Watch out for sensory issues. If the kid reacts to, I dunno, styrofoam like it’s full of shards of broken glass and he can’t bear to touch it, keep him away from styrofoam
Central case of torture: thumb screws or the rack
Obviously within spitting distance of the central case: Forcing someone to press their hand down on broken glass
Still pretty obviously in the neighborhood: Forcing someone who reacts to styrofoam like it’s broken glass to touch styrofoam.
For someone who suffers from situation-dependent panic attacks, restraint and torture are not mutually exclusive. (Depending on how we define torture, of course.)
Didn’t we just have two threads about this fallacy?
Explain how this is a non-central case?
Central case of torture: thumb screws or the rack.
Alicon’s example: keeping the child from running around.
Central case of torture: thumb screws or the rack
Obviously within spitting distance of the central case: Forcing someone to press their hand down on broken glass
Still pretty obviously in the neighborhood: Forcing someone who reacts to styrofoam like it’s broken glass to touch styrofoam.
By “react” do you mean that it feels to them like broken glass would, or simply that he reacts that way?
I don’t think either of us is going to say anything the other finds interesting at this point.
You’re mixing up the cases.
Which case were you talking about?
“Keeping the child from running around” falls under restraint, not torture.
For someone who suffers from situation-dependent panic attacks, restraint and torture are not mutually exclusive. (Depending on how we define torture, of course.)
Sure. Could be both, but is closer to central case of restraint.
Certainly.
Ok, the central example of restraint is a straitjacket, so my complaint still stands.