do not, I openly asked you to clarify them yourself.

You have not been paraphrasing, you have been inventing things you somehow hoped I would say. I have nothing to clarify since I said nothing that you put in quotation marks. The fact you are standing up for yourself here rather than saying you misread or may have been off base is a sign of being a complete dishonest sucker. Look at any of your posts where you have used quotation marks and quote yourself and clear the air that you made a mistake. Be a man and do the right thing.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Also, since this thread is regarding real torture techniques to be used on real people in the real world I think it would be beneficial to discuss it in real terms and not vague hypothetical situations that can never, have never and will never happen. That's what this thread was started about and that's what people have been discussing. If you want to debate movie script-esque fantasies where torture will save the world go do it elsewhere.

You clearly are naive and have no idea what you are talking about. Prisoners of war are taken all the time and tortured. I think that is something that should be done if it means saving lives. I am sure it has worked and on some it has not worked on others. I am fine with those stats. I am not sure what this thread was started about (that was many posts ago), but I do know that you jumped all over me because I think torture has it's place in interrogation.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You may find guilt vs. innocence really important, but I am not sure why you keep bringing it up with me, since I have no comments, good or bad, on the subject.

That's quite the thing to say.

My guess is that you are alone on that one. The rest of us think that the difference between guilt and innocence is important.

[jammies]

Torture is an absolute wrong not because of its effect on the tortured, but the effect on the torturer. What is the difference between a terrorist and a torturer who each are convinced they are performing atrocities for a greater good? Nothing.

Originally Posted by jammies

Torture is an absolute wrong not because of its effect on the tortured, but the effect on the torturer. What is the difference between a terrorist and a torturer who each are convinced they are performing atrocities for a greater good? Nothing.

Huh.

I dont think terrorists think they are performing atrocities.... although ive never been one, so who knows.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You have not been paraphrasing, you have been inventing things you somehow hoped I would say. I have nothing to clarify since I said nothing that you put in quotation marks. The fact you are standing up for yourself here rather than saying you misread or may have been off base is a sign of being a complete dishonest sucker. Look at any of your posts where you have used quotation marks and quote yourself and clear the air that you made a mistake. Be a man and do the right thing.

You know what... we're not going to see eye to eye on this one so there's really no point in continuing. How I paraphrased you is basically what your point boils down to to someone else reading your post. Don't like it? That's not what you were trying to say? Fine - but that's what it reads as. If you want to clear up your position, that's great. If not, quit being so butt hurt about it.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You clearly are naive and have no idea what you are talking about. Prisoners of war are taken all the time and tortured. I think that is something that should be done if it means saving lives. I am sure it has worked and on some it has not worked on others. I am fine with those stats. I am not sure what this thread was started about (that was many posts ago), but I do know that you jumped all over me because I think torture has it's place in interrogation.

Yes, currently, prisoners of war are being taken and tortured; I'm not naive about that fact. This is wrong and should be stopped. That's the entire god damn point.

The American government has always been against torture till now. Back in WWII the Americans said waterboarding was torture, was a war crime and deserved to be punished with 15 years hard labour. Fast forward a couple decades and now its them doing the torturing and everything's a-ok. It's not a war crime, its not even torture according to some and its all excusable cause they're just trying to stop those evil terrists.

[onetwo_threefour]

Why don't they just use Ted Nugent and ZZ Top songs? Neither of those artists would care, and the themes of their music would be more morally repugnant to fundamentalist Muslims than would NIN or Rage...

Maybe it has something to do with not offending their own supporters by using music created by conservative artists as 'torture.'

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by flip

I'll just add my two cents.


I think this is as much about artistic integrity as it is about the legality of torture. Personally I'm not against torture in all scenarios the way some are. I am however against the type of atrocities being committed at Gitmo.

To me the real issue is that Keep America Safe seems to think that these artists have no moral authority. It seems to me that she is suggesting that anyone who doesn't dedicate their lives to keeping the poor from having health care, ending legal abortions, keeping homosexuals as second class citizens etc are wasting their lives and need to join Keep America Safe.

I actually think that she means that if you play music that has too many guitars, too much distortion, too many BPM, or singers that aren't crooners, THEN you have no moral authority. That seems reasonable doesn't it?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I dont think terrorists think they are performing atrocities.... although ive never been one, so who knows.

Of course they don't, which is entirely the point. They are convinced that the rightness of their cause justifies anything done to further it. To claim a moral advantage over them requires one to reject the idea that ends justify means. Only then can you condemn them as evil, as opposed to merely unsuccessful in furthering their aims.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

You know what... we're not going to see eye to eye on this one so there's really no point in continuing. How I paraphrased you is basically what your point boils down to to someone else reading your post. Don't like it? That's not what you were trying to say? Fine - but that's what it reads as. If you want to clear up your position, that's great. If not, quit being so butt hurt about it.

What you have done is completely dishonest. I never even veered towards what you 'paraphrased' nor did I ever have a position beyond if torture can save lives, great. I have said nothing about Guantanamo's prisoners or anything else. Yet you keep shoving it down this thread. Somehow you think that if someone supports torture (not all of it mind you in my case - even though we never got that far) they support a whole grand list of items. This is simply not true. You have created and share in a stereotype that if anyone supports torture then they also have a whole litany of 'wrong ideas' to go with it. That is wrong and simply stupid.

You don't even realize it. Whatever you say in any thread will viewed in this light - that you have lied in your posts and wrongly quoted people for somewhat incorrect statements, and once brought up you simply ignore it.

Way to be an internet loser! You have also asked me to clear up things that YOU SAID...not what I said. How does that make any sense?