Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can you be sold as a terrorist?

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:12:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can pretty much be spun in any way you want if you are clever or creative enough... And after the fact, everything an individual says/said can be said to be indicative of the type of person we now know that they are.
Debate.org Moderator
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:15:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think I can be easily sold as one. I have written many pro Marx sentiments, so selling me as a crazy communist would be very easy. I recently wrote a piece reflecting emotional anarchy, so again, media would feed off it. And then, the last thing I wrote was ,' I dont care if he anti- Muslim as long that's his personal opinion, and it doesn't reflect in bis work. ' Granted, it was in a personal message, but still.

I'll give it 9/10.

0 being next to impossible to portray you as a terrorist, and 10 being the easiest.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:16:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

That'll definitely give you a 10/10.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:21:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:16:47 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

That'll definitely give you a 10/10.

No, this would: I would have supported 9/11 and Hamas's use of human shields if I thought the ends were justified.

I don't actually believe that the ends were justified, but to be honest, Bin Laden didn't even know the Twin Towers would be destroyed completely. The real goal of the attack was to disrupt US economy.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
airmax1227
Posts: 13,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:22:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

Terrorism has a very low success rate. Rational (IE. Not insane people) can find better solutions that actually work. Can you list for me situations where terrorists have actually succeeded in achieving their goals?.. They usually have a much broader goal: Stop globalization... Remove the US from the mid east... Stop the US government from doing whatever... Remove Jews from Israel... And whatever else terrorists goals are. How many of these have been achieved in any way?

As we've all heard before... The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Debate.org Moderator
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:24:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

How do you differentiate between a person killing to 'achieve' a rational goal, and a sick and evil murderer?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:27:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:22:24 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

Terrorism has a very low success rate. Rational (IE. Not insane people) can find better solutions that actually work. Can you list for me situations where terrorists have actually succeeded in achieving their goals?.. They usually have a much broader goal: Stop globalization... Remove the US from the mid east... Stop the US government from doing whatever... Remove Jews from Israel... And whatever else terrorists goals are. How many of these have been achieved in any way?

As we've all heard before... The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The goal of 9/11 was to cause the US invade the Middle East, and by extension cause a Pan-Islamic revolution. It succeeded in the first goal, but failed utterly in the second goal, mainly due to clever diplomacy by the US and the invasion of Iraq. A lot of people don't understand quit effective terrorism is or how vulnerable the US and Israel are. If I was a terrorist, I'd be able to do a lot worse to the US than 9/11.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:31:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:24:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

How do you differentiate between a person killing to 'achieve' a rational goal, and a sick and evil murderer?

Simple- the murderer kills because of personal vendettas, mental illness, or anger. The rational person knows what to expect out of his or her actions, and believes that they will directly lead to a preferable situation. Ever read Machiavelli?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:43:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:15:13 AM, Cermank wrote:
I think I can be easily sold as one. I have written many pro Marx sentiments, so selling me as a crazy communist would be very easy. I recently wrote a piece reflecting emotional anarchy, so again, media would feed off it. And then, the last thing I wrote was ,' I dont care if he anti- Muslim as long that's his personal opinion, and it doesn't reflect in bis work. ' Granted, it was in a personal message, but still.

I'll give it 9/10.

0 being next to impossible to portray you as a terrorist, and 10 being the easiest.

Is the blog that you linked to yours? I have a feeling that I've read it before.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:45:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:43:05 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:15:13 AM, Cermank wrote:
I think I can be easily sold as one. I have written many pro Marx sentiments, so selling me as a crazy communist would be very easy. I recently wrote a piece reflecting emotional anarchy, so again, media would feed off it. And then, the last thing I wrote was ,' I dont care if he anti- Muslim as long that's his personal opinion, and it doesn't reflect in bis work. ' Granted, it was in a personal message, but still.

I'll give it 9/10.

0 being next to impossible to portray you as a terrorist, and 10 being the easiest.

Is the blog that you linked to yours? I have a feeling that I've read it before.

No, her friend, apparently. I forgot the name.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:49:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:31:37 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

How do you differentiate between a person killing to 'achieve' a rational goal, and a sick and evil murderer?

