05 Aug 2008, 1:31 am
Ancalagon wrote:
Depends on what you mean by intolerant. If you mean someone who took out their viciousness on someone -- even a mass murderer who deserved it, I'd say they were wrong.
Umm, okay. Wrong if deserved? That would make you wrong. Agreed.
Quote:
Specific behavior that is illegal and immoral should be punished -- but not by vigilantes, lynch mobs, or organized mass murder.
So it has to be both, no punishment for illegal acts that are not immoral, or immoral acts that are not illegal? Understanding the basic arguments against the first two, why not the third? It seems distinct in the sense that it would be legally sanctioned.
Quote:
I still see no reason not to use the ordinary meaning of group.
That it is not the meaning used in the definition of the word bigot? If that is not a reason, there is precious little ground for discussion, as there would be no agreement on the term "bigot", essential to the premise.
Quote:
So it was. But you couldn't predict that with certainty. What if Germany had pursued its nuclear weapons project more vigorously? Would Britain have resisted after being nuked any longer than Japan did? What if the American carriers were inport during Pearl Harbor? Would the Americans have been any help to the British while fighting to retake Hawaii and defend California? Or if the Germans hadn't foolishly turned on the Russians and opened up one front too many?
None of us can have predicted the past when it was the future, true and besides the point. What if God had supernaturally intervened to save every last Jew? What if God stopped all mistreatment of others, obviating the need for moral choice? Then the whole argument becomes moot. Wild conjecture doesn't make killing bigots a bad idea.
Quote:
My original point is that just *categorizing* into 'good' groups and 'bad' groups is insufficient. How do you know your groups are the right ones?
One group, bigots. Know it is right because most wide-scale, interhuman violence has its roots in bigotry. In a global age, this will eventually lead to greater suffering. That suffering is prevented by categorizing bigots not as bad, but as something we can all live without.
Quote:
President Lincoln closed-mindedly insisted that the slaves should go free, despite significant opposition. Mother Theresa wanted to devote herself to helping people, so she did. She wasn't wishy-washy about it either. Martin Luther King faced opposition from both those of his own people who wished to be more violent, and those who simply wished he'd go away. He closed his mind to the death threats and temptations of violence, and stuck by his guns.
Lincoln spent long hours, open-mindedly evaluating the issue of slavery, from youth through Presidency; the Emancipation Proclamation came late in the war. Mother Theresa had to be open-minded, because the poor of Calcutta were not of her own faith, bound to Hell by her own Church. Martin Luther King, Jr. opened the minds of millions with his words, and was a true follower of the doctrine that those who do not oppose, silently support. None of these are endorsements of close-mindedness in the common usage. Closing one's mind to threats? This is not what is being discussed at all.
Quote:
You still haven't answered the question -- what is enough to earn a bullet to the head? Saying the N-word? Saying it with feeling? Giving someone of a protected class a funny look? A glare? What if you squint because the sun's in your eyes and it gets taken the wrong way?
Obviously none of these are even close, as isolated incidents, nor are any necessarily indicative of bigotry.
Quote:
What about playing gangster rap? What about gangster rap that refers to white people as 'cracker'?
No and no. What basis is there for thinking this is what is meant by the word "bigot"?
Quote:
What about watching the movie Undercover Brother, and laughing at the scene where white people are made fun of for liking excessive quantities of mayonaise? (Mayonaise? Seriously, where the heck did they get the idea for that anyway?) The scene where Denise Richards is referred to as 'black kryptonite'? What about movies with obviously racist titles, like "White Men Can't Jump"?
I like mayonnaise a lot, and so does my entire white family, so it made me laugh, because I fit the stereotype. Don't see how to interpret the second one in a way that point to "bigot", either. The third one makes a trifecta of things that, while invoking stereotypes, are not indicative of racism or bigotry.
Quote:
Given all the examples I gave in the last post, I'm pretty sure we're having definitional problems again. What is your concept of an 'opinion'?
"I like mayonnaise" is a fact, "mayonnaise is better than Miracle Whip" is an opinion, "mayonnaise should be in every refrigerator" is a principle (or ethic, or assertion, or whatever term helps). "I dislike bigots" is a fact, "bigots are worse people than non-bigots" is an opinion, "bigots should be shot" is a principle.
