Good and Logical Spock / Bad, Illogical Spock

[2PhiloVoid]

It's fair to call her young, but she's clearly not a girl.



It can be a little difficult to appreciate how the morality applies when referring to a skill that is, (as of yet), beyond human ability. I've not seen the movie so I don't know the full context, but based on your explanation, and the woman screaming during part of the exercise, suggests that Spoke is forcefully invading her mind in a way that results in pain for at least part of the procedure. We don't know what the pain is, but based on the way the woman screams, it's reasonable to infer that the pain is akin to something like physical torture, i.e. using a knife or flame to hurt someone into talking.

If Spock did not have some special psychic ability, but rather used a pair of pliers to pull the woman's finger nails off, the audience would probably have a pretty different view of him even though the end result would be the same; he'd get the necessary information to save the day. The mind-meld appears to be a way to torture but still maintain the good-guy reputation as it's a fantasy power none of us can relate to. Or maybe they would not view him differently. Maybe they would still think the ends justifies the means, as that happens so often in the world today, e.g. the bad behavior of the good guys is justified because they are the good guys.

There are different methods to making someone talk. One is the personal violence which Spock used (the mind-meld was clearly a pain inducing procedure). Another alternative which does not require violence to the specific target is to threaten something (or someone) dear to the target, like a business or family member. A third way of getting information is to trick the target into confessing. This is the preferred option as it is the least morally ambiguous, but it requires more time, effort, and thought, which is a rare commodity these days.

Good comments, John! I'm with you in thinking that Kirk and Spock undertook this procedure because they were thinking along Utilitarian lines. It wasn't pleasant for them to consider doing, and it wasn't something they just thought would be a 'good' idea. They did what they did out of what they thought was a dire moment of necessity. Yet, with that being the case, it was an intrusive act and we have to ask ourselves, "Was it ok to do this?" Is a Utilitarian ethic 'good enough' to go by, even in desperate situations?

Moreover, did you notice what Spock says he actually found out at the end of the scene? Was he fully justified in doing his forced act of mind-meld?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost sounds like some folks here, even some Christians, think torture is 'ok' if it's done to protect a nation?

We don't know what the pain is, but based on the way the woman screams, it's reasonable to infer that the pain is akin to something like physical torture, i.e. using a knife or flame to hurt someone into talking.

If Spock did not have some special psychic ability, but rather used a pair of pliers to pull the woman's finger nails off, the audience would probably have a pretty different view of him even though the end result would be the same; he'd get the necessary information to save the day. The mind-meld appears to be a way to torture but still maintain the good-guy reputation as it's a fantasy power none of us can relate to.

Was what Spock did strictly torture, though?

If she'd been holding that information (on a Vulcan USB stick) in her hand, and Spock had forced her hand open to get the information, causing her pain, would that have been torture?

I'm wondering if it counts as torture if the pain is an unfortunate by-product of extracting the information rather than a deliberate means to extract the information. It's a fine line, I know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Was what Spock did strictly torture, though?

If she'd been holding that information (on a Vulcan USB stick) in her hand, and Spock had forced her hand open to get the information, causing her pain, would that have been torture?

I'm wondering if it counts as torture if the pain is an unfortunate by-product of extracting the information rather than a deliberate means to extract the information. It's a fine line, I know.

That's a good point, F.B: Spock has a military and (some) governmental authority in this film, as does Kirk. It could be that the pain involved with the character of Valeris is incidental, as well as the fact that as a potential criminal, she might not have the 'right' to conceal the info that she has. Maybe it's not torture, and I think from the characterization of Spock and Valeris we see within the scene, Spock isn't intending to torture her, but to take what he knows is a drastic measure. It's just that we could ask what this kind of interrogation involves if we understand that there are certain social and psychological elements involved in a Vulcan mind-meld, one that may even involve a twisted form of Vulcan 'pon-farr'?

Do we want to invoke Kant in our ethical evaluations? Or Stuart Mill? Or Aristotle? Or some other ethical evaluator?

