McDanger, have you noticed that generally when someone who isn't theistic on this board mentioned morality or right/wrong, I don't ask them where it fits into their worldview?

I was speaking very specifically to Kris and his ideology.

Quote :

"all it takes for somebody to decide that something is right or wrong is a human brain"

No, all it takes to guess whether something is right or wrong is a human brain. But a person thinking that something is right does not make it right.

That's enough of this for this thread anyway, if you want to carry it on, give it its own thread.

11/26/2006 1:10:06 PM

I might do that, but discussions of morality always run into God-folks vs. everybody else.

11/26/2006 1:55:08 PM

Quote :

"The precedent is already long-set, it's a bit late to be worrying about it now."

The precedent right now is that it isn't ok to kill helpless people. I think that's fairly obvious.

Quote :

"You're going to need something more than Kris fiat to show that a government performing an action under certain circumstances will cause that action to "start happening everywhere.""

It's fairly obvious that a change in morality is going to cause people to act on it.

Quote :

"But what about a stealth bomber? It's not like Saddam picking up a pistol from the table puts that in any kind of danger."

Could it still be shot down? Regardless, I think you're missing a very simple point by complicating it with things that don't apply to this situation. In this situation a civilian (whether he was a terrorist or not) is being killed for something that he is accused of having done without a trial. This is wrong. No two ways about it.

Quote :

"So now here you can either say, "Yes, it is acceptable to blow up Saddam, because he is armed,""

Quote :

""No, it is not acceptable to blow up Saddam, because he is unarmed against that threat"

I've never said either one of those. Argue agianst what I say, don't make up points for me and argue agianst them.

11/26/2006 1:59:00 PM

Quote :

"I've never said either one of those. Argue agianst what I say, don't make up points for me and argue agianst them."

No, but you also made an awfully big production out of pointing out that you never said it was OK to try to get Saddam. Now, why don't you clear all of this up for us once and for all by telling us, clearly and succinctly, whether or not it is OK to try to blow up a specific member of an enemy military leadership when he is armed, and then if he is not armed.

Quote :

"Regardless, I think you're missing a very simple point by complicating it with things that don't apply to this situation. In this situation a civilian (whether he was a terrorist or not) is being killed for something that he is accused of having done without a trial. This is wrong. No two ways about it."

Oh, but they do apply, and how! In order for us to get anywhere near your last assertion, we have to first answer all of these other questions I've put forward. You've skipped the beginning and the middle and gone straight for the denou-fucking-ment. You never even came close to providing a decent rationale for why a terrorist is indistinguishable from any other kind of criminal, even though in his actions, his organization, and his own mindset he's just an unconventional soldier in an unconventional army. You've dodged a hell of a lot and answered very little.

Quote :

"The precedent right now is that it isn't ok to kill helpless people. I think that's fairly obvious."

Then why doesn't anyone bat an eye when we drop bunker-busters from miles away from an invisible plane (the likes of which has never been shot down) against an old guy on dialysis whose entire force does not have one single weapon with even a shadow of a hint of a chance of taking down said plane?

The precedent isn't about whether the target is helpless or not, because people see more than just that aspect. The precedent is about a whole slew of criteria, and it is already firmly established, and from time to time it leads to a helpless guy getting blasted.

11/26/2006 6:05:24 PM

Quote :

"No, but you also made an awfully big production out of pointing out that you never said it was OK to try to get Saddam."

Don't make a strawman arguement and I won't have to call you out for it.

Quote :

"Now, why don't you clear all of this up for us once and for all by telling us, clearly and succinctly, whether or not it is OK to try to blow up a specific member of an enemy military leadership when he is armed, and then if he is not armed."

Depends on a lot of circumstances.
But regardless, this is a loaded question. You'll apply my answer to this question to completely different set of circumstances.

Quote :

"In order for us to get anywhere near your last assertion, we have to first answer all of these other questions I've put forward."

Your other set of questions do nothing but insult my worldview. I provide it for you and then you ask me why world leaders should believe it. This is completely besides the point of what my worldview actually is. My worldview isn't dependant of whether I could get other people to believe it.

Quote :

"You never even came close to providing a decent rationale for why a terrorist is indistinguishable from any other kind of criminal, even though in his actions, his organization, and his own mindset he's just an unconventional soldier in an unconventional army."

He is like a criminal because he is indistinguishable from the normal populace. Thus the approach to dealing with them must be different. We can have our army attack and kill other soliders because they are easy to distinguish, this same approach doesn't work with terrorists because we can't tell if they actually are a terrorist, much like a criminal.

