First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Unit 731 - Worse than the Holocaust?
Posted 8/8/10

PeanuhBubber wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


PeanuhBubber wrote:


ShroomInferno wrote:

A Russian film about Unit 731 - Philosophy of a Knife

It's funny how the USA gave those researchers of the Unit 731 amnesty in exchange for the information they gathered from those experiments. Lol


Can't let a good experiment go to waste, now can you?

Oh humanity, you never cease to amaze me with your acts of compassion and acts of violence. Then again, being only a one sided coin is pretty boring, no?
It's more like how our sense of entitlement can easily hijack our altruistic selves, when we only got one side to show. As long as we're entitled of our irresponsible and irrational behaviors.


Pardon, I must be inept or part of my brain must be smashed in but it's rather hard for me to decipher your response. So if you're not too preoccupied, mind doing a rephrase along with a paraphrase of the link you sent?

Because, you know, that's how the acronym "TLDNR" was first forged.

(Basically, what I'm stumbling over is how exactly you're incorporating the term "entitlement". I can't figure a way to make that term comprehensive in your response with the pretext of the conversation up till your post.)
It's simply human irrationality known as "loss aversion" and "confirmation bias", which are the foundations of humanity's pattern for self-deception and superstition. But hey, as long as we uncritically claimed that "it's working" with nothing but our ethnocentric entitlement claims as justification, what's to say that we should have known any better?
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/8/10

DomFortress wrote:



Allow me to make an injustice paraphrase to prove my understanding, or lack thereof.

According to your usage of the term "entitlement", the essence of the word is comprised of the first three links that you sent me on a hunt for (which btw, TLDNR). Entitlement, from your context, is the deception (to use your term) of the human mind in order to (and here I simplify) make "peace" with itself and to create a justification, irregardless of any prior moral standing, for any unethical endeavors (such as the partaken endeavors of Unit-731).

Now, with that obstructed terminology cleared, let me plug it back into your initial post and see if I can find both the tail and the head rather than the intestinal track.

You claim that because we, as humans, are fantastic at making excuses and riding those excuses like impressive crutches that we are able to throw away our sense of altruism (altruism ≠ compassion so by using the term "altruism", that throws your meaning onto a different tangent that has me sneering at). You then go on to say that because we are more than capable of riding those crutches, that in itself pardons us from viewing our mischief as they are and instead, covered in rainbows and sparkles because "what's to say that we should have known any better?". I'll throw my two pesos into the ring on that last quote from you.

The only people who couldn't have known better fit under the category of psychopaths, and unless those who were involved in Unit-731 were comprised of nothing but psychopaths, then I'm sure that despite any conscious illusions of puppies and kittens, the subconscious would readily display any shred guilt of such inhumane acts.

Anyway. Do I get a cookie or not?
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/8/10 , edited 8/8/10
Actually the sad thing Is.. it's not that simple. When people brought up Abu Garib to I found myself defending the soldiers in forums like this on the basis of independant knowledge I had of the same two studies that are detailed in the linked video DomFortress provides under the title the lucifer effect. I had on two separate occasions seen actual documentaries on the two experiments complete with film of some of the critical events.

Basically it says that if we create the right environment we can make good people do all kinds of bad things. Conversely education and examples of heroism can make ordinary people do the right thing when they encounter bad environments.

Since you'll probably still TL; DR (which I think means you'll be missing out because I don't normally bother with links but Dom's can be quite good) I'll sumarise the two studies here:

(1) I forget the title but it's basically a test of our subservience to authority and test that discovered about horrors like the Holocuast that "YES it CAN happen here"

The original and basic study purported to hire a bunch of people from a variety of ages for tests meant to discover the mechanism of memory in order to give scientists tools to make us all smarter. People in lab coats solemnly told participants of the altruistic meaning of the test and then they were divided into 'Learners' and 'teachers' - The Learners where strapped into an electric chair. The 'Teachers' were sat in front of a panel with lights and switches indicating increasing levels of electric shock. A person in a lab coat would question the learner in ways designed to test memory and then order the 'teacher' to administer increasing electric shocks.