Being that it's a sci-fi movie scene, I'm not going to come down hard on one ethical side or another. But in my making this movie scene one for our moral deliberation, we might want to think about any real life analogies that could have some semblance to this kind of thing. We'll also may want to take into account the apparent ethical system of the characters involved and account for various ideological contexts that the scene doesn't readily show but has overall in connection with the rest of the entire movie.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's a good point, F.B: Spock has a military and (some) governmental authority in this film, as does Kirk. It could be that the pain involved with the character of Valeris is incidental, as well as the fact that as a potential criminal, she might not have the 'right' to conceal the info that she has. Maybe it's not torture, and I think from the characterization of Spock and Valeris we see within the scene, Spock isn't intending to torture her, but to take what he knows is a drastic measure. It's just that we could ask what this kind of interrogation involves if we understand that there are certain social and psychological elements involved in a Vulcan mind-meld, one that may even involve a twisted form of Vulcan 'pon-farr'?

Do we want to invoke Kant in our ethical evaluations? Or Stuart Mill? Or Aristotle? Or some other ethical evaluator?

Being that it's a sci-fi movie scene, I'm not going to come down hard on one ethical side or another. But in my making this movie scene one for our moral deliberation, we might want to think about any real life analogies that could have some semblance to this kind of thing. We'll also may want to take into account the apparent ethical system of the characters involved and account for various ideological contexts that the scene doesn't readily show but has overall in connection with the rest of the entire movie.

Yes; given that the full context isn't clear, I was thinking of a number of possibilities that might affect our judgement of it; for example:

a. What Spock does is, to the woman, the Vulcan equivalent of rape.
b. What Spock does is painful at the time, but not traumatic, and has no lasting effect.
c. The woman wants to reveal the information but is afraid to.
d. The woman wants to give the impression she's reluctant to reveal the information.
e. Spock knows his family & friends will die without the information.
etc.

 

[John Helpher]

If she'd been holding that information (on a Vulcan USB stick) in her hand, and Spock had forced her hand open to get the information, causing her pain, would that have been torture?

If he mashed her hand with a hammer to get her to release the information, do you think that would be torture? I mean, did you watch the clip? She's clearly screaming in pain as a result of what he's doing to her mind.

The question is whether or not he was justified in hurting her to get the info, but you seem to be asking whether he was hurting her or not to begin with. I mean, if someone did something to you to make you scream in pain to get information from you, I doubt you'd be confused about whether or not it was torture.

 

[John Helpher]

it was an intrusive act and we have to ask ourselves, "Was it ok to do this?"

I'm not sure you did understand my comments. Calling it "intrusive" seems to be a rather pleasant euphemism for torture. Getting a flu vaccination is intrusive.

The crew witnessing the act weren't confused. Look at Scotty's face; he understands this woman is being put through pain to get information. I mean, that's why I suggested that this could be a tricky scenario because no one (at least that I know of) has the ability to do what Spock does; we don't know what's involved with the mind meld, so the writers use a device to communicate what's happening with this mystical procedure; they show the woman in intense pain.

We don't need to know exactly what the procedure does, because we see the result; the woman is screaming out in what is obviously pain. I mean, it's not an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. That look on Scotty's face isn't arousal. She's in pain. The whole scene is set up to communicate this concept; Spock is causing pain to get information. That's torture.

The question is, was he justified. As I said, I've not watched the whole movie so I don't know the surrounding context, but probably it's something similar to the U.S. government cutting off a man's nipple or gouging out his eye to get information on terrorist activities.

Are they justified? Seeing as how this is a Christian forum, it's probably reasonable to ask what Jesus would do in such a situation. Would Jesus torture a person to get information even if it meant not doing so would result in hundreds, or thousands, or millions of deaths?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If he mashed her hand with a hammer to get her to release the information, do you think that would be torture? I mean, did you watch the clip? She's clearly screaming in pain as a result of what he's doing to her mind.

The question is whether or not he was justified in hurting her to get the info, but you seem to be asking whether he was hurting her or not to begin with. I mean, if someone did something to you to make you scream in pain to get information from you, I doubt you'd be confused about whether or not it was torture.

I think you misread my comment - in my example, pain was also caused. The point was not about whether pain was caused, but whether it fell under the definition of torture, which generally involves the deliberate infliction of suffering in order to elicit a desired response (or purely for gratification). In the case of Spock's action, the pain appeared to be a side-effect of trying to retrieve the information rather than a deliberate incentive to reveal it.

