30 000 large scale enough for you?
I don’t know which sounds stranger, the idea that legal suicide increases the murder rate, or that guards will stop feeding prisoners then claim they starved to death.
Wow. Thanks.
Further logistics: Are the force-fed prisoners being treated with anti-emetic drugs? If not, can’t they just vomit post-feeding?
Strap 'em down, tube 'em, fill 'em up.
Next!
…three or four guys, and a little lube on the tube, it’s really pretty easy.
And what keeps the prisoner from intentionally immediately vomiting it back up?
Nothing, unless you keep them strapped down.
It’s harder than it sounds, though certainly some people can do it.
I suppose with practice, it would get easier to barf that stuff up.
No it’s not. It’s an RSVP to a pity party. And, really, why should any one give a crap? So a prisoner wants to make himself even more miserable. Is that really a bad thing? Obviously (in nearly every case) it’s some dumbass who thinks it’s going to get his voice heard. Boo-f’in-hoo. Let 'em starve and be miserable. The morons bring it on themselves. If you’re dumb enough to think that making your own self uncomfortable is a valid “punishment” for others then go ahead. Make my day.
Vomiting food up after a forced feeding is more difficult than refusing to eat in the first place. But I suppose it would be possible to maintain a hunger strike this way. Ultimately (although I’ve never seen it reach this point) we would sedate the prisoner during feedings and keep him sedated for some time afterwards so his body would have time to digest the food.
**Tacit Knowledge **, I have already stated my opinion of this type of attitude in the pit thread.
To keep it nice here, I will simply say that you should consider that just because someone is protesting from behind bars does not mean that their cause is unjust. You might also consider that hunger striking is probably one of the most difficult forms of protest to carry through, requiring great determination.
A protester (prisoner or otherwise) on hunger strike does not want to starve themselves to death, but they do have a desire to achieve something that exceeds the desire for food.
Try opening your mind a little.
Here’s something to get you started:
Wikipedia: Suffragette
It often seems difficult for Americans to understand how their actions and those of their government are viewed by nominally friendly nations and governments. In emotive cases such as the Death Penalty, Incarceration policies, force feeding etc, the US is viewed by the rest of the civilised world as somewhat illiberal and medieval. Setting up Guantanamo and continuing its existence is merely one example.
The force feeding of Gitmo prisoners is gaining the US further bad PR in the Western world, let alone in Arab and other Muslim countries (force feeding is continuing during Ramadan, making it a political/religious issue.
What are you taking about? Where did I claim their causes to be unjust? I made no judgement of whatever cause they may be starving for. I’m simply observing the idiocy of the whole concept of the hunger strike. If you think not eating is going to somehow make your cause more valid, well, that’s ridiculous.
Hunger strikes are very effective where there is a support constituency being addressed and there is no other way to attempt to exert power. They effectively put the ‘powerful’ in a weak position with the intended constituency where whatever they do is a losing option- either the person visibly deteriorates or the powerful are seen to use inhumane techniques comparable to torture.
I do not believe that the US Government is honest when it says that they are force feeding as a humane gesture to meet the needs of the strikers- this is sanctimonious bullshit. WHat they are doing is trying to limit the damage caused to their interests- is it better to have a dead or near dead detainee, or is it better to engage in inhumane action. Self interest, not morality I am afraid.
True. You did not say anything about the validity of their cause. Indeed, the language of your post suggested to me that you hadn’t even considered that prisoners might have a just cause for hunger-striking. Hense my suggestion that you think about the issue a little more.
Now maybe my assumption is incorrect and unfair, but when you post stuff like this . . .
(Bolding mine)
. . . Well, not only is that expressing an opinion that I strongly disagree with and an attitude I find reprehensible, it also suggests to me that you’re coming into the debate with little thought and a closed mind.
Again, that’s my own biased assumption.
So, do you think that the suffragettes were dumbasses for protesting their cause by hunger strike? What about Gandhi? Because for those prisoners, it worked.
As Pjen has suggested, hunger striking can be a very effective way of getting recognition and sympathy for your cause. If you think it’s dumb, how do you suggest prisoners should protest? Marching’s out of the question, and I don’t think angry messageboarding is going to cut it.
PS.
Please note, the validity and effectiveness of hunger-striking are merely side issues here. The topic under discussion is the ethics of force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike.
Those who support force-feeding prisoners: does it bother you that US and World Medical Associations all seem to believe the practice is unethical?
The only reason hunger strikes have any effectiveness is because of bleeding hearts who get all emotional about it instead of seeing that a hunger strike is about the dumbest possible way to “be heard”. “Hey, fellow morons, let’s make ourselves miserable; that’ll show those big meannies!”
You said your yourself: SYMPATHY. But why should I have sympathy for idiots who intentional harm their own self? want to be a hungry dumbass? Go right ahead. No sweat off my back.
Madame Nhu is that you? Lighting yourself on fire would seem to trump going on a hunger strike as about the dumbest way to be heard in your book. Yet it bothered more than just ‘bleeding heart’ types, and Madame Nhu’s public remarks mocking it all but ensured the downfall of her brother-in-law’s regime.
Without sympathy, I think most protests would be a lost cause.
Now I am prepared to believe that someone on hunger strike is not trying to garner sympathy for their self-imposed starvation, but rather, they are trying to get support or sympathy for the cause or circumstances that have moved them go on hunger strike.
You have touched upon a vital truth to this issue, Tacit Knowledge.
Without sympathy, hunger striking is merely suicide.
Congratulations.
I urge you to explore this strange notion of sympathy more.
You see, giving a shit about other people, even those you disagree with, tends to be a pretty important part of maintaining a functional society.
Now, what would you suggest as a better form of protest for a prisoner who is unjustly imprisoned or is suffering maltreatment?
You are correct. Setting oneself ablaze certainly does trump hunger.
But it seems to me that to give credence (pay them any special mind) to these sorts self destructive protests all you’re doing is fueling the idiocy. Wouldn’t it make more sense -generally, at least - to laugh them off so as to build a social stigma against such stupidity. And yes, it is stupidity. Just because some idiots on occasion get what they want doesn’t justify or make sensible their acts of idiocy.
Yes, I do.
And yes, it does. Very much so.
Thank you for the link.