The panel was actually a light board and buzzer. The labels clearly indicated DANGER and 'health risk' near the top and ended with a triple X above the last switch. The 'Learner' was an actor who would start freaking out, screaming in apparent pain and fear, complaining about a heart condition, demand to end the test and eventually fall completely silent.

2/3 of people in the first iteration of the study clicked all the way up to the final button 'XXX' when instructed to by the man in the lab coat. They complained, they evidenced stress and remorse, but they still did it.

Later iterations of the test discovered that they could bring that result up to over 90% or down to under 10% by showing the test subjects an example of compliance or non-compliance prior to their own test. The later studies also resulted in the same results numerically for men as women. IE the gender of the test subject did not affect the test in anyway.
-------------
(2) the Second test was the infamous 'Stanford Prison Experiment' in 1974. a group of Stanford professors (including the speaker in Dom's linked video) hired a bunch of college students, screened them to be as 'normal' and alike as they could manage through testing and interviews then randomly assigned them roles as guards and inmates in a mock prison. The prisoners were inducted into the test by being told to return home and wait to be summoned. They were summoned by having real police simulate a real arrest and bring them to the 'jail'
At the jail they were treated like prisoners. Uncermoniously stripped of identity, names replaced with numbers unflattering and uncomfortable clothes issued.
Meanwhile the 'guards' were given paramilitary uniforms, Anonymous dark sunglasses, night sticks, badges and the instructions to keep the prisoners in line. The experiment was meant to last two weeks, it was stopped in 6 days as the guards quickly got out of hand and multiple test subjects suffered breakdowns.

I really do suggest you click on Dom's link. It's an quick and self-critical lecture by the Creator and 'prison warden' of the Stanford Prison experiment. It might expand your thinking.

(edit: minor corrections for content and grammar)
Posted 8/8/10

PeanuhBubber wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Allow me to make an injustice paraphrase to prove my understanding, or lack thereof.

According to your usage of the term "entitlement", the essence of the word is comprised of the first three links that you sent me on a hunt for (which btw, TLDNR). Entitlement, from your context, is the deception (to use your term) of the human mind in order to (and here I simplify) make "peace" with itself and to create a justification, irregardless of any prior moral standing, for any unethical endeavors (such as the partaken endeavors of Unit-731).

Now, with that obstructed terminology cleared, let me plug it back into your initial post and see if I can find both the tail and the head rather than the intestinal track.

You claim that because we, as humans, are fantastic at making excuses and riding those excuses like impressive crutches that we are able to throw away our sense of altruism (altruism ≠ compassion so by using the term "altruism", that throws your meaning onto a different tangent that has me sneering at). You then go on to say that because we are more than capable of riding those crutches, that in itself pardons us from viewing our mischief as they are and instead, covered in rainbows and sparkles because "what's to say that we should have known any better?". I'll throw my two pesos into the ring on that last quote from you.

The only people who couldn't have known better fit under the category of psychopaths, and unless those who were involved in Unit-731 were comprised of nothing but psychopaths, then I'm sure that despite any conscious illusions of puppies and kittens, the subconscious would readily display any shred guilt of such inhumane acts.

Anyway. Do I get a cookie or not?

Not really, because you need to understand the fact that we human are social animals, thereby it's very hard and unnatural for us to willingly break the bond of social mechanism, for better or worst. Henceforth, humanity are by nature vulnerable against organized social process of any kind. Justin Bieber's rise to Internet fame comes to mind, even though he's only a third-rate entertainer IMHO.

Other demonstrations of social mechanism at work are the realms of online gaming and reality shows. And just like papagolfwhiskey had stated in his post, any formal organization such as institution for example, can have breakdown without individuals' own oversight. When the power is in the system known as social organization, while nurture is human nature according to sociology.