I'm not making any judgement about whether it was morally justifiable, just questioning whether it satisfies the definition of torture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure you did understand my comments. Calling it "intrusive" seems to be a rather pleasant euphemism for torture. Getting a flu vaccination is intrusive.

The crew witnessing the act weren't confused. Look at Scotty's face; he understands this woman is being put through pain to get information. I mean, that's why I suggested that this could be a tricky scenario because no one (at least that I know of) has the ability to do what Spock does; we don't know what's involved with the mind meld, so the writers use a device to communicate what's happening with this mystical procedure; they show the woman in intense pain.

We don't need to know exactly what the procedure does, because we see the result; the woman is screaming out in what is obviously pain. I mean, it's not an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. That look on Scotty's face isn't arousal. She's in pain. The whole scene is set up to communicate this concept; Spock is causing pain to get information. That's torture.

The question is, was he justified. As I said, I've not watched the whole movie so I don't know the surrounding context, but probably it's something similar to the U.S. government cutting off a man's nipple or gouging out his eye to get information on terrorist activities.

Are they justified? Seeing as how this is a Christian forum, it's probably reasonable to ask what Jesus would do in such a situation. Would Jesus torture a person to get information even if it meant not doing so would result in hundreds, or thousands, or millions of deaths?

Keep in mind, brother John, that I might actually be agreeing with you to some extent all along. When I posed questions in my previous post, it wasn't meant to be a challenge? I probably should have prefaced my questions in that post so that you knew that I wasn't attempting to 'counter' your comments so much as to expand upon them.

I agree that Valeris is in pain, and we probably could define it as a form of minor torture, assuming that the Vulcan mind meld isn't a kind of "mental rape." But if it is, then it becomes especially egregious. As you said, this is a tricky scenario (which I think the movie producers intended for this scene to be ... especially when taken in context with the other social messages we find in the rest of the entire movie).

So, was Spock justified do you think? From a Christian standpoint, I'd probably have to say 'no.' But then there might be skeptics who would say something like, "Well, how is what Spock does any different from what the Israelites do in the O.T.?"

(Good comments and thought on you part so far, John! Thanks for that!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes; given that the full context isn't clear, I was thinking of a number of possibilities that might affect our judgement of it; for example:

a. What Spock does is, to the woman, the Vulcan equivalent of rape.
b. What Spock does is painful at the time, but not traumatic, and has no lasting effect.
c. The woman wants to reveal the information but is afraid to.
d. The woman wants to give the impression she's reluctant to reveal the information.
e. Spock knows his family & friends will die without the information.
etc.

How would we go about trying to vet out the intended and/or actual contexts in the movie scene that might help us disambiguate between the five choices for interpretation that you've nicely listed, F.B.?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How would we go about trying to vet out the intended and/or actual contexts in the movie scene that might help us disambiguate between the five choices for interpretation that you've nicely listed, F.B.?

I guess talking to the screenwriter would do it.

 

[John Helpher]

The point was not about whether pain was caused, but whether it fell under the definition of torture, which generally involves the deliberate infliction of suffering in order to elicit a desired response (or purely for gratification).

Which is exactly what happened in this scenario; pain was inflicted to get a desired response. I'm not sure why you're using a modifier like "strictly" to describe the torture. What is the difference between strictly torture and just torture?

In the case of Spock's action, the pain appeared to be a side-effect of trying to retrieve the information rather than a deliberate incentive to reveal it.

Even if you are right that Spock did not realize his probing would cause pain (unlikely for a seasoned veteran of such practices), when he realized the pain was there, he did not stop. I think the opposite is true; I think he knew full well that digging into the psyche of someone who's resistant to such probing would cause pain, but that he continued on anyway believing the circumstances justified the act.

That's the context. Suggesting that the pain was just a side effect rather than the intention side-steps the point; no one on that bridge was ignorant that pain was being applied, against the target's will, in order to get information. That's torture.

I'm not making any judgement about whether it was morally justifiable, just questioning whether it satisfies the definition of torture.

I appreciate that. I've been told that I can sometimes come across as a bit intense; if you get that feeling from me I hope you'll not think it's personal.

