On the Mechanics of Defamation

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

Let me briefly illustrate how this works. Although I could cite hundreds of examples from the past two weeks alone, here is what I woke up to this morning: Some person who goes by the name of @dan_verg_ on Twitter took the most easily misunderstood sentence in The End of Faith out of (its absolutely essential) context, attached it to a scary picture of me, and declared me a “genocidal fascist maniac.” Then Reza Aslan retweeted it. An hour later, Glenn Greenwald retweeted it again.
On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Aslan_Greenwald_copy

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Aslan_Greenwald_copy

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:20 pm

love it, but I dont rcon weed would be gandalfs choice (though he was reputed to be fond of a bit of longbottom weed or "old toby"

personally i recon he'd be more at home with a spot of mescal or even acid..... On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 3489511464

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 3489511464

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:22 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:love it, but I dont rcon weed would be gandalfs choice (though he was reputed to be fond of a bit of longbottom weed or "old toby"

personally i recon he'd be more at home with a spot of mescal or even acid.....

Glad you liked it, now that ould be funny to see him on acid lol

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:29 pm

Like I said before, there's no amount of context that makes what he said any better. You can't kill a person who has even the most abhorrent beliefs if they haven't done anything about them, and nothing he says contradicts this most basic tenet.

If he meant to say that we must stop, perhaps even kill, people whose beliefs make them violent and won't allow them to be reasoned with, I agree. But he shouldn't have written "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" if he meant anything otherwise. It shows a profound ignorance of the evils that have been done not only historically, but right now by ISIS itself!

After all, why does ISIS kill, if not because it thinks its victims deserve to die for their beliefs?

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:32 pm

what we are dealing with didge.....

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Dope10

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:38 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:what we are dealing with didge.....

Shouldn't you be getting ready for some prognosticated ebola conspiracy theories or somesuch babble?

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:39 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Like I said before, there's no amount of context that makes what he said any better. You can't kill a person who has even the most abhorrent beliefs if they haven't done anything about them, and nothing he says contradicts this most basic tenet.

If he meant to say that we must stop, perhaps even kill, people whose beliefs make them violent and won't allow them to be reasoned with, I agree. But he shouldn't have written "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" if he meant anything otherwise. It shows a profound ignorance of the evils that have been done not only historically, but right now by ISIS itself!

After all, why does ISIS kill, if not because it thinks its victims deserve to die for their beliefs?

BUT that is exactly what he means, qualified BY
" Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense."

All you are doing it reading the message one - word - at - a - time instead of compreghending the whole...

your life lived according to PC newspeak has crippled your abilty to rationally understand anything as a whole....

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Like I said before, there's no amount of context that makes what he said any better. You can't kill a person who has even the most abhorrent beliefs if they haven't done anything about them, and nothing he says contradicts this most basic tenet.

If he meant to say that we must stop, perhaps even kill, people whose beliefs make them violent and won't allow them to be reasoned with, I agree. But he shouldn't have written "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" if he meant anything otherwise. It shows a profound ignorance of the evils that have been done not only historically, but right now by ISIS itself!

After all, why does ISIS kill, if not because it thinks its victims deserve to die for their beliefs?

You so have not understood what he stated, the part again where he states that it would be only be ethical to kill, notice the word only, then this word, "if" we could not capture them. He is thus taking about people committing criminal acts, not people with just thoughts, as why would we need to capture people who just hold radical views, that would mean locking up any radicals, of which he is not speaking of, but the simple fact of people who "are" committing acts based off their beliefs.
It proves you have not read this in the context at all.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:53 pm

aaghhhhhhhh On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 2396444674

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:55 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:aaghhhhhhhh

I think this would be more apt:

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 9k=

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:19 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:Like I said before, there's no amount of context that makes what he said any better. You can't kill a person who has even the most abhorrent beliefs if they haven't done anything about them, and nothing he says contradicts this most basic tenet.

If he meant to say that we must stop, perhaps even kill, people whose beliefs make them violent and won't allow them to be reasoned with, I agree. But he shouldn't have written "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them" if he meant anything otherwise. It shows a profound ignorance of the evils that have been done not only historically, but right now by ISIS itself!