So while not all of us were born psychopaths, but the fact of the matter is that we can be sociologically processed into sociopaths. And like it or not, the business ethic known as "the bottom line" within corporations is perfectly "suited" for psychopaths. And when you account for "disaster capitalism", the whole picture starts to fall into place.
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/8/10 , edited 8/8/10

DomFortress wrote:



Whoa there, tiger. Take a couple of breaths first before I make one last attempt to get my original meaning across to you as it should be understood (btw, I'm devastatingly shoved into a fit as it seems you made no attempt to work through my words and rather, took what you thought it was I meant and turned around and re-elaborated my original thought to me to a certain degree).

Within the last, singled out paragraph I chose to use two key words: unless and then. "Unless" refers to the following sentence being more unlikely than the sentence following the word "then". Or, the former is less likely than the latter. So, because the individuals who made up Unit-731 are not likely to be constructed entirely of psychopaths (psychopath = sociopath as both terms derive from the same definition and one of the categorical distinction of those placed under such terms suffer from ASPD or antisocial personality disorder) then there is a high chance that any shred of moral or ethic guilt will surface either through the conscious or subconscious. This idea links directly to your statement: what's to say that we should have known any better? in order to show that the only people who couldn't have known any better are those who are emotionally severed from the social construct.

Of course human beings are social creatures, I can observe that with my own two eyes by looking not only at the kind of community I live in, but how towns and cities are linked to one another and how they function, breath, and live. There are social conducts that are implicated, if not enforced with law when we choose to step out of our socially accepted boundaries, and that's how we're able to thrive amongst one another and with one another. This, I understand because I live within the boundaries of social conduct myself.

What I don't understand is your following statement: we can be sociologically processed into sociopaths.

Why don't you elaborate on that idea of yours? Simplify your explanation because my 20 year old brain can't handle any more of your mutilated terminologies and obscure sentence structures. Paraphrase any links that you might be tempted to throw into your response and dumb it down to my level of understanding -- in consideration for your specific audience. An argument is rendered useless and lame if no one can connect or find your thoughts intelligible. The point of an argument is to make yourself understood, not to parade on a high horse.

Happy responding ^_^


Edit: After reading PapaGolfWhiskey's response, I now understand what the problem in both of our arguments is.

Here, I'm fixated on Dom's sentence "what's to say that we should have known any better?" and I've linked that sentence with guilt and moral ties indicating that unless we're emotionally severed, we can understand the idea or the sensation of pain whether we are the inflicter or the inflicted.

Now, from what I further understand through Papa's post, is that despite guilt or conflicting moral issues, humans are capable of cruelty to one another "if we create the right environment we can make good people do all kinds of bad things." That, I have no issues swallowing but I believe the point I'm trying to make is, despite what we are capable of doing doesn't excuse us from the inner turmoil that we may feel because of our actions.

Posted 8/8/10 , edited 8/9/10

PeanuhBubber wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



Whoa there, tiger. Take a couple of breaths first before I make one last attempt to get my original meaning across to you as it should be understood (btw, I'm devastatingly shoved into a fit as it seems you made no attempt to work through my words and rather, took what you thought it was I meant and turned around and re-elaborated my original thought to me to a certain degree).

Within the last, singled out paragraph I chose to use two key words: unless and then. "Unless" refers to the following sentence being more unlikely than the sentence following the word "then". Or, the former is less likely than the latter. So, because the individuals who made up Unit-731 are not likely to be constructed entirely of psychopaths (psychopath = sociopath as both terms derive from the same definition and one of the categorical distinction of those placed under such terms suffer from ASPD or antisocial personality disorder) then there is a high chance that any shred of moral or ethic guilt will surface either through the conscious or subconscious. This idea links directly to your statement: what's to say that we should have known any better? in order to show that the only people who couldn't have known any better are those who are emotionally severed from the social construct.

Of course human beings are social creatures, I can observe that with my own two eyes by looking not only at the kind of community I live in, but how towns and cities are linked to one another and how they function, breath, and live. There are social conducts that are implicated, if not enforced with law when we choose to step out of our socially accepted boundaries, and that's how we're able to thrive amongst one another and with one another. This, I understand because I live within the boundaries of social conduct myself.