Quote:
It is plausible. I did some research to refresh my memory -- it appears that scholars prefer AMH(anatomically modern human) or EMH(early modern human) to cro-magnon these days, unless they want to distinguish them from neanderthals. Cro-magnons, it turns out, cannot be said to be a different species from us. In other words, africans are quite close indeed to cro-magnons. As are all other humans. 
The conclusion, from these premises, is not so plausible. Nevertheless, alternate possibilities abound for possible racist theories. There is so much we don't know about our origins, and the ancient hominid fossil record is sparse.
The conclusion, from these premises, is not so plausible. Nevertheless, alternate possibilities abound for possible racist theories. There is so much we don't know about our origins, and the ancient hominid fossil record is sparse.
In what way does that make it possible? If these alternate possibilities exist, and are not demonstrably false, would be delighted to discuss it. Africans are AMH, no more EMH than anyone else, and this has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the academic community. For the record, advocating a theory for the sake of promoting a racist doctrine -- not improving the science -- does meet the standard for being shot.
Quote:
Do you really think that it's impossible for a close relative of humans, similar in most respects, but lesser in mental stature to exist? Because that's what the Neanderthals were. How is that impossible, like violating physical law with the will alone?
Never suggested anything of the sort. A close relative, similar but of inferior mind, would not be a human. We can cross that bridge when and if we come to it. For the record, would probably advocate extending human rights to them if social integration were taking place between the species.
Quote:
You don't need to think women are less than fully human to be sexist. There's an ebook on the Project Gutenberg website that reproduces a debate on women's suffrage in the U.S. Senate. It has more than you ever wanted to know about both sides of the debate. The most fascinating thing about it, other than the fact that the majority of women were actually against it at the time, was the way the anti-suffrage rationalization was set up. It basically referred to women like delicate, beautiful flowers, angels in human form, who should not be sullied by gruff, vulgar, distasteful activities, such as voting, war, and jury duty. Quite the opposite of "less than human".
Color it whatever language one likes, a policy of denying rights to a gender is denying human rights, reducing the status of the affected.
Quote:
I thought you were the one advocating against pre-judgement of religion here.
It just sounds like the sort of thing God "says" to those who listen. Dislike religious zealotry, but not in favor of any of them as a stand alone answer.
Quote:
Have you ever read it? He criticized the Jewish religious establishment for being overly rule-bound and under-compassionate, laying down rule after rule, but giving no help in obeying them, following their interpretation of the law while rejecting its spirit, being hypocrites and full of themselves.
Mohammed said the same things, more or less, and tagged on rejection of later prophets to the charges.
Quote:
No, I was closed-minded about it. My inclination, upon reading up on it, was to categorize it as not merely false, but violent and evil as well. My friendship checked this impulse. I didn't go read anti-Islam propaganda,
See? Not close-minded. Allowed inclination to be checked, didn't listen to angry detractors, so far open-minded.
Quote:
I went and read a number of websites, for and against, downloaded the Quran and read pieces of it, and lurked in the soc.religion.islam newsgroup for awhile. I don't know if my reading was correct, and perhaps it was not thorough enough. But if I had not closed my mind to the flaws of it, simply and solely because of my friend,
Being closed-minded and closing one's mind to intolerance are opposites, not to be confused at all. This is the Martin Luther King, Jr. slant all over again.
Quote:
I would have become what you would call an Islamophobe (perhaps I shouldn't use that word exactly, since we are having so many definitional disagreements). Because of my friend, I weighed the flaws lightly and the virtues heavily.
Could be, glad it isn't so. Education is the best weapon against bigotry; the ones I'm concerned with are the ones that fight education to empower hatred of the "other".
Quote:
This was also all pre-9/11 -- what do you think I would have thought if that event had prompted my research?
Bigoted thoughts, which is one of more reason why thinking doesn't cross the line. Hear lots of them about Islam since that day, frankly, scares me more than the terrorists, because the nut-jobs in our country put a man in the White House who acts out their violent fantasies in my country's name. Put both the Islamophobe war-mongers and the Islamophile terrorists in the same camp -- bigot.
Quote:
Our deeper and/or more combative conversations were not specifically religious. Religion came up, but we were looking specifically for common ground. We were not trying to argue over it or convert each other. He didn't argue me out of anything. I looked into it, by myself, for myself.
This verifies my suspicion, that it was discovered in conversation that Muslims are not universally zealots seeking to convert or kill the non-believer, but humans just like everyone else, only different. A hearty congratulations on researching the subject, by the way, it shows a healthy, open mind.
Quote:
I tried to balance rhetoric on both sides. I read parts of the Quran, and took that to be authoratative -- since it is.
Hardly. The book is subject to interpretation, and furthermore, to being ignored as is seen fit by the individual, just like the Bible. Most of the Quran rubbed me the wrong way, but it has solid insights, and it led to much of Greek philosophy being available. Not depicting people in art, abstaining from alcohol, modesty, all seem like reasonable attempts at spiritual living.
Quote:
I don't remember all of the details now, it has been a decade, after all, so perhaps I might have come to a different conclusion now. What I would have thought then was only stopped by the emotional reaction of friendship -- logic was opposed to emotion. I decided as I did because I was closed-minded and biased in favor of my friend.
It really seems like this is all being twisted around to point at closed-mindedness being a virtue of sorts, in certain circumstances. As a situationalist, and not an absolutist, inclination is to endorse some aspect of specifically closed-minded thinking when the result is a more generally open-minded thinking. The ends may justify the means, but the means are not justified by most ends.
Quote:
No, you don't understand. I *specifically* avoided thinking it through, in even a loose and undisciplined manner. Having heard some arguments, not recently either, I *felt*, rather than thought, that the one side was more probably right than the other. On this question, *the only thing I've got* is an opinion.
Maybe you looked into it and came to a rational conclusion -- I haven't.
Maybe you looked into it and came to a rational conclusion -- I haven't.
Shame that. Why hold an opinion on the subject at all? To opine?
Quote:
Quote:
The assertion that society has a prerogative to allow discrimination against that choice seems offensive on a yet more basic level than the religion issue, as sexual reproduction is part and parcel to human biology, whereas church is not.
This makes no sense at all.The right to reproduce, or not, by the sex act is the prerogative of the individual; obviously, genes not passed on do not survive the individual. What business is it of anyone else how one chooses to reproduce or not? Why should the urge of sexual release be frustrated for a third party's sense of moral outrage?
Quote:
Some of your responses have been more than a bit scary. It's possible that I'm overreacting a bit, but to put my reactions in context -- I'm reading a book about mass murders and genocides. It's a more or less scholarly book which intersperses theoretical psychological analysis and philosophy with vivid descriptions of mass murders, genocides, and tortures, which keeps it from getting dry and boring, as well as keeping us from depersonalizing the victims. It's a bit of a rough read.
Sounds like it. Would like to read it, it sounds good. The proposition is to do away wih such horrible acts before they begin.
Quote:
It's about how ordinary people become perpetrators, and many of the techniques of inciting violence and hate that are discussed are *identical* to things you've advocated. Depersonalization of victims, blaming the victims, lack of mercy/hardening the heart, advocating it as a moral duty, and so on.
So, see the rich irony in the perpetrators being impersonally executed as a moral duty? May be getting somewhere. Not saying irony justifies death, but think about Steve Irwin, who had a life full of tempting fate with deadly animals only to die by a fluke from a relatively harmless creature.
Quote:
More recently, you've come out against a number of things -- torture, lynching, etc.; this is encouraging, but I still think your idea is deeply flawed and more similar to the things you are trying to get rid of than you think it is.
Don't necessarily think it is that far off, except for the unique nature of the offenders as being the source of torture, lynchings, rape as a weapon, genocide, etcetera.
Quote:
If they're willing to lie (and who wouldn't to avoid a bullet to the brain?), how is this different from what we have now?
Obviously you don't know any bigots. The quintessential characteristic to look for is recalcitrance; public disavowal is a fate worse than death -- try to imagine Hitler setting up the Reich if there was a tape of him decrying anti-Semitism as a false doctrine only accepted by the ignorant after the Beer Hall Putsch.