Anyway, my point is the opposite from yours; to me the situation clearly fits the definition of torture; pain is applied for the sake of extracting information. Spock could have said, "I can't know if she knows the location of the meeting without probing deeper, but to do so would inflict intense pain on her". I think even that would have been questionable as, just because she didn't cry out during the earlier portion doesn't mean she's not being put through pain (or at least strong discomfort) to get the information.

Even if there was no pain associated with the act, having someone poke around in your mind, against your will, to extract information still fits the definition of torture, as not all torture requires physical pain.

To me, the writers make it pretty clear that this woman was being tortured, but they justify it because the act results in saved lives (and also because it's performed by the heroes whom we understand to have the best intentions).

The question is, outside of the movie context, do we, the audience, come away with that same ideal that there are circumstances in which we also would find torture justified? After all, we tend to be the heroes of our own lives with all the best intentions.

 

[John Helpher]

When I posed questions in my previous post, it wasn't meant to be a challenge?

I don't think I would mind if it was a challenge, though, as that's my expectation with these kind of discussions; there's not much point if we're not challenging one another.

But, I think there was some challenge (or at least some hint that perhaps the torture was not as bad as I had suggested). I think that's why you used the word invasive instead of torture. I mean, think about it; if a person said, "You have information we want so we're gonna stick a knife in you to get it" you would not be wrong to call that an invasive procedure, but neither would it be the whole truth. All torture is invasive (whether physical or psychological), but not all invasive procedures are torture.

When someone uses a word like invasive for the purpose of avoiding the word torture, it communicates a diminishing of what's actually happening. It's like saying, "No I didn't murder him; I just put him in a different state of existence".

I agree that Valeris is in pain, and we probably could define it as a form of minor torture, assuming that the Vulcan mind meld isn't a kind of "mental rape."

I think that is at least subtly implied in the scene. I mean, even if there was no physical pain the intrusion still would have been a violation of that person.

So, was Spock justified do you think? From a Christian standpoint, I'd probably have to say 'no.' But then there might be skeptics who would say something like, "Well, how is what Spock does any different from what the Israelites do in the O.T.?"

I've not watched the movie so I don't know all the surrounding details, but in general I would say that torturing people to get them to do what you want is not consistent with Christianity (i.e. ethical/moral behavior which is good for all humanity). I mean, God threatens us with eternal consequences but that's not torture (even though so many people describe it as such) any more than it is torturous to let a child know there will be consequences for stealing treats from the cookie jar.

I'm presuming that the motives behind the fighting in the movie can be traced back to some kind of material gain. One party felt wronged in some way; the other party felt a need to defend what is theirs etc...

In Christianity, though, we don't fight over these material things. There would be no reason to go to war or to terrorize one another and thus no reason to torture.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which is exactly what happened in this scenario; pain was inflicted to get a desired response. I'm not sure why you're using a modifier like "strictly" to describe the torture. What is the difference between strictly torture and just torture?

I was referring to the definition, i.e. did the action strictly meet the definition of torture.

Even if you are right that Spock did not realize his probing would cause pain (unlikely for a seasoned veteran of such practices), when he realized the pain was there, he did not stop. I think the opposite is true; I think he knew full well that digging into the psyche of someone who's resistant to such probing would cause pain, but that he continued on anyway believing the circumstances justified the act.

I wasn't suggesting that Spock didn't realise his action would cause pain, but it didn't seem to me that pain was the means he was using to extract the information, but a side-effect of the retrieval process.

Suggesting that the pain was just a side effect rather than the intention side-steps the point; no one on that bridge was ignorant that pain was being applied, against the target's will, in order to get information. That's torture.

OK, that's what I wanted to know; it's a slightly broader definition of torture than I'm familiar with, but it's a fine line.

I appreciate that. I've been told that I can sometimes come across as a bit intense; if you get that feeling from me I hope you'll not think it's personal.

No, but it can give the impression that you haven't fully understood the post you responded to.

Anyway, my point is the opposite from yours; to me the situation clearly fits the definition of torture; pain is applied for the sake of extracting information. Spock could have said, "I can't know if she knows the location of the meeting without probing deeper, but to do so would inflict intense pain on her". I think even that would have been questionable as, just because she didn't cry out during the earlier portion doesn't mean she's not being put through pain (or at least strong discomfort) to get the information.