What I don't understand is your following statement: we can be sociologically processed into sociopaths.

Why don't you elaborate on that idea of yours? Simplify your explanation because my 20 year old brain can't handle any more of your mutilated terminologies and obscure sentence structures. Paraphrase any links that you might be tempted to throw into your response and dumb it down to my level of understanding -- in consideration for your specific audience. An argument is rendered useless and lame if no one can connect or find your thoughts intelligible. The point of an argument is to make yourself understood, not to parade on a high horse.

Happy responding ^_^


Edit: After reading PapaGolfWhiskey's response, I now understand what the problem in both of our arguments is.

Here, I'm fixated on Dom's sentence "what's to say that we should have known any better?" and I've linked that sentence with guilt and moral ties indicating that unless we're emotionally severed, we can understand the idea or the sensation of pain whether we are the inflicter or the inflicted.

Now, from what I further understand through Papa's post, is that despite guilt or conflicting moral issues, humans are capable of cruelty to one another "if we create the right environment we can make good people do all kinds of bad things." That, I have no issues swallowing but I believe the point I'm trying to make is, despite what we are capable of doing doesn't excuse us from the inner turmoil that we may feel because of our actions.
And I agree with you on that we shouldn't make excuses for our lack of feelings, especially when our emotional feelings are account for so much of our own independent personal conviction. However, just exactly what we associate our feeling of guilt with that's immoral and unethical can become an issue during our primary socialization. When different societies with different cultures can have an immediate effect on how we choose to behave, according to what's culturally acceptable or not. That's what I meant when I said "what's to say that we should have known any better", because when much of our cultures were based on our traditions and/or superstitions, we're still a long way from social justice.

BTW, not all sociopaths are psychopaths, while all psychopaths are sociopaths.The difference lies in the fact that unlike sociopaths, psychopaths OTOH are very well constructed, organized, and goal-oriented.

Finally, even normal people can experience emotional detachment with what they're doing, this is known as "social alienation" within sociology.
15179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/8/10

PeanuhBubber wrote:

Can't let a good experiment go to waste, now can you?

Oh humanity, you never cease to amaze me with your acts of compassion and acts of violence. Then again, being only a one sided coin is pretty boring, no?




DomFortress wrote:

It's more like how our sense of entitlement can easily hijack our altruistic selves, when we only got one side to show. As long as we're entitled of our irresponsible and irrational behaviors.


Ok I'm going to try to play mediator here. Why don't we start with the original 'disagreement'.

It looks to me like bubber said 4 things.
1. It would be a shame to let this experiment go to waste.
2. Humans can be very compassionate.
3. Humans can be very violent.
4. It would be boring if all humans were the same. (one sided coin)

Then it looks to me like dom's response was:
We can easily let our irrationality effect our altruism when an incentive is given.

So dom, can you please elaborate on how your statement relates to what bubber said?
Posted 8/9/10 , edited 8/9/10

excalion wrote:


PeanuhBubber wrote:

Can't let a good experiment go to waste, now can you?

Oh humanity, you never cease to amaze me with your acts of compassion and acts of violence. Then again, being only a one sided coin is pretty boring, no?




DomFortress wrote:

It's more like how our sense of entitlement can easily hijack our altruistic selves, when we only got one side to show. As long as we're entitled of our irresponsible and irrational behaviors.


Ok I'm going to try to play mediator here. Why don't we start with the original 'disagreement'.

It looks to me like bubber said 4 things.
1. It would be a shame to let this experiment go to waste.
2. Humans can be very compassionate.
3. Humans can be very violent.
4. It would be boring if all humans were the same. (one sided coin)

Then it looks to me like dom's response was:
We can easily let our irrationality effect our altruism when an incentive is given.

So dom, can you please elaborate on how your statement relates to what bubber said?
Either you missed the rest of the discussion, or you're just itching for an argument. But I only see nature's own moral code known as the tit-for-tat, and how humans can easily mess that up
15179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Offline
Posted 8/9/10

DomFortress wrote:


excalion wrote:


PeanuhBubber wrote:

Can't let a good experiment go to waste, now can you?

Oh humanity, you never cease to amaze me with your acts of compassion and acts of violence. Then again, being only a one sided coin is pretty boring, no?




DomFortress wrote:

It's more like how our sense of entitlement can easily hijack our altruistic selves, when we only got one side to show. As long as we're entitled of our irresponsible and irrational behaviors.


Ok I'm going to try to play mediator here. Why don't we start with the original 'disagreement'.

It looks to me like bubber said 4 things.
1. It would be a shame to let this experiment go to waste.
2. Humans can be very compassionate.
3. Humans can be very violent.
4. It would be boring if all humans were the same. (one sided coin)

Then it looks to me like dom's response was:
We can easily let our irrationality effect our altruism when an incentive is given.

So dom, can you please elaborate on how your statement relates to what bubber said?
Either you missed the rest of the discussion, or you're just itching for an argument. But I only see nature's own moral code known as the tit-for-tat, and how humans can easily mess that up


Neither dom, but throughout the rest of the discussion, you never explained how your statement relates to bubber's initial post. In fact, you STILL haven't explained how your statement has any relation to bubber's post. The fact that humans have a moral code of tit-for-tat and how they can mess that up really has nothing to do with what bubber originally said. Everything bubber said in that first post is self-evident so what exactly are you arguing against? Or are you the one itching for an argument?
Posted 8/9/10

excalion wrote:



Neither dom, but throughout the rest of the discussion, you never explained how your statement relates to bubber's initial post. In fact, you STILL haven't explained how your statement has any relation to bubber's post. The fact that humans have a moral code of tit-for-tat and how they can mess that up really has nothing to do with what bubber originally said. Everything bubber said in that first post is self-evident so what exactly are you arguing against? Or are you the one itching for an argument?
Self-evident of what, entitlement? In case if you haven't noticed already, you're the one who's refusing to see that the statistically majority of the human race are still really stupid, when they can be easily manipulated via social mechanism. It's also precisely that because of what she said was barely scratching the surface, which makes you foolishly believed that mere entitlement claims can be some sort of self-evidences not grounded by facts. But hey, that's what you get for believing that all things are possible, so start believe that you're irrational just because there's a possibility that you are.
Posted 8/9/10

CarboKill wrote:

Lol, Unit 731 is my kinda place. Looks pretty awesome.
As a subject or a tourist? Or you would rather be the ones conducting the inhumane experiments? And if so, why?
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/9/10
Bawoo! bawoo! Troll alert! bawoo! bawoo! Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
Posted 8/9/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

Bawoo! bawoo! Troll alert! bawoo! bawoo! Danger Will Robinson! Danger!
To be fair, in a secular society, individual like CarboKill here gets psychoanalyzed after he did something completely antisocial. And since he's just so bloody honest with himself, it's not like the society is to blame for the likes of him.
55063 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/9/10
McAuthor, did not have that kind of power if he did was allowed to get away with it Truman and Eisenhower and McAuthor were war criminals them severals plus all the Japanese involved. Ever solider knows what a unlawful oder is i was put under that gun twice by officer you refuse to do it. no matter how they threaten you court marsh prison or just a article 15. Man I leaned to hate officers after that there was a running gag in our unit which one of use would kill the captain I was one of top three.
21995 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 8/9/10
Every nation is capable of disgusting atrocities. To single out Japan or Germany as the worst is down right wrong. One issue I had with the video was it's use of drama and the tone the narrator set. I felt like they were blaming science for all of humanities despicable actions when all it comes down to is human nature. Religion and Science are not origins of evil Human Nature is, and in the hands of those types of people religion and science are just tools.

The US is by no means an exception to systematic extermination/experimantalization though we like to think we are. The decimation of the Native American tribes and the experimentation on black men is proof of that. Claiming one atrocity is worse than the other detracts from the point that all are bad in the first place and tries to relocate blame.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.