After all, why does ISIS kill, if not because it thinks its victims deserve to die for their beliefs?

BUT that is exactly what he means, qualified BY
" Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense."

All you are doing it reading the message one - word - at - a - time instead of compreghending the whole...

your life lived according to PC newspeak has crippled your abilty to rationally understand anything as a whole....

Again -- if that's what he meant, fine, but that line about killing people over beliefs should have been cut -- because it sounds like the exact opposite of what you, I and Didge are saying.

I don't generally make it a habit to include, in my writings, lines that directly contradict my thesis. Maybe it's that PC newspeak just poisoning my poor little brain ...

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:16 am

Reza Aslan is right...

Or If Sam Harris is right I woudl say THAT idea he just expressed is an example of a belief so dangerous...

I don't really think Sam or Didge has though this through Suspect

AS Didge has clearly expressed ideas that equate to him being 'okay' with killing innocent people including children as long as it is in the quest to kill his enemies, it is acceptable collateral damage.

THAT IDEA IS FUNDAMENTALLY DANGEROUS so what is the Ethical thing to do with Didge?

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:29 am

This can only give you a headache, Veya. Apparently what Harris said is fine, because while he appeared to be saying that you should be able to punish some people for having the wrong electrical signals traveling across the wrong neurons in their brains -- since that's the actual English-language meaning of what he wrote -- if you'll only read the context, you'll realize that he was actually stating that some people who have demonstrated a willingness to kill won't stop until someone stops them, even if that means killing them.

In other words, he made a big, important new discovery that is sure to rock the foundations of law enforcement theory and military strategy ... Smile

To try to duplicate his tremendous achievement, I'm going to make a bold statement -- some people steal, rob, mug people, etc., and they won't stop until the police catch them!

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Mind-blown-2

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Mind-blown-2

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:34 am

Two leftist idiots in their prime who still cannot grasp basic context, thank the world people are seeing the dangers of naive left wing views. Only a view others still have any rationality on the left like Quill and others, these two are beyond help it seems and the fact you have mod that lies and screams racists at people with no justification Ben, shows up your failings to be honest. You have intelligence Ben, but you surrender it to stupidity at times as seen here/.
I am not going to have to dummy this down further for you to grasp how you have failed to understand

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:37 am

Brasidas wrote:Two leftist idiots in their prime who still cannot grasp basic context, thank the world people are seeing the dangers of naive left wing views. Only a view others still have any rationality on the left like Quill and others, these two are beyond help it seems and the fact you have mod that lies and screams racists at people with no justification Ben, shows up your failings to be honest. You have intelligence Ben, but you surrender it to stupidity at times as seen here/.
I am not going to have to dummy this down further for you to grasp how you have failed to understand

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 400524d1225614352-you-laugh-you-lose-1-english

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:39 am

Ha ha that is rich coming from a yank.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:44 am

Brasidas wrote:Ha ha that is rich coming from a yank.

racist

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:47 am

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:48 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Ha ha that is rich coming from a yank.

racist

lol, according to Veya that is racist, even though Americans have Americanized a version of the English language.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:50 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 G1379361399166751354

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:02 am

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:06 am

Now there is a poor stereotype, being as you got spanked in the debates tonight Ben ha ha

Night and hope you learn to take defeat gracefully next time.

Smile

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:08 am

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:08 am

^^^ Didge Declares Victory Yet Again Smile

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:10 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:^^^ Didge Declares Victory Yet Again

No competition, Victor was arguing from my views, and Quill is not online, so not your fault you are not up to the task, stick to sport, that is what you are best out, politics and religion you seem useless on.

Laughing

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:11 am

Brasidas wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Ha ha that is rich coming from a yank.

racist

lol, according to Veya that is racist, even though Americans have Americanized a version of the English language.

it would be racist if you insisted that an American use the British version Rolling Eyes

or if you insisted an Australian did not put fuck (or same variant) into most of their sentences pirat

But you're a different sort of Racist. One of the Institutional Racists that maintain the system developed by rich white men to keep themselves in power and their version of history politics and social economics in power. Men like you make the 'glass ceiling' for the minor ethnicities.

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:13 am

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:^^^ Didge Declares Victory Yet Again

No competition, Victor was arguing from my views, and Quill is not online, so not your fault you are not up to the task, stick to sport, that is what you are best out, politics and religion you seem useless on.