Even if there was no pain associated with the act, having someone poke around in your mind, against your will, to extract information still fits the definition of torture, as not all torture requires physical pain.

OK. The definition I'm familiar with concerns the deliberate infliction of pain or suffering as the means used to achieve some response from the victim; IOW, Spock pulling her fingernails out to get her to reveal the answer would qualify as torture under that definition.

To me, the writers make it pretty clear that this woman was being tortured, but they justify it because the act results in saved lives (and also because it's performed by the heroes whom we understand to have the best intentions).

Interesting - I thought they were suggesting that Spock's actions might be justifiable in the circumstances because they (arguably!) fell short of torture...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think I would mind if it was a challenge, though, as that's my expectation with these kind of discussions; there's not much point if we're not challenging one another.

Actually, no, I'm not trying to 'challenge' you in a debate; I'm trying to expand discussion. ... It might even be that I already agree with you, if not fully, then mostly.

But, I think there was some challenge (or at least some hint that perhaps the torture was not as bad as I had suggested). I think that's why you used the word invasive instead of torture.

Not really. The only reason I'm playing with the degree of the meaning is that other posters here have expressed that they didn't even think she experienced 'real pain,' let alone torture.

I mean, think about it; if a person said, "You have information we want so we're gonna stick a knife in you to get it" you would not be wrong to call that an invasive procedure, but neither would it be the whole truth. All torture is invasive (whether physical or psychological), but not all invasive procedures are torture.

And I would generally agree with that.

When someone uses a word like invasive for the purpose of avoiding the word torture, it communicates a diminishing of what's actually happening. It's like saying, "No I didn't murder him; I just put him in a different state of existence".

Well, sure. But again, there was a flow of conversation already going in this thread. So, keep that in mind, even if I don't expect you to go back and read all of the posts in this thread.

I think that is at least subtly implied in the scene. I mean, even if there was no physical pain the intrusion still would have been a violation of that person.

Yes.

I've not watched the movie so I don't know all the surrounding details, but in general I would say that torturing people to get them to do what you want is not consistent with Christianity (i.e. ethical/moral behavior which is good for all humanity). I mean, God threatens us with eternal consequences but that's not torture (even though so many people describe it as such) any more than it is torturous to let a child know there will be consequences for stealing treats from the cookie jar.

That's a good point to think about.

I'm presuming that the motives behind the fighting in the movie can be traced back to some kind of material gain. One party felt wronged in some way; the other party felt a need to defend what is theirs etc...

Yes, you would have a point with that context.

In Christianity, though, we don't fight over these material things. There would be no reason to go to war or to terrorize one another and thus no reason to torture.

One would think, right?

 

[John Helpher]

Actually, no, I'm not trying to 'challenge' you in a debate; I'm trying to expand discussion.

Heh, okay, okay. An expansion rather than a challenge.

Not really. The only reason I'm playing with the degree of the meaning is that other posters here have expressed that they didn't even think she experienced 'real pain,' let alone torture.

I understand, though I think that's probably because captain Kirk and Spock are the good guys, annnnnnd they were trying to save hundreds (or thousands?) of lives. To acknowledge that they used torture would throw their goodness into question which could end up reflecting on their own personal ideas of goodness about themselves. How much "torture" are we prepared to accept for the benefit of our way of life?

If even the good guys are called into question, then I may have to start questioning myself, too. That's one of the benefits of good entertainment; we can live vicariously through these characters; the heroes make us feel more heroic. Eddie Murphy did a pretty funny skit during one of his shows about people coming out of a movie theater after having watched Rocky or The Karate Kid feeling supercharged and thinking they could fight.

Something similar would be there with captain Kirk and Spock saving the day. They are the heroes; calling into question their morals would work against the heroism that makes us feel good about them thus potentially spoiling the movie. I mean, if Kirk and Spock were wrong in that case, then would our own government be wrong for using torture which resulted in saved lives? Would we be wrong along with them for supporting those behaviors?

 

[John Helpher]

I wasn't suggesting that Spock didn't realise his action would cause pain, but it didn't seem to me that pain was the means he was using to extract the information, but a side-effect of the retrieval process.

I understand. I'm countering with the argument that this is a technicality. Spock was not an ignorant man when it came to poking around in heads. He was one of the most experienced practitioners of the mind meld. He deliberately dug deeper into the woman's head to be sure that she wasn't hiding anything; that digging deeper is what caused the intense pain. He was aware that the pain was an inevitable part of the procedure; he could not get the information without causing the pain, yet he went ahead and did it anyway against her will.

If he could have done it without the pain, then he probably would have. It's not like he wanted the pain to be there; he wasn't being malicious. Yet the fact remains; Spock could not retrieve the information without causing pain. Pain and the goal were inseparable and since the pain was being forced onto the victim I believe the circumstance fits the definition of torture.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If he could have done it without the pain, then he probably would have. It's not like he wanted the pain to be there; he wasn't being malicious. Yet the fact remains; Spock could not retrieve the information without causing pain. Pain and the goal were inseparable and since the pain was being forced onto the victim I believe the circumstance fits the definition of torture.

It seems that we differ by definition

 

[John Helpher]

It seems that we differ by definition

Differences happen. However, one of the best ways to get clear perspective on what may be a tricky issue is to apply the circumstances to ourselves. Jesus said much the same when he said we should take the beam out of our own eye so that we may see clearly to take the speck out of the other person's eye. He wasn't saying we shouldn't judge, but rather that we'll see more clearly if we judge ourselves first.

Another example is him saying we'll be judged in the same way that we judge others. The purpose of this teaching is to get us to question whether we're using fair judgment by practicing on ourselves. If I want a person to be punished for some bad behavior, am I willing to accept the same punishment if I perform the bad behavior. If I think it's fine for others to do with less luxury in their lives, am I also prepared to go with less luxury?

We can apply this principle to the hypothetical at hand; if someone wanted something from you against your will, but the only way to get it was to cause you pain, I think you would very quickly discard whatever intellectual distinctions you may have had about whether it was torture or not. You will not reason to yourself, "but he's not trying to cause me pain; he just wants something from me and he will continue causing pain until he gets it". The pain you feel, against your will, for the purpose of causing you to give up something you do not want to give up would be torture.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Differences happen. However, one of the best ways to get clear perspective on what may be a tricky issue is to apply the circumstances to ourselves. Jesus said much the same when he said we should take the beam out of our own eye so that we may see clearly to take the speck out of the other person's eye. He wasn't saying we shouldn't judge, but rather that we'll see more clearly if we judge ourselves first.

Another example is him saying we'll be judged in the same way that we judge others. The purpose of this teaching is to get us to question whether we're using fair judgment by practicing on ourselves. If I want a person to be punished for some bad behavior, am I willing to accept the same punishment if I perform the bad behavior. If I think it's fine for others to do with less luxury in their lives, am I also prepared to go with less luxury?

We can apply this principle to the hypothetical at hand; if someone wanted something from you against your will, but the only way to get it was to cause you pain, I think you would very quickly discard whatever intellectual distinctions you may have had about whether it was torture or not. You will not reason to yourself, "but he's not trying to cause me pain; he just wants something from me and he will continue causing pain until he gets it". The pain you feel, against your will, for the purpose of causing you to give up something you do not want to give up would be torture.

In my view, the definition doesn't change depending on who is the victim. If pain was the direct means used to make me reveal information, I'd call it torture. If pain was a side-effect of the means of recovering information, I wouldn't. That doesn't mean I'd be any happier, but I might have a worse opinion of a torturer.

 

[Chesterton]

Well......do you want to back this up with sources, bro? I'm asking because I've had my share of it emotional garbage and physical pain in life, too, but I've also taken college classes in theoretical psychology, biological psychology, and philosophy and I don't come down on the side of seeing 'mental pain' as being somehow 'non-physical.'

I think you're splitting hairs on the definition of what "physical" means, but I'll share an anecdote. John McCain was once being interviewed on a local radio station here. They were talking about his captivity in Vietnam. The host asked him "what was worse, the physical torture or the emotional?" McCain immediately answered "the physical". The host actually sort of embarrassingly apologized for asking, like, yeah that was a dumb question.