Death To Traitors

Former Member · December 2001

Posted by Diesel:

We humans must be protected from all inanimate objects which 'we' could use to kill one another...cars, hammers, knives, etc. The same logic applies.

Cars....oh yes, protect the public, cause I'm getting a new car...with my track record! *GASP!* <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Soap for brains???? I was thinking of another word other than soap.... <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0"> <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Former Member · December 2001

Originally posted by MacKenZie:


I fully support individual responsibility, but not culpability.

The difference is, roughly speaking, as follows. Suppose you use a gun to shoot some poor sod in the head. He dies (not surprisingly). I say that the gun is responsible for his death (if you had squeezed your finger on empty air he wouldn't have died) but not culpable (it had no free will).

Let's see... I can't get a gun, because society has deemed it a creation with its own evil agenda... I pisk up the biggest damned rock I can find to bash the brains out of the pizzant that has agitated me. I am NOT personally, individually responsible, because I have no free will. GOD is the responsible party, because without His creating the rock, the brains would still be within the cranium of my prey. If God hadn't wanted me to do it, He wouldn't have empowered me by creating the rock...

Is THAT what you meant??? <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Former Member · January 2002

:: Reads GI_Jane and Thanatos' responses and chuckles. ::

Yes, the gun is an inanimate object. Right. So, it's damn stupid to say it is culpable (i.e. guilty). However, it is responsible. So is eveything along the line from the origin (be that the man, if you want to ascribe free will to him, or a god or goddess, or some spirit of some kind) of the action to the final result. Everything along the line is responsible, for without each and everyone of them the end result would not have come to pass.

The problem here lies in the word, not the concept. In courts of law, "held responsible" translates as "culpable." Think about that for a moment.

As for the death penalty, GI_Jane, take the trouble to read some of my other posts (start with the Roy Whiting threads) and you'll see that I support it.

Come on, somebody, convince me of human free will. Present me with evidence so utterly overwhelming that I cannot help but accept your position. I have examined the so-called facts, and I don't see a proof or disproof, which means that I swing with my judgement, which may or may not be right.

Without free will, there's no culpability, only responsibility. Which means, for those who haven't twigged yet, that criminal punishment, qua punishment, is unjustified. Correction, yes. Rehabilitation, yes. Re-education, yes. Isolation while the above attempt to transform the "criminal" into a useful and productive member of society, yes. And, yes, the death sentence if that can't be done.

(Btw, I should warn you all that instances of the God myth in "proofs" of free will shall be interpreted by me as pretty fatal logical gaps. :P )

Former Member · January 2002

MacKenzie, no cracks intended at the death penalty...I fully support it too.

But as far as a gun and it holding responsibility. I wanna know what your definition of responsibility is. This is my definition and I quote from Websters Dictionary:

Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: ri-"spän(t)-s&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 1786
1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN

The definition of responsible:

Main Entry: re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1643
1 a : liable to be called on to answer b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2) : being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : TRUSTWORTHY b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability <responsible financial policies> <a responsible job>
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature -- used especially of the British cabinet

The gun is an inanimate object...by this definition of reponsible, the gun cannot answer for what it has done, it had no mind and no say in what it did. It is a cause, but in the end YOU are responsible. You are the one who knows right from wrong, You are the one who is accountable for the gun not vice versa, you are the one accounted for as having the primary motive in being reponsible for the death of your victim. Not the gun.

As far as free will goes, yes, there are many things in this world that can sway our minds and our abilities to make decisions, but in the end, it is only you that can make the decision to shoot someone, is it not?

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: gi_janearng ]

Former Member · January 2002

1 B (1) and (2) in the definition of "responsible" would be the senses in which I'm using the word. That is, part of a chain of cause and effect.

(Aside: This does make sense. Consider a coroner returning a verdict on someone's death. The poor guy was crushed by a falling block of concrete, let loose by a rope that snapped. What was responsible for his death? The weak rope. To say that inanimate objects are responsible is not a badly-formed statement. The sticking point is this tricky phrase held responsible.)

You raise an interesting point at the end of your post, which boils down to the question of free will. We now know of so many influences on human (and other) behaviour: genes, cultural and educational memes, environmental factors and conditions... In the face of such evidence, can we be sure that humans are free agents, as opposed to being slaves to their inheritances and environments?

I don't think we'd say that person A, who has been forcibly injected with, say, LSD, is as "responsible" for his actions as person B, who is stone-cold sober. The reason I insist on using responsibility in a very distinct sense to culpability is precisely becuase I want to be able to describe these two situations. That is, I want to be able to distinguish being part of a chain of cause and effect from being a free-willed agent with more than one choice. That is why I say that both A and B are responsible for their actions; A is not culpable, ceteris paribus, while B is, if he has free will.

Former Member · January 2002

Originally posted by MacKenZie:
:: Reads GI_Jane and Thanatos' responses and chuckles. ::

::Shakes his head at the futility of attempting to wade through the fecal deluge present when addressing someone kindred to Klinton... "What is the defintion of 'is'?" ... "I don't believe that oral sex is a sexual act..."::

Excuse your lack of discipline, responsibility, and accountability in ANY manner that floats your boat, just don't do it in MY AO, 'cause I'll torpedo it so fast you won't know what happened... Take another toke off that joint, and contemplate your navel... Drug induced stupor is as good as it is going to get for you...

Former Member · January 2002

I beg your pardon?

Since you seem to consider yourself an expert on me, answer these questions and see how much you really do know:

I smoke. [Y/N]
I drink. [Y/N]
I do drugs. [Y/N]
I would describe myself as left-wing. [Y/N]
I would describe myself as right-wing. [Y/N]
I am religious. [Y/N]
I have worn uniform and been subject to military discipline. [Y/N]

Thanatos, the one thing that bugs me about you isn't your style of writing (I can wade through it and extract the needle from the hay - it's inconvenient, but nothing more) but the attitude you present of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of trendy-lefty hash-smoking drop-out incapable of anything approaching self-discipline.

I proudly offer my good self as a counterexample. :P

Former Member · January 2002

Oh, by the way, I do consider defining 'is' to be an interesting philosophical question. Clearly we have our intuitions about what it means, but... You see where I'm going. Everyday approximation not necessarily rigourous, yes?

And oral sex is a sexual act. Notice, oral sex.

Former Member · January 2002

Originally posted by MacKenZie:
Oh, by the way, I do consider defining 'is' to be an interesting philosophical question. Clearly we have our intuitions about what it means, but... You see where I'm going. Everyday approximation not necessarily rigourous, yes?

And oral sex is a sexual act. Notice, oral sex.

Defining "is" IS an act of mental masturbation... if it gets you off, FINE! I'm just not all that excited about public displays of masturbation...

And as to the "oral sex" issue, THAT IS the point...

Former Member · January 2002

Originally posted by MacKenZie:


Thanatos, the one thing that bugs me about you isn't your style of writing (I can wade through it and extract the needle from the hay - it's inconvenient, but nothing more) but the attitude you present of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of trendy-lefty hash-smoking drop-out incapable of anything approaching self-discipline.

I really don't GIVE A DAMN whether you agree or disagree with my perspective... live your life in WHATEVER permutation gets you off. I DON'T CARE! When self styled supremist/elitest's get it into their head to dictate how I shall live MY life, THAT is over the line. HUGE DIFFERENCE! That is generally the philisophical difference between the "right" and the "left". Contemplate THAT issue, if you will...

Former Member · January 2002

Assume nothing;

Presume nothing;

Expect nothing!

subjects will be subjects;

sheep are sheep!

Free men and citizens are burdened to protect both.

Diesel

888888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Former Member · January 2002

Interesting ...IT WAS 1987!

At a lecture the other day they played an old video of
Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra
hearings during the Reagan Administration. There was
Ollie in front of God and country getting the third
degree. But what he said was stunning!!

He was being drilled by some senator; "Did you not
recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security
system?" Ollie replied, "Yes I did sir." The senator
continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience.
"Isn't this just a little excessive?" No sir,"
continued Ollie. "No? And why not?" the senator
asked. "Because the lives of my family and I were
threatened sir." "Threatened? By whom?" the senator
questioned. "By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.
"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare
you that much?" "His name is Osama bin Laden sir."
Ollie replied. At this point the senator tried to
repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which
most people back then probably couldn't. A couple
of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator
continued. "Why are you so afraid of this man?"
the senator asked. "Because sir, he is the most evil
person alive that I know of," Ollie answered. "And
what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the
senator. "Well sir, if it were up to me, I would
recommend that an assassin team be formed to
eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.

"The senator disagreed with this approach and that
was all that was shown of the clip. If anyone is
interested, the Senator turned out to be none other
than Al Gore.

<IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">

Former Member · January 2002

Not much of a politico, but I saw this topic and had to read it....

They shoulda killed Osma when they had the chance, and as for handing over the tailban sympathisers to the northern alliance? sounds good to me...

Former Member · January 2002

Originally posted by Alistair:


They shoulda killed Osma when they had the chance, and as for handing over the tailban sympathisers to the northern alliance? sounds good to me...

Naw... COULDN'T! Would've offended the sensitivities of the liberal left. Simply another example of the cranial suppository in action, them peace lovers of the "morally superior" liberals...

Former Member · January 2002

Guys,

It's not the 'let's throw around insults forum'. If you want to engage in personal 'slanging matches' go elsewhere.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="cool.gif" border="0">

Death To Traitors

Comments