Quote:
Who cares? A wife begs for mercy, and you say "Who cares?". A serial killer of the worst and most vicious description -- if his wife showed up and begged for mercy, I would listen, even if I had to deny her plea.
How kind of you. There is a place in the judicial system for such things, and it usually holds little water with the judge and jury. Wouldn't send her to a rape camp or execute her, but it isn't a Get Out Of Jail Free card. Might send flowers, but words justifying the death of her husband would fall on death ears, so wouldn't say anything.
Quote:
"Clearing dead timber"? I would not be surprised if this was among the many euphemisms used by the Nazis.
If it had been used by the Nazis in desribing Nazis, they wouldn't be such a great example, would they? This is "ad hominem" argumentation -- the Nazis used tanks to occupy Europe, suppose those are off limits, too?
Quote:
What happens if, as both religious people and psychologists suggest, the tendency towards evil is part of the human heart? What if we're all capable of great evil? What if, after "clearing the dead wood", it isn't all gone? Keep killing? What if we all have this flaw? What if we're *all* dead wood?
Not going to say that any of those are impossible, although good and evil only mean something to people; if we all died, there would be no more either. Just trying to clean up a little before the house is totally trashed.
Quote:
Given other statements here, especially those on believing the potential victim about changes of heart, I doubt now that there would be anyone who would qualify for these new measures. Unless your legalization of everybody shooting everybody means what I think it means.
There are plenty: www.godhatesfags.com comes to immediate mind, guarantee he would not recant to save his life.
Quote:
But if you had this many, you would need to set up internment camps for logistical reasons. Either they would rot in the camps for the rest of their lives waiting for a trial, or they would get shot without one (or a kangaroo court would be set up, which is essentially an abscence of a trial).
At any one time, probably not so many, because most will fall silent. Only the really dangerous ones will continue burning crosses on neighbors' lawns and calling Muslims agents of Satan after the first speedy trial and execution.
Quote:
And what about unrecognized groups?
Like who? Nerds getting beat up by jocks? Jocks getting shot up by outcasts? Would exempt juveniles, shouldn't kill minors is another principle, a less controversial one, but not without detractors.
Quote:
Quote:
We are talking about active bigots: those that preach, teach, spread, and act on irrational and inflexible prejudice against a particular group.
This is a pretty good definition. It still doesn't identify what level is enough to get shot for. That is for the courts to decide. This is a principle in search of a law in search of a safer world for the vast majority. Think I was that egotistical?
Quote:
"people who rape and kill in private have virtually nothing to fear. " 
Please tell me this is a typo...
Please tell me this is a typo...Nope, it is just the truth. Most rapes go unreported, and more people go missing than are found dead of homicide, so draw your own conclusions. No public knowledge, no law, no punishment.
Quote:
Performing these acts is already illegal, and unless I'm mistaken, prejudice is an aggravating factor, too.
Not illegal everywhere, especially not where the local government is the perpetrator. Wishing for a global mandate, with death the compulsory penalty.
Quote:
You could definitely get the "next Hitler" by launching every single nuclear warhead simultaneously, killing everything on the planet. But that kind of mass murder kind of defeats the purpose of defeating mass murder, doesn't it? The cure is worse than the disease.
That is why the cure is being limited to those who are at real risk of crossing over, before tens of thousands die from a misguided attempt to treat bigots with greater fairness. If your interpretation of human nature is more correct than mine, the nuclear death scenario is probably just an eventuality.
Quote:
I've heard it said that the most important thing in coming up with a law is not to think about how it will be used, but how it will be misused.
Otherwise, would not have bothered with this long-winded conversation, have screwed up my body clock royally doing this, but it seems important. Getting to a middle ground, between where things stand and where the principle suggests they should, is the first step in developing something worthy of being enshrined with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in part to serve as as its defender.
Quote:
How do you stop them from planting a swastika on someone, and saying they said something nasty?
Insufficient evidence for a conviction. Beyond a reasonable doubt, even preponderance of evidence, nowhere close. Think about how hard it is to get a rape conviction, even with DNA evidence. A hypothetical for sure.
Quote:
So if two gangs that hate each other in a racial sense, they can do drive-bys then it's okay? Legal?
This is why I resist the notion of extending it to self-defense. On the other hand, if they were deadly accurate, the two gangs theory seems like a very good one, let the hatemongers kill each other, then mop up the remainder.
Quote:
What about people who don't consent to the social contract?
Always have respected the rights of hermits, those who do not participate in society are not bound by it. In a global age, places of hermitage are few, and in a legal sense, none at all exist.
Quote:
"Tell people" is the thrust of my argument. How do you *know* they're a bigot? What about false informants? People with a grudge?
Insufficient, and not even an issue from the self-defense perspective, if someone is brandishing something that looks like a gun at me, do I have to wait to be shot with it? If I , do the cops? Soldiers? Blackwater?
Quote:
So the Righteous should murder the unrighteous? How is this any different from the excuses given for religious genocides?
To the first, none are righteous, and all end up dying sooner or later, which is a good thing. Genocide cannot be conducted to decrease intolerance, that is very, very different.
Quote:
This is a non-sequitur.
Disagree on that, but will restate nonetheless. One must prevent genocide, even if it involves taking lives, accept the presence of genocide, tilt at the windmill, or ignore the situation. Those are the only options. Advocating prevention up to but not including the point of absurdity, a point which is being ever more clearly defined in this dialogue.
Quote:
I am not against the death penalty -- in appropriate circumstances. I still don't have an absolutely clear picture of what you propose, so I don't know if it corresponds more closely to the trial and execution of war criminals, or of the very acts for which they stand condemned.
Split it down the middle: trial and execution of those who would be war criminals as judged by a clear intent to encourage, plan, or execute "war crimes" -- or even lynch someone for being gay, black, Muslim, straight, white, Jewish, foreign, or "other". Thank you for humoring this discussion! Seems to be going somewhere...
Quote:
The Nazis used all sorts of insults and allegations against their victims, but I don't think they used 'war criminals'. Probably because they hadn't heard of it, or just didn't think of it.
It could be suited to the Treaty of Versailles, which had economic effects such that Germans embraced anti-Semitism -- and aggressive expansion -- as a whole nation, enthusiastic to kill. Have tried not to insult bigots, and Nazis stopped trial of charges at alleging, jumping straight to executing children, skinning people alive... Totally not the plan, explicitly against it, really.
Quote:
Defend? Their actions? No. The right of even such as they to justice? Yes.
Justice isn't just a right, it is also a duty. Human life is not to be taken lightly, but there are an estimated 6,714,721,162 people on our planet, and as the resources start to run dry, some will try to use any identifier to gain power over others. Remember, the Holocaust was not to kill Jews, it was to propel Hitler to Fuhrer of Europe and, if possible, the whole world; Jews, Roma, homosexuals, devout Catholics and Lutherans, Communists, these were all just whipping boys. Quelch a few of the small flames, early in his political career, and Hitler could not have succeeded, as surely as killing him at that time. Yes, it is a difficult road, but cleaning up the mess is even more difficult.
Now it's 5:00AM and I need to "wake up" in two hours. Hope someone reads this and responds...
05 Aug 2008, 10:16 pm
06 Aug 2008, 12:22 pm
pheonixiis
Veteran
Joined: 1 Oct 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 532
Location: sifting through the ashes
06 Aug 2008, 12:51 pm
Haliphron wrote:
Its interesting to see Aspies decide to adopt a religion or some kind ideology like socialist feminism(see StuartM's musings on Aspies For Freedom)and spew propaganda and then start getting frustated when such propaganda is rebutted with reason. 
I'm sorry. I'll admit I'm a little slow... But, what does this statement have to do with the price of feet? It just seems confrontational, and I can't reconcile it with the rest of the arguments on the thread.
Puzzled.
Please explain.
06 Aug 2008, 10:11 pm
07 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
|
Annoying lady
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
19 Dec 2024, 5:42 pm |
| Christian Nationalism=Nazism 2.0 |
14 Dec 2024, 10:28 pm |
| It’s crazy |
11 Nov 2024, 10:20 pm |
| Madison, Wisconsin Christian school mass shooting |
20 Dec 2024, 4:21 pm |