Quote :

"Then why doesn't anyone bat an eye when we drop bunker-busters from miles away from an invisible plane"

Listen closely. You've made this mistake several times. MORALITY IS NOT DEPENDANT ON IT'S ACCEPTANCE BY MOST PEOPLE. If everyone suddenly thought stealing was OK, that wouldn't suddenly make it moral.

11/26/2006 6:23:39 PM

Quote :

"Listen closely. You've made this mistake several times. MORALITY IS NOT DEPENDANT ON IT'S ACCEPTANCE BY MOST PEOPLE."

No, you look closely, at what I was responding to, which was a quote about precedence. Not morality. I was trying to establish that the precedent does exist as I have described it, not say what is right and wrong.

Quote :

"He is like a criminal because he is indistinguishable from the normal populace."

Seems like we're putting an awful lot of moral weight into conformist dressing, don't you think?

Quote :

"I provide it for you and then you ask me why world leaders should believe it."

No, I'm asking you why I should believe it, or why anyone should believe it. And you're right, your worldview is your own regardless of who buys into it, so is everybody else's, but if you're not going to try to defend it, then why on Earth are you in the goddamn Soap Box?

Quote :

"But regardless, this is a loaded question. You'll apply my answer to this question to completely different set of circumstances."

Have a leap of faith in me and just answer the fucking question. Is there a circumstance under which this type of action is OK. Yes or no. We can build up from there.

Quote :

"Don't make a strawman arguement and I won't have to call you out for it."

You keep trying to act as though these issues are completely separate and unrelated, and that's simply not so. So far you've basically said that one guy can be killed and another guy can't based on their occupations, their clothes, and what they have in their hand, because a uniform military man with a gun is fair game but plainclothes terrorist financier with a checkbook is not. Those are three distinctions you need to justify as making the difference between acceptable and unacceptable targets.

11/26/2006 6:52:20 PM

Quote :

"No, you look closely, at what I was responding to, which was a quote about precedence. Not morality. I was trying to establish that the precedent does exist as I have described it, not say what is right and wrong."

The precedent isn't what's right or wrong, it's about what best suits society. This just happens to fall in line with right and wrong. However popular opinion doesn't influence either of these.

Quote :

"Seems like we're putting an awful lot of moral weight into conformist dressing, don't you think?"

It's not "moral weight" it's how they should be handled.

Quote :

"No, I'm asking you why I should believe it, or why anyone should believe it."

You asked me what I believed, I told you, I don't care if you or anyone else believes it.

Quote :

"if you're not going to try to defend it, then why on Earth are you in the goddamn Soap Box?"

I'm not going to try to convince you of my view of morality, I had never planned on arguing about it. You asked me what I believed, that shouldn't imply that I must convince you of it.

Quote :

"Have a leap of faith in me and just answer the fucking question."

Ok, I'll answer it, but don't attempt to apply it to some other situation, and don't try to claim that my belief is wrong because other people don't believe it, agreed?

I think it is wrong to kill people outside of a real war unless in self defense.

Quote :

"You keep trying to act as though these issues are completely separate and unrelated, and that's simply not so."

I didn't "act like" anything. You made up an arguement for me and started arguing agianst it. That was a strawman.

11/26/2006 7:23:48 PM

Quote :

"The precedent isn't what's right or wrong"

I know that. I'm not talking about right or wrong at all in this particular tack of the discussion. I'm talking about what precedent is set. I'm saying it's one precedent, and you're saying it's another. And precedent has a great deal to do with what everybody sees as acceptable to do.

Quote :

"It's not "moral weight" it's how they should be handled."

You are saying that one of the big relevant differences between an acceptable action and an unacceptable action is how easily they can be distinguished from the population, which has to do with appearance, and if something's the big relevant difference between two categories in a moral discussion, it's carrying some hefty moral weight.

Quote :

"You asked me what I believed, I told you"

I asked you for the purpose of bringing about some kind of reasonable defense for your original assertion.

Quote :

"I'm not going to try to convince you of my view of morality"

No one's asking you to convert, I'm asking you to defend. You've made a point. Now, for once the etiquette of the Soap Box and of actually philosophical argument happen to be the same, in that, when you make an assertion, you should back it up.

Quote :

"I think it is wrong to kill people outside of a real war unless in self defense."

Thank you! That is a start.

Now the next round of questions:
1) How do you define a "real war?"
2) Within a "real war," what targets, generally speaking, are acceptable?

Quote :

"You made up an arguement for me and started arguing agianst it."

I tried to set up an alterative situation to drag a more detailed explanation of your beliefs than "you're not a reasonable human being" and the unsupported assertion that "terrorists are just criminals." But this particular line of discussion is not of any great use, and I don't intend to continue responding to it, even if that gives me the appearance of weakness or conceding defeat.