It just kind of seems like you lack the maturity to handle people challenging your proclamations Smile

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Angry-preacher-1

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:14 am

UMM last thing Victor did was call Didge a racist Wink

so that means he was agreeing with him

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Ha ha that is rich coming from a yank.

racist

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:16 am

veya_victaous wrote:UMM last thing Victor did was call Didge a racist so that means he was agreeing with him

victorisnotamused wrote:

racist

Or that irony is lost on an idiot ha ha

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:17 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

No competition, Victor was arguing from my views, and Quill is not online, so not your fault you are not up to the task, stick to sport, that is what you are best out, politics and religion you seem useless on.

It just kind of seems like you lack the maturity to handle people challenging your proclamations

This coming from the person who called me and Victor idiots, because we were both trying to help him understand the context that he completely got wrong.

Ha ha, yeah that was mature Ben

Epic fail

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:18 am

I'm going to have to ask the referees to review that call Smile

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:20 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm going to have to ask the referees to review that call

They are unanimous in how you got it wrong. Laughing

by Cass Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:26 am

I call it a draw.....now Shaddup the lot of you - you are making my head hurt.....and I'm not drinking yet.......

waiter.........

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:28 am

Your vote does not count me lady, you are not going off the points but how you like everyone.

But fair play for trying.

Anyway I am very tired and keep saying I will go and now I will, hope you have a good day.

x

by Guest Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:57 am

Update: 10/14/14
Aslan’s response to this blog post was a small masterpiece of hypocrisy and moral confusion. First, he tweeted this:
On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Reza2

On the Mechanics of Defamation - Page 2 Reza2

That’s an interesting line for a scholar of religion to take—especially one who never tires of disparaging his opponents for their lack of “sophistication” and “nuance.”
Then Aslan gave an interview to New York Magazine where he said the following in response to a question about how to deal with ISIS:

The way you confront an organization like that is twofold. No. 1, you kill their militants. There is no room for discussion or negotiation when it comes to an ISIS or an Al Qaeda militant. They don’t want anything concrete. And if you want nothing that’s measurable or concrete, there is nothing to talk about. You must be destroyed.

That’s an even more hawkish note than I struck above. At least I gave a passing thought to capturing the bad guys. I also used phrases like “may be justified in killing them” (which, admittedly, lacks the clarity and passion of “You must be destroyed”). But let’s not split hairs: It seems that Aslan and I share the same “horrid” view of the ethics of self-defense. I await his sophisticated explanation of why it is justified. —SH

Irony at its best.

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:10 pm

I'm going to take one last (probably ill-advised) crack at refuting this guy's logic. Let's start with SH's original controversial statement:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

He uses the "your daughter's being tortured in an English jail" example to illustrate his point -- if you believe this, you will panic, and it is only ideas that would cause you not to believe the statement that would prevent you from panicking.

I'll use a more abstract example -- imagine a man who fervently believes that people wearing red are evil and should be killed. SH seems to be saying that if you know this man is out in public around people wearing red, the man's belief alone may be ethical grounds to stop or kill him.

It doesn't sound too bad, at first. But there are two major problems:

1) It's impossible to be certain of what someone believes until they act upon their beliefs.

2) It's unethical to detain or kill someone unless you're certain they're dangerous.

That seems pretty obvious to me. I once uttered the words, "We should bomb the entire Middle East into rubble." That's a very dangerous proposition to the innocent people living there. Did I believe it? Of course I didn't, I was just angry about the Sept. 11 attacks. It was an expression of anger, not a statement of my opinion, and it would have been ridiculously wrong for the police to come arrest me for saying it.

People say things in order to fit in, stand out, provoke debate, vent frustration, recruit allies, sell goods and services, thousands of reasons. The idea of stopping or killing someone "because they have a dangerous belief," in reality, is just stopping or killing someone because we think they have a dangerous belief. SH is basically advocating punishing people for "thought crime."

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:52 pm

@ben
I think the logic you are using is right.
they are both being hypocrites 'advocating killing people because they advocate killing people'

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:05 pm

That's what it boils down to, yes -- it's pretty obvious what he was actually going for. Some sort of intellectual justification for detaining or killing not just actual terrorists, but anybody who agrees with them as well.

Imprisoning or killing a Muslim hate preacher or the owner of Stormfront is basically the same thing as punching someone you're having a debate with because you can't think of a rebuttal Smile

by Guest Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:17 pm

the guy you are having a debate with is most unlikely to go and kill dozens of children the Muslim however???(and before you object i will say just one word

BESLAN)

have you ever heard of the saying

"is no use being right (as in "correct") and dead"

which is where the fluffy bunny leftism will take us....

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:19 pm

No need to drag Fluffy Bunny into this! Smile

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:26 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:the guy you are having a debate with is most unlikely to go and kill dozens of children the Muslim however???(and before you object i will say just one word

BESLAN)

have you ever heard of the saying

"is no use being right (as in "correct") and dead"

which is where the fluffy bunny leftism will take us....

Not at all

kill them just don't try and make it out like you got some great moral justification.
'they are threat to your interests' why bullshit and suggest someone doing something on the other side of the world is any more than that?

Also Accept we are just as much a threat to their interests and others too.

we are not good, because no one is.
we are but beasts and we have the bigger teeth.
stop trying to make them into a demon and we can devour them bones and all.

by Guest Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:26 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'm going to take one last (probably ill-advised) crack at refuting this guy's logic. Let's start with SH's original controversial statement:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."

He uses the "your daughter's being tortured in an English jail" example to illustrate his point -- if you believe this, you will panic, and it is only ideas that would cause you not to believe the statement that would prevent you from panicking.

I'll use a more abstract example -- imagine a man who fervently believes that people wearing red are evil and should be killed. SH seems to be saying that if you know this man is out in public around people wearing red, the man's belief alone may be ethical grounds to stop or kill him.

It doesn't sound too bad, at first. But there are two major problems:

1) It's impossible to be certain of what someone believes until they act upon their beliefs.

2) It's unethical to detain or kill someone unless you're certain they're dangerous.

That seems pretty obvious to me. I once uttered the words, "We should bomb the entire Middle East into rubble." That's a very dangerous proposition to the innocent people living there. Did I believe it? Of course I didn't, I was just angry about the Sept. 11 attacks. It was an expression of anger, not a statement of my opinion, and it would have been ridiculously wrong for the police to come arrest me for saying it.

People say things in order to fit in, stand out, provoke debate, vent frustration, recruit allies, sell goods and services, thousands of reasons. The idea of stopping or killing someone "because they have a dangerous belief," in reality, is just stopping or killing someone because we think they have a dangerous belief. SH is basically advocating punishing people for "thought crime."

You see this is why you completely fucked up again Ben, you point out one sentence from the whole point being made and were thus it falls out of context, still neglecting the position he is talking about in regards to a situation that is going on at present and why you have struggled throughout on this.
Again your counter is as bad as Islamophobes who pick out a verse whilst not taking on board the context of what has been written, where it states if something cannot be captured, this being the most relevant part on something that is already a threat onto others. .

by Original Quill Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:14 pm

Harris wrote:Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.

Didge, Victor, don’t use my name in this without my knowledge or permission. I don’t like words being put into my mouth. Victor, you have been smoking the sawdust of Brazilian Rosewood again, I imagine. Don’t you know that stuff is on the endangered species list?

What you are talking about is plain and simple preemption. Preemption means the action of preempting or forestalling, especially of making a preemptive attack on a person or nation. But we don’t ever do violence to someone, but that we expect violence. Basically that is a derivation of the golden rule: do onto others as you would want to be done yourself. So for preemption to be moral, it must twist cause and effect around in a way that makes sense (or pseudo-sense).

Structurally, let’s take the argument apart: we want to deliver punishment upon someone before they have done the act that warrants punishment. That is because we are certain that they will deserve that punishment at some time in the future. Now, there are two troublesome elements to this perspective: certainty and future. Both involve the epistemological question: how do we know?

Certainty: How certain are we that we can read the future, by events in the present? With ISIL we have been asking this question all along…just because in some small time and place someone commits this heinous act, are we certain that this is what the movement represents? Yes it’s an act that has already happened, but how certain are we that this is what the whole ideology represents? Could others differ in their views? Could they be corrigible? Death is certain; if we go killing them, are we certain we are right?

In a way your Nazi argument can be turned around. At one point before 1932 the Nazis were certain that Jews represented an inherent evil to society. Hence, they perceived the necessity for preemption. Do you see where that got them? The genocide and concentration camps were all justified by this kind of logic. We are certain that this is what they represent.

Future: This is Ben’s point. You put the horse before the cart when you suggest punishment before the crime. This is a direct violation of the cause and effect morality of law, transgression and then punishment. More importantly, it makes you (Harris) the violator, the immoral guy.

How do you differentiate between some kind of advance reprisal, such as Harris suggests, and just vicious villainy, plain and simple? You can’t. Oh, you can try to juggle certainty and future in theoretical terms as y’all have, Didge and Victor, but without the mob wave that you are riding (anti-Muslim), and the Nazis rode in 1932 (anti-Semitic), it’s all a concoction. Without certainty and a present future—the contradiction is yours—you are reduced to being the villain.

The justification offered by Didge and Victor is the gravity of the situation. But that’s just one big globule of value. Didge’s references to Nazism and Shark Island are merely attempts to paint the whole argument red…Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling. Calling something immoral and justifying transgressive immorality on your own part, are two hugely different things.

by Guest Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:25 pm

Oh man how inept again basing this off one sentence and not the whole comments made, it shows your long post counted for absolutely nothing Quill.
Again it is quite clear, the threat being actually real in the context of dealing with ISIS, would be to take out, if only they could not be captured, this point is quite clear Quill, thus being left with no other option, which also bases the reason why if they cannot be captured as to what happens.

Of course the argument can be turned around for the Nazis to justify their action and in this instance shows the wrong use or abuse of this position, being as we know there was no perceived threat and the threat was based on a complete lie. To base your counter on a misuse, does not mean it could not be applied to a real threat, of which to the people of the surrounding areas, there are a very real threat. Here the point is on ISIS, who are committing genocide, of which there is no question they are committing genocide, where again he argues clearly if only they cannot be captured, then, and again you need to consider this point he states, it "may" be ethical. Thus posing the question.

It really helps if you actually read the link.

I will also use your name as I like, as you have used mine in posts I have never given you permission to, when you have posted replies to others.

by Guest Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:33 pm

I will pose one last point which clearly backs this view nearly every time, a gunmen is killing people and is not willing to be captured or surrender, what do you do? To save others from dying you would kill the gunman, with out a shadow of doubt facing that situation.

Now apply this to ISIS soldiers who believe in dying for their cause and are willing to do so.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:39 pm

Brasidas wrote:Oh man how inept again basing this off one sentence and not the whole comments made, it shows your long post counted for absolutely nothing Quill.
Again it is quite clear, the threat being actually real in the context of dealing with ISIS, would be to take out, if only they could not be captured, this point is quite clear Quill, thus being left with no other option, which also bases the reason why if they cannot be captured as to what happens.

This is your certainty argument again. To date you haven't successfully made the argument.

Brasidas wrote:Of course the argument can be turned around for the Nazis to justify their action and in this instance shows the wrong use or abuse of this position, being as we know there was no perceived threat and the threat was based on a complete lie. To base your counter on a misuse, does not mean it could not be applied to a real threat, of which to the people of the surrounding areas, there are a very real threat. Here the point is on ISIS, who are committing genocide, of which there is no question they are committing genocide, where again he argues clearly if only they cannot be captured, then, and again you need to consider this point he states, it "may" be ethical. Thus posing the question.

"I am right and they are wrong??" Not very persuasive. Who knows what went wrong in 1932? Who knows what is wrong today? This is your certainty argument again, coupled with your juxtaposition of time. "I am certain they were wrong," but "I am certain that we are right today." Pretty poor shit when you are talking about risking human rights.

Brasidas wrote:It really helps if you actually read the link.

Actually, I read it and dissected it. We'll let others be the judge.

Brasidas wrote:I will also use your name as I like, as you have used mine in posts I have never given you permission to, when you have posted replies to others.

I don't really give a shit...that was just a prelude for saying I don't agree.

by Original Quill Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:43 pm

Brasidas