Simple- the murderer kills because of personal vendettas, mental illness, or anger. The rational person knows what to expect out of his or her actions, and believes that they will directly lead to a preferable situation. Ever read Machiavelli?

Dude. Even the most sickest murderer believes his action will lead to a preferable solution. That is the reason he kills. A person in a abusive marriage would kill his wife because he BELIEVES that killing her would solve his problems. And he's right.

The problem is that there are usually better solutions, death free solutions, if you will, especially if your cause is legitimate. Killing people is never a rational means to acieve your goals.

As long as you are depending on you 'belief' in a certain action to validate the sanity of your action, you are treading on a pretty thin line.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:15:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:49:23 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:31:37 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

How do you differentiate between a person killing to 'achieve' a rational goal, and a sick and evil murderer?

Simple- the murderer kills because of personal vendettas, mental illness, or anger. The rational person knows what to expect out of his or her actions, and believes that they will directly lead to a preferable situation. Ever read Machiavelli?

Dude. Even the most sickest murderer believes his action will lead to a preferable solution. That is the reason he kills. A person in a abusive marriage would kill his wife because he BELIEVES that killing her would solve his problems. And he's right.

That's an epistemic problem; how does anyone know that what they do is good and that they aren't just being tricked by a malevolent demon at every step? If a Somali Muslim girl is raised to believe in an international Jewish conspiracy, lives her whole life without ever meeting a Jew, and is fed daily doses of blame and hatred against Westerners for their miserable lives, who is to blame for her beliefs? The only solution is to be critical of our beliefs, and therefore narrow them down to what can best be discerned as the truth.

The problem is that there are usually better solutions, death free solutions, if you will, especially if your cause is legitimate. Killing people is never a rational means to acieve your goals.

It has been through human history, and most likely always will remain that way for its remainder. It's obviously foolish to do so in a society where people are protected through social contract and minor problems such as bad marriages and other difficulties are dealt with through a legal system, but the international realm is anarchic. What would you have the US do? Sit down and chat with Putin?

Even we were living in caves, our social and tribal order has always been determined by killing. We are entirely the products of natural selection, and neither our conception of morality nor our proclamation of human rights seem to be congruent with that picture. This is an interesting sci-fi story that highlights the absurdity or declaring a course of action or way of living to be the "one true path": http://lesswrong.com... I would recommend you or anyone interested in these types of ethical problems read it.

As long as you are depending on you 'belief' in a certain action to validate the sanity of your action, you are treading on a pretty thin line.

Again; epistemic problem.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:45:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:15:35 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:49:23 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:31:37 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

How do you differentiate between a person killing to 'achieve' a rational goal, and a sick and evil murderer?

Simple- the murderer kills because of personal vendettas, mental illness, or anger. The rational person knows what to expect out of his or her actions, and believes that they will directly lead to a preferable situation. Ever read Machiavelli?

Dude. Even the most sickest murderer believes his action will lead to a preferable solution. That is the reason he kills. A person in a abusive marriage would kill his wife because he BELIEVES that killing her would solve his problems. And he's right.

That's an epistemic problem; how does anyone know that what they do is good and that they aren't just being tricked by a malevolent demon at every step? If a Somali Muslim girl is raised to believe in an international Jewish conspiracy, lives her whole life without ever meeting a Jew, and is fed daily doses of blame and hatred against Westerners for their miserable lives, who is to blame for her beliefs? The only solution is to be critical of our beliefs, and therefore narrow them down to what can best be discerned as the truth.

Of course. The contention, however, is that the ' belief' is subjective. And hence, any effort to distinguish an action based on subjective belief as a rational action OR a sick murder is baseless. Your distinction isn't disjoint.

The problem is that there are usually better solutions, death free solutions, if you will, especially if your cause is legitimate. Killing people is never a rational means to acieve your goals.

It has been through human history, and most likely always will remain that way for its remainder. It's obviously foolish to do so in a society where people are protected through social contract and minor problems such as bad marriages and other difficulties are dealt with through a legal system, but the international realm is anarchic. What would you have the US do? Sit down and chat with Putin?

Discussing morality in terms of international players requires definitions different than those required when we are talking of individual actions. Id say I partially agree with the contention that collateral deaths in international politics are unavoidable. They're still not moral.

Lets test this, if the justice system was broken, would you say a husband killing his wife would be 'justified'?

Even we were living in caves, our social and tribal order has always been determined by killing. We are entirely the products of natural selection, and neither our conception of morality nor our proclamation of human rights seem to be congruent with that picture. This is an interesting sci-fi story that highlights the absurdity or declaring a course of action or way of living to be the "one true path": http://lesswrong.com... I would recommend you or anyone interested in these types of ethical problems read it.

See, you're confusing the terms 'ought' with ' had'. Just because something has traditionally 'always happened' doesn't make it moral. Morality is distinct from historical actions.

Natural selection is 'the survival of the fittest'. When you relate this to the affinity to kill, you are linking 'power' to 'killings', which is a flawed premise. You don't need to kill in order to have power. Just the ability is sufficient. A credible threat.

As long as you are depending on you 'belief' in a certain action to validate the sanity of your action, you are treading on a pretty thin line.

Again; epistemic problem.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:18:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 4:45:44 AM, Cermank wrote:
Of course. The contention, however, is that the ' belief' is subjective. And hence, any effort to distinguish an action based on subjective belief as a rational action OR a sick murder is baseless. Your distinction isn't disjoint.

Yes, belief is subjective. We are subjective creatures. Osama Bin Laden did what was best to advance his goals and Bush did the same in response. The trick, then, is to not see the world through ideological, subjective filters but as it is.

The problem is that there are usually better solutions, death free solutions, if you will, especially if your cause is legitimate. Killing people is never a rational means to acieve your goals.

It has been through human history, and most likely always will remain that way for its remainder. It's obviously foolish to do so in a society where people are protected through social contract and minor problems such as bad marriages and other difficulties are dealt with through a legal system, but the international realm is anarchic. What would you have the US do? Sit down and chat with Putin?

Discussing morality in terms of international players requires definitions different than those required when we are talking of individual actions. Id say I partially agree with the contention that collateral deaths in international politics are unavoidable. They're still not moral.

Not fundamentally; they are still moral agents. Pragmatism is an ethic in and of itself, or analogous to such, so I don't understand why unavoidable collateral damage is immoral.

Lets test this, if the justice system was broken, would you say a husband killing his wife would be 'justified'?

I don't believe that's how it works. Law by definition conforms to human needs, so postulating extreme scenarios in which, say, people could never get divorced from each other (thereby leaving murder as the only other alternative) is about as useful as analogizing about how human society would function *if* people could kill with a glance.

Even we were living in caves, our social and tribal order has always been determined by killing. We are entirely the products of natural selection, and neither our conception of morality nor our proclamation of human rights seem to be congruent with that picture. This is an interesting sci-fi story that highlights the absurdity or declaring a course of action or way of living to be the "one true path": http://lesswrong.com... I would recommend you or anyone interested in these types of ethical problems read it.

See, you're confusing the terms 'ought' with ' had'. Just because something has traditionally 'always happened' doesn't make it moral. Morality is distinct from historical actions.

No, I'm not making an appeal to tradition in and of itself, I'm pointing out that we are not designed to live silly Gandhian lives. You think the Nazis would have seen the light and not committed the Holocaust if the Jews had followed Gandhi's suggestion to not resist? Human are biologically engineered to carry out genocide. Any reasonable moral system should conform to reality, and neither Gandhi's morality nor his psychological judgements come into contact with it any point.

(Also, did you read the story? :p It really is good.)

Natural selection is 'the survival of the fittest'. When you relate this to the affinity to kill, you are linking 'power' to 'killings', which is a flawed premise. You don't need to kill in order to have power. Just the ability is sufficient. A credible threat.

Yeah, that's what the US generally does. Killing should be avoided where unnecessary. I think that's pretty uncontroversial.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:01:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 5:18:50 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 4:45:44 AM, Cermank wrote:
Of course. The contention, however, is that the ' belief' is subjective. And hence, any effort to distinguish an action based on subjective belief as a rational action OR a sick murder is baseless. Your distinction isn't disjoint.

Yes, belief is subjective. We are subjective creatures. Osama Bin Laden did what was best to advance his goals and Bush did the same in response. The trick, then, is to not see the world through ideological, subjective filters but as it is.

Yes it is. But once you believe killing people, or striking terror in their hearts is the legit way to ensure your demands are heard, you lose your legitimacy. When you debate, as soon as you employ ad homonyms, you lose legitimacy. This is the same principle.

The problem is that there are usually better solutions, death free solutions, if you will, especially if your cause is legitimate. Killing people is never a rational means to acieve your goals.

It has been through human history, and most likely always will remain that way for its remainder. It's obviously foolish to do so in a society where people are protected through social contract and minor problems such as bad marriages and other difficulties are dealt with through a legal system, but the international realm is anarchic. What would you have the US do? Sit down and chat with Putin?

Discussing morality in terms of international players requires definitions different than those required when we are talking of individual actions. Id say I partially agree with the contention that collateral deaths in international politics are unavoidable. They're still not moral.

Not fundamentally; they are still moral agents. Pragmatism is an ethic in and of itself, or analogous to such, so I don't understand why unavoidable collateral damage is immoral.

Again, something that IS is different from something that OUGHT to be. Pragmatism is a P implies Q argument, that theories should be practical. Q here does not imply P. Anything that actually occurs is not moral. In the present form of globalised diplomacy, collateral deaths are unavoidable. However, we can evolve into a system where the diplomacy is not so integrated, for example, keeping in line with a valid moral structure. Something akin to Switzerland-esque policy.

Lets test this, if the justice system was broken, would you say a husband killing his wife would be 'justified'?

I don't believe that's how it works. Law by definition conforms to human needs, so postulating extreme scenarios in which, say, people could never get divorced from each other (thereby leaving murder as the only other alternative) is about as useful as analogizing about how human society would function *if* people could kill with a glance.

Nope. There ARE countries where the judicial structure is so overloaded that it takes 20 - 40 years to get a date to hear a case. There are countries with laws where a female divorcing a male is practically not an option. Its not a far fetched assumption.

Even we were living in caves, our social and tribal order has always been determined by killing. We are entirely the products of natural selection, and neither our conception of morality nor our proclamation of human rights seem to be congruent with that picture. This is an interesting sci-fi story that highlights the absurdity or declaring a course of action or way of living to be the "one true path": http://lesswrong.com... I would recommend you or anyone interested in these types of ethical problems read it.

See, you're confusing the terms 'ought' with ' had'. Just because something has traditionally 'always happened' doesn't make it moral. Morality is distinct from historical actions.

No, I'm not making an appeal to tradition in and of itself, I'm pointing out that we are not designed to live silly Gandhian lives. You think the Nazis would have seen the light and not committed the Holocaust if the Jews had followed Gandhi's suggestion to not resist? Human are biologically engineered to carry out genocide. Any reasonable moral system should conform to reality, and neither Gandhi's morality nor his psychological judgements come into contact with it any point.

Gandhi... never advocated not resisting. The dude spearheaded Indian freedom struggle. He advocated a different type of struggle, struggling by appealing to the conscience of the violator. Through non violence. Your cause should not have innocent blood to it. And this is true especially in international politics, when collusion of groups and blocks are what guide the diplomatic strature.

(Also, did you read the story? :p It really is good.)

I did. I found it funny, (especially the WE DO NOT EAT CHILDREN bit), but I didn't get the relavance to the discussion :-(

Natural selection is 'the survival of the fittest'. When you relate this to the affinity to kill, you are linking 'power' to 'killings', which is a flawed premise. You don't need to kill in order to have power. Just the ability is sufficient. A credible threat.

Yeah, that's what the US generally does. Killing should be avoided where unnecessary. I think that's pretty uncontroversial.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:09:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:03:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm a godless objectivist... so I piss off both sides. I'm sure they'd come up with something.

What's a godless objectivist?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:12:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:09:40 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:03:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm a godless objectivist... so I piss off both sides. I'm sure they'd come up with something.

What's a godless objectivist?

Godless = I believe there is no God

Objectivist = "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:13:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:03:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm a godless objectivist... so I piss off both sides. I'm sure they'd come up with something.

"He was a self proclaimed godless objectivist, yet friends and family say they never saw it coming, CNN investigates tonight at 7 on 'inside the mind of a domestic terrorist'"
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:18:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
But ya I think you can find something on just about anyone which could be misconstrued in that way. That's what makes defending our right to due process so important, even for domestic terrorists, because one day someone might use the fact that you read Bin Ladens 'reasons for 911' letter to peg you as an 'associated force' of Al Qaeda.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:29:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:12:11 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:09:40 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 9:03:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I'm a godless objectivist... so I piss off both sides. I'm sure they'd come up with something.

What's a godless objectivist?

Godless = I believe there is no God

Objectivist = "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand

And we chronical his descent to the dark side, starting with that stormy night when he broke his ties with the Lord. Devoid of any guiding light, with no one to answer to but his sinful self, it was obvious to everyone but those blinded by love. Today at 9, with intelligent insights from a Harvard graduated psychologist, Mr. Dick Stanley.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 9:32:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 9:18:55 AM, lewis20 wrote:
But ya I think you can find something on just about anyone which could be misconstrued in that way. That's what makes defending our right to due process so important, even for domestic terrorists, because one day someone might use the fact that you read Bin Ladens 'reasons for 911' letter to peg you as an 'associated force' of Al Qaeda.

True. I think this is especially relavant to DDO users, considering we do say a lot of shite.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:14:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:49:23 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:31:37 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:24:48 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:13:33 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/21/2013 3:03:38 AM, Cermank wrote:
I was going through some tweets of the person being blamed for the Boston killings, and I couldnt help but notice how many of the seemingly normal tweets were being touted as an 'insight into his dark mind'.

Do you think the matter you post on public domain can be twisted and dissected in a manner to sell you as a terrorist/ rapist/ murderer to the general public?

Anything can. It amazes me how much terrorists are demonized in our society- terrorism as a means of achieving certain goals is rational and is quite distinct from supervillainy. "Killing and frightening people" is, by definition, the means, not the end. I don't understand why terrorists have to be sick or evil murderers in order to do terrorism.

How do you differentiate between a person killing to 'achieve' a rational goal, and a sick and evil murderer?

Simple- the murderer kills because of personal vendettas, mental illness, or anger. The rational person knows what to expect out of his or her actions, and believes that they will directly lead to a preferable situation. Ever read Machiavelli?

Dude. Even the most sickest murderer believes his action will lead to a preferable solution. That is the reason he kills. A person in a abusive marriage would kill his wife because he BELIEVES that killing her would solve his problems. And he's right.

The problem is that there are usually better solutions, death free solutions, if you will, especially if your cause is legitimate. Killing people is never a rational means to acieve your goals.

Might want to be careful about throwing out the "never" word (or "always" on the flip side). It is pretty easy to come up with hypothetical situations where killing is the most rational method.


As long as you are depending on you 'belief' in a certain action to validate the sanity of your action, you are treading on a pretty thin line.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:14:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure that almost everyone on DDO has said some stuff that could easily be twisted to make them out to be sold as a terrorist.

Hell, Ore_ele's last post is a great demonstration.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:19:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I could easy be sold out as a terrorist by nothing more than my political compass quiz score. They wouldn't even need quotes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 5:19:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I could easy be sold out as a terrorist by nothing more than my political compass quiz score. They wouldn't even need quotes.

I might do that, if I'm bored enough. Choose a target and gather some quotes to make them seem like a terrorist and make a "news" article about them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 5:22:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 5:14:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm pretty sure that almost everyone on DDO has said some stuff that could easily be twisted to make them out to be sold as a terrorist.

Hell, Ore_ele's last post is a great demonstration.

'Our researchers discovered an online forum in which the accused said 'It is pretty easy to come up with hypothetical situations where killing is the most rational' how could no one have seen the warning signs of this home grown domestic terrorist?'
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler