Troops crack down on cops

[213374U]

Characterizing people as evil and predicting their future behavior under all circumstances (don't (Didn't? Won't?) understand anything (Really? Anything?) but force) is an interesting combination of fantasies which you do not seem to have any problem with.

No. It is just a prediction based on certain people's past actions, present attitudes and idiosincrasies, and declared future intentions. It's also a constant present throughout human history.

 

The only fantasy here is, sadly, your belief that people that have known nothing in their life but violence (and turned into aggressors themselves), will be able or willing to give up their modus operandi overnight for whatever reasons, without the threat of massive force looming over their heads.

 

Just because I understand the value of force as the ultimate compelling factor does not entail that I will advocate its use in place of others when there is a choice. There is your fallacy. The fact that I'm here debating instead of out there applying force proves this.

[thepixiesrock]

Pfft, yeah but I'll bet right after you're finished debating you'll be right back out there applying force... to things...

 

Yeah I've got nothing.

[213374U]

Do you find that thought arousing?

[thepixiesrock]

Well, in the jokes first draft, it had something about hookers in it, but after revising the joke, I thought it best to edit that part out. My constituents agree.

 

If you catch my meaning!

 

Am I right fellas? I mean, am I right?

[jaguars4ever]

Just for clarification, Pixie - were those burqa'd or burqa'dless hookers?

[metadigital]

Characterizing people as evil and predicting their future behavior under all circumstances (don't (Didn't? Won't?) understand anything (Really? Anything?) but force) is an interesting combination of fantasies which you do not seem to have any problem with.

 

How about  .

 

Is that better? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you are saying that, no matter how evil Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein were, they should not be coerced with force to prevent them from hurting other people

[thepixiesrock]

Just for clarification, Pixie - were those burqa'd or burqa'dless hookers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Both, Lou Gutman does not discriminate.

[Colrom]

I think it always is right to defend yourself and - if you have the proper authority - to defend others from clear and present danger. That includes killing those who present that danger if necessary.

 

We were talking about killing evil - and whether that is possible.

 

You seemed to think it was.

 

I don't.

 

You were attempting - so far as I could tell - to establish that pure (good enough for government work) evil could be identified and killed and gave some examples.

 

I am simply arguing about the pure evil premise.

 

I am not saying you can't fight them if you have the right authority and/or are personally endangered by them.

 

I have have a problem with your rationalization about evil because it degrades God and it can lead - and usually does lead - to rationalizing assassinations of people who do not present a clear and present danger - the assassinations often being carried out by people who really do not have any more rightful authority than they can claim ad hoc by virtue of their possession of large size or good weapons.

 

The critical component of their thinking that turns them into murders is their assumption of authority to evaluate whether "the world will be a better place" with someone dead. This involves prediction of others behaviors (usually focusing on those behaviors the are not liked and ignoring other behaviors) and evaluation of the future goodness of the world in various cases (quite a feat).

 

I believe it is OK to kill to eat and in self defense and such - but not "in order to make the world a better place" or to "remove evil".

 

Given how embedded the other way of thinking is I can see how someone who is more accepting of killing might get confused about my views and imagine that I am a pacifist. This could be a dangerous view for them and me and I want to discourage it.

 

It is a bit sad that I need to explain that I am prepared to kill in order to gain understanding.

 

Is that clearer?

Edited December 30, 2006 by Colrom

[Colrom]

Meta - I have never yet agreed that your paraphrases of my meaning are correct.

 

You should be doing much better at it by now.

 

It's not like we have never discussed these types of issues before.

 

Maybe you should just focus on what you believe.

 

Maybe you will convert me.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Colrom

[metadigital]

We were talking about killing evil - and whether that is possible.

 

You seemed to think it was.

 

I don't.

...

I have have a problem with your rationalization about evil because it degrades God ... *snip*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, so because it offends your sensibilities and YOUR ethical framework, WE can't discuss it?

 

So you are okay with killing someone who has a gun to your head, even though you don't know if they are going to kill you, because you can't predict their future actions, but a country can't intervene in, say, Sudan to prevent the genocide in Darfur, or in Kosovo ?

 

Your position is untenable. Hence why I am calling you on it. Or do you need God's spokesperson to tell you who is evil, so that you have permission to kill them?

[Colrom]

We were talking about killing evil - and whether that is possible.

 

You seemed to think it was.

 

I don't.

...

I have have a problem with your rationalization about evil because it degrades God ... *snip*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right, so because it offends your sensibilities and YOUR ethical framework, WE can't discuss it?

 

So you are okay with killing someone who has a gun to your head, even though you don't know if they are going to kill you, because you can't predict their future actions, but a country can't intervene in, say, Sudan to prevent the genocide in Darfur, or in Kosovo ?

 

Your position is untenable. Hence why I am calling you on it. Or do you need God's spokesperson to tell you who is evil, so that you have permission to kill them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course you can discuss it.

 

We are discussing it.

 

There you go again - completely misunderstanding.

 

Are you really trying to paraphrase or are you being deliberately obnoxious.

 

I don't believe that people are "evil" so I don't expect "God's spokesperson" (Whoever that might be.) to identify the "evil" folks.

 

Why are you so passionate about this?

 

We are talking about killing here - not something nice.

[Walsingham]

Can we chill off the tone in here, please? Just a smidgen.

 

I think there's merits to both sides. Colrom's neat definition imparts an important idea about posssessing easy responsibility for improving the world at large. However, I think that I'd have to agree with Meta by saying that if you think you can prevent evil by doing good, then you are just conkers. I've been in a lot of situations where people intended to do me (for example) physical harm. I can't prevent/cancel a good kicking by buying myself a smoothie! If someone has evil intent the only possible solution is tp put them in a state of system shock. Or, if you want to be all General Patton, get your punches in first.

 

To put it another way, I don't believe you can be advocating essentially replacing the police with The Niceness Squad.

[metadigital]

Well, according to colrom's logic, a bit more niceness and I'll repent of my misunderstandings and become born-again. "

[thepixiesrock]

That's not true. You never did anything wrong, that doesn't exist. You just didn't do anything nice.

[Walsingham]

I've been trying to think how I'd arm the Niceness Squad. And the inevitable answer I keep arriving at is 'very heavily'.

[metadigital]

Yes. Overwhelming Force (of niceness) is the only answer.

[213374U]

Nice.

[metadigital]

I was just in Nice. I found it really difficult to converse in French after a week of trying to converse to Italians.

[Dark_Raven]

Speak in Latinus next time.

[Walsingham]

You may just have been encountering the natural differences in loquacity between the two cultures there, mate.

[Colrom]

I don't know where all this speculation about weapons of niceness has come from.

 

I would certainly be dismayed to kick the ass of anyone who chose to attack me but I would do it anyway! :D

 

I know that makes you feel better.

 

Really, you can count on me to cover your ass - provided you are in the right. Which is more than I would expect from some here. Sorry - but it's true. :D

 

But what many seem to want to do is go out into the world and attack other people because they are afraid about the future or because they want to steal other peoples things.

 

Or because they have visions of glorious victory! (w00t)

 

But mostly because they intend someone else to do it for them.

 

I am supprised that anyone would back up killer cowards or killer thieves or glory killers.

 

But then, they usually arn't themselves in any danger.

 

It is their hirelings that take the risk.

 

Go figure.

 

I really don't believe that any of that killing - your killing - my killing - eliminates evil.

 

If you think otherwise, please keep us all posted on how evil is diminishing as you attempt to kill it off - and don't forget to include your own record of causing harm in the accounting.

 

As an aside, there seems to be a general requirement by many that a moral code must be shown to be effective. Ah, this would be utilitarianism.

 

Go out and harvest those organs young Jedi.

 

Or perhaps folks require a quid pro quo from God before they will grace him with their belief? "I will believe in you if you can show it will work out well for me!"

 

By the way, I am not born again. I think such stuff is nonsense. But perhaps no worse than some of the stuff we regularly see here.

 

It is dismaying though that some would try to gather a virtual crowd to ridicule the born again Christian.

 

Sorry. You will need to look elsewhere.

 

Happy New Year!

 

Peace!

[Walsingham]

 

... I see.

 

To reiterate, my point is that you CAN and indeed HAVE TO take action against evil. If you think of evil as opening a tin of beans, how do you go about stopping it?

 

EDIT: I think part of the problem is your notion that this is a light and dark thing. In fact good and evil are both kinds of light. The darkness is merely the absence of humanity/morality.

[metadigital]

No, I couldn't shut the cab driver up; (we were both laughing at my involuntary insistence on using "Si" instead of "Oui"), it's just that (in my brief experience) the Italians tried harder to understand my tortured phrases, even to assist me to speak it better, and they even tried to speak English.

[Walsingham]

Speaking mainly of my experience of Paris I must say I found the place more unfriendly than any other place in the world. It also smelled of wee. ^_^

[metadigital]

I have heard similar pejorative declamations about Venizia, too, which kinda ignores the vast beauty ...