Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is Rap music torture?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 26: Line 26:
  
 
:Songs by [[Barney the Dinosaur]] were also used in this capacity. While cultural barriers rendered this technique mainly ineffective at [[Guantanamo Bay]], if this were to be used against Americans I would expect it to be a powerful coercive weapon. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 
:Songs by [[Barney the Dinosaur]] were also used in this capacity. While cultural barriers rendered this technique mainly ineffective at [[Guantanamo Bay]], if this were to be used against Americans I would expect it to be a powerful coercive weapon. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
West Coast rap or East Coast rap? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]]

Revision as of 20:51, May 2, 2007

According to ABC News, suspected terrorists undergoing coercive interrogation have been " forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's 'Slim Shady' album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic" [1] Is this dehumanizing treatment banned by the Geneva Convention, and if not, should it be?

I suspect the detail about the kind of music was mentioned to make the treatment sound more ludicrous and less cruel. If you can encourage people to joke about whether rap music is torture, you're deflecting attention from the general character of the treatment itself.
I suspect that the significance of the music's being "foreign" is that the patterns to it are unfamiliar, and it would be preceived as unpredictable noise rather than as music.
What volume level was it played at? Was the real point to induce sleep deprivation?
If you played "music" to me at 110 db, continuously, it wouldn't really matter whether it was rap, Balinese Gamelan music, or Khachaturian's Sabre Dance, it would deprive me of sleep.
But if you say "they were subjected to intense noise" it sounds like it could be torture, whereas if you say "they were subjected to rap music," it sounds like a joke. Dpbsmith 21:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
What he said. I was too lazy to type it myself. As far as "torture" or banning under the GC (as if we'd pay attention to such "outdated concepts"), once you reach a certain volume level, which is easy to do in small cinder block rooms, it's not only not "music", it's simply a physical assault - it causes permanent damage, for instance. Human 00:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Well at what point it causes permanent brain damage is debatable... RobS 00:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Who said anything about brain damage? The effect of prolonged exposure to high sound pressure levels (for varying times and SPLs) is well documented - on the ears.
Point taken. I amend my statement. RobS 10:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

People can be very creative when it comes to finding new ways to harm others. - Suricou

During the invasion of Panama, when Noriega was hiding in the Vatican embasy the US blasted rap until he came out. Czolgolz 12:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If it is, why do people listen to it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JessicaS (talk)

Songs by Barney the Dinosaur were also used in this capacity. While cultural barriers rendered this technique mainly ineffective at Guantanamo Bay, if this were to be used against Americans I would expect it to be a powerful coercive weapon. --Jeremiah4-22 14:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

West Coast rap or East Coast rap? Sterile