11/26/2006 8:42:46 PM

Quote :

"I'm talking about what precedent is set. I'm saying it's one precedent, and you're saying it's another."

The specifics of the precedent are irrelevant.

Quote :

"You are saying that one of the big relevant differences between an acceptable action and an unacceptable action is how easily they can be distinguished from the population, which has to do with appearance, and if something's the big relevant difference between two categories in a moral discussion, it's carrying some hefty moral weight."

So are you saying that there is no difference between killing an enemy solider that's trying to kill you versus a normal civilian?

Quote :

"I asked you for the purpose of bringing about some kind of reasonable defense for your original assertion."

My original assertion was nothing more than "people deserve fair trials" and "non-threatening people shouldn't be violently attacked by the police". I don't see how anyone can disagree with them unless they try to overly complicate them as you are trying to do.

Quote :

"I'm asking you to defend."

I don't care to defend arguements I never made.

Quote :

"1) How do you define a "real war?" 2) Within a "real war," what targets, generally speaking, are acceptable?"

War is irrelevant.

Quote :

"I tried to set up an alterative situation to drag a more detailed explanation of your beliefs than "you're not a reasonable human being" and the unsupported assertion that "terrorists are just criminals.""

No, you made a strawman.

11/26/2006 10:03:08 PM

Quote :

"The specifics of the precedent are irrelevant."

They're two completely different fucking precedents we're talking about! One of killing unarmed people, one of not doing so.

Quote :

"So are you saying that there is no difference between killing an enemy solider that's trying to kill you versus a normal civilian?"

No, I'm as convinced as you are that there is a difference, but I think we need to hash out where those differences lie so we can see where guys like terrorists lie, among other things.

Quote :

"My original assertion was nothing more than "people deserve fair trials" and "non-threatening people shouldn't be violently attacked by the police"."

If I'm overcomplicating, then you're oversimplifying just as badly. "People deserve fair trials" isn't a general maxim that you subscribe to, from what you've said -- it's OK to shoot people who pose an immediate threat to you without a trial, and it's OK to shoot an enemy soldier without a trial. You're trying to pull it over some pretty broad area where it just don't go.

Quote :

"I don't care to defend arguements I never made."

I'm asking you to defend some specific things, like your attempts with the "fair trials for everyone!" bit I just mentioned and other things you've said as the argument went on.

Quote :

"War is irrelevant."

You said "outside a real war." You made it part of your statement, and I doubt you did so idly.

11/27/2006 2:02:33 AM

Quote :

"They're two completely different fucking precedents we're talking about! One of killing unarmed people, one of not doing so."

That's irrelevant to what the precedent does.

Quote :

"No, I'm as convinced as you are that there is a difference, but I think we need to hash out where those differences lie so we can see where guys like terrorists lie, among other things."

That's easy the difference is that one is an enemy solider and the other is a civilian.

Quote :

"from what you've said -- it's OK to shoot people who pose an immediate threat to you without a trial, and it's OK to shoot an enemy soldier without a trial."

I never said any of those things. You're building a strawman agian.

11/27/2006 1:14:53 PM

Quote :

"That's irrelevant to what the precedent does."

Please explain to me how a precedent of doing one thing is the same as a precedent of doing the exact opposite thing.

Quote :

"That's easy the difference is that one is an enemy solider and the other is a civilian."

You're taking this as a self-evident truth, and it just isn't.

Quote :

"I never said any of those things."

Sigh...you're right, you didn't. You said it was wrong to kill people outside of a war unless it was in self defense, and I was just hoping that you were being fairly comprehensive in your list of types of killing that were wrong. So now I have to get you to explicitly list every single thing you believe, then.

Is it acceptable to kill in self defense when there is no alternative?
Is it acceptable for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier in a war?

[Edited on November 28, 2006 at 1:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2006 1:08:29 PM

Quote :

"Please explain to me how a precedent of doing one thing is the same as a precedent of doing the exact opposite thing."

The effect of a precedent is the same mechanism at work no matter what the precedent actually is.

Quote :

"You're taking this as a self-evident truth, and it just isn't."

Well we're right back where we were. Are you agian telling me that a civilian and an enemy solider are indistinguishable?

Quote :

"You said it was wrong to kill people outside of a war unless it was in self defense, and I was just hoping that you were being fairly comprehensive in your list of types of killing that were wrong."

You were trying to force me into an indefensable arguement by throwing loaded questions at me and making up my arguements for me.

Quote :

"Is it acceptable to kill in self defense when there is no alternative? Is it acceptable for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier in a war?"

Both depend. You can't throw questions like that at me.
Who is killing who, assuming there's no ESP, how can that person be sure there is no alternative, is the other solider a captured prisoner, there are so many stipulations in questions like that.

I know what you're trying to do, and I'm not going to let you push that arguement on me.

11/28/2006 1:57:08 PM

Quote :

"The effect of a precedent is the same mechanism at work no matter what the precedent actually is."

So the precedent that I think is already long set, which is that sometimes it's necessary and thus OK to kill unarmed people, and the precedent you think is set, that it is not OK, are essentially similar?

I'm confused.

Quote :

"Are you agian telling me that a civilian and an enemy solider are indistinguishable?"

Now who's straw-manning? Of course they're distinguishable -- but that could be by something as superficial as uniform. What's the relevant distinction, and is it one terrorists have? That's what I'm driving at.

Quote :

"You were trying to force me into an indefensable arguement"

No, I'm trying to get you to actually state your position on some of these issues, instead of making a negative statement that strongly implies a positive counterpart and then throwing a hissy fit when I assume that positive.

Quote :

"Who is killing who, assuming there's no ESP, how can that person be sure there is no alternative, is the other solider a captured prisoner, there are so many stipulations in questions like that. I know what you're trying to do, and I'm not going to let you push that arguement on me."

I honestly don't even know what you think I'm trying to do.

Do I honestly have to preface every single fucking question that I ask with, "Does the situation exist in which you would say..."? OK, fine, I'll try again:

1) Is it never acceptable to kill a person for reasons other than self-defense and war?
2) Is there a set of circumstances involving self defense under which it is acceptable to kill a person?
3) Is there a scenario in ware where it would be acceptable for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier?

There, I've left about as little wiggle room as I could in those questions, I cannot possibly take your answers to any of them and say, "Oh so you think it's OK to shoot POW's or baby's playfully trying to hit me" or some other such nonsense that you apparently expect from me.

11/28/2006 6:09:13 PM

Quote :

"So the precedent that I think is already long set, which is that sometimes it's necessary and thus OK to kill unarmed people, and the precedent you think is set, that it is not OK, are essentially similar?"

The mechanism at work is, they're both precedents, they both work in the same way. This isn't that hard to understand.

Quote :

"Now who's straw-manning?"

You'll note I asked a question. I didn't give you an arguement and then start attacking it.

Quote :

"Of course they're distinguishable -- but that could be by something as superficial as uniform."

To quote you earlier, Seems like we're putting an awful lot of moral weight into conformist dressing, don't you think?

Quote :

"No, I'm trying to get you to actually state your position on some of these issues"

I don't really intend to state my feelings on any issues outside of what I originally posted in this thread.

Quote :

"I honestly don't even know what you think I'm trying to do."

You're trying to get me to discriminate between murder and other grey areas like war and self defense, and I don't plan on doing it, it's outside the scope of this thread.

Quote :

"There, I've left about as little wiggle room as I could in those questions"

Actually you've came out and asked exactly what you are getting at rather than trying to trick me into it. And I don't plan on answering those, because as I said before, they are irrelevant to the basic moral principles I stated in this thread.

11/28/2006 8:13:25 PM

You're right, Kris

Establishing whether or not it was OK to shoot that terrorist has nothing to do with your thread about it not being OK to shoot that terrorist.

11/29/2006 11:48:32 AM

we're talking about bombing a suspected criminal in a civilian city

it's quite a bit different.

11/29/2006 11:55:25 AM

I think he was trying to progress you through your logic. That might not be something you're interested in though.

11/29/2006 11:57:28 AM

You're not even willing to discuss the possibility that there are important distinctions between "terrorist" and "criminal," nor are you willing to discuss any important distinction there may be between bombing someone inside a city (or various other contexts) and bombing them outside of one, or anything else.

You made a thread whose sole purpose, as far as I can see, was to provide you with a platform to express broad and apparently baseless moral judgements with no possibility for discussion. I had hoped maybe I was wrong, that you were trying to start some kind of exchange, but clearly that was optimistic of me, and so I'm giving up on this thread completely. And since no one else appears to have had the patience to try to force a debate out of it, I think I can safely say

[/thread]

as a result

11/29/2006 3:36:00 PM

Quote :

"You're not even willing to discuss the possibility that there are important distinctions between "terrorist" and "criminal," nor are you willing to discuss any important distinction there may be between bombing someone inside a city (or various other contexts) and bombing them outside of one, or anything else."

They're irrelevant. The point is that he was suspected of a crime, and he was being bombed in a residental area. Any other debate is meaningless.

11/29/2006 4:18:22 PM