Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Guilt by affiliation.

Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:34:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People should be guilty by helping their affiliations ?

For example, if you donate money to a mosque, and some members of her make terrorism. You're not a terrorist, but the active members of your group are.

The same goes for pedophiles priests, or companies that exploit people.

It's the no true scotsman fallacy.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:38:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:34:06 AM, Lupo wrote:
People should be guilty by helping their affiliations ?

For example, if you donate money to a mosque, and some members of her make terrorism. You're not a terrorist, but the active members of your group are.

The same goes for pedophiles priests, or companies that exploit people.

It's the no true scotsman fallacy.

No, I believe it is guilt by association fallacy.
No true Scotsman would be for a Muslim who engages in terrorism to say that a Muslim who does not engage in terrorism is not a Muslim, since no true Muslim would be opposed to it.
My work here is, finally, done.
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:41:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:38:32 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:34:06 AM, Lupo wrote:
People should be guilty by helping their affiliations ?

For example, if you donate money to a mosque, and some members of her make terrorism. You're not a terrorist, but the active members of your group are.

The same goes for pedophiles priests, or companies that exploit people.

It's the no true scotsman fallacy.

No, I believe it is guilt by association fallacy.
No true Scotsman would be for a Muslim who engages in terrorism to say that a Muslim who does not engage in terrorism is not a Muslim, since no true Muslim would be opposed to it.

That's right, thanks for the correction.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:56:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Should there be guilt by affiliation? Are you talking about law or just about being judged?

for both cases the answer is yes, but to differing degrees. The first thing to note is that it is not a binary "guilty" or "not guilty". Let's use the terrorism example.

Person A donates, but didn't know it would go to terrorism and has regret for it and never donates again after they realize the truth.

Person B donates, knowing that some will go to terrorism and just writes it off as "as longer as 51% goes to good, it is okay."

Person C donates with the intention of helping and funding the terrorism activity and just uses the mosque to mask their intentions.

All three have different levels of guilt by association.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:53:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 8:56:58 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Should there be guilt by affiliation? Are you talking about law or just about being judged?

for both cases the answer is yes, but to differing degrees. The first thing to note is that it is not a binary "guilty" or "not guilty". Let's use the terrorism example.

Person A donates, but didn't know it would go to terrorism and has regret for it and never donates again after they realize the truth.

Person B donates, knowing that some will go to terrorism and just writes it off as "as longer as 51% goes to good, it is okay."

Person C donates with the intention of helping and funding the terrorism activity and just uses the mosque to mask their intentions.

All three have different levels of guilt by association.

I just don't agree with the Person B, if you know that part of your money help terrorism, you are guilty.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:05:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 10:53:50 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:56:58 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Should there be guilt by affiliation? Are you talking about law or just about being judged?

for both cases the answer is yes, but to differing degrees. The first thing to note is that it is not a binary "guilty" or "not guilty". Let's use the terrorism example.

Person A donates, but didn't know it would go to terrorism and has regret for it and never donates again after they realize the truth.

Person B donates, knowing that some will go to terrorism and just writes it off as "as longer as 51% goes to good, it is okay."

Person C donates with the intention of helping and funding the terrorism activity and just uses the mosque to mask their intentions.

All three have different levels of guilt by association.

I just don't agree with the Person B, if you know that part of your money help terrorism, you are guilty.

What if you put it to something else, say a charity that 90% goes to the cause, 5% to admin costs and 5% to the CEO, who you know spends that money on illegal dog fights and other animal abuses?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 6:22:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 1:05:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/24/2014 10:53:50 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 10/24/2014 8:56:58 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Should there be guilt by affiliation? Are you talking about law or just about being judged?

for both cases the answer is yes, but to differing degrees. The first thing to note is that it is not a binary "guilty" or "not guilty". Let's use the terrorism example.

Person A donates, but didn't know it would go to terrorism and has regret for it and never donates again after they realize the truth.

Person B donates, knowing that some will go to terrorism and just writes it off as "as longer as 51% goes to good, it is okay."

Person C donates with the intention of helping and funding the terrorism activity and just uses the mosque to mask their intentions.

All three have different levels of guilt by association.

I just don't agree with the Person B, if you know that part of your money help terrorism, you are guilty.

What if you put it to something else, say a charity that 90% goes to the cause, 5% to admin costs and 5% to the CEO, who you know spends that money on illegal dog fights and other animal abuses?

If you know, you are conniving.
To continue donating, you have to fight to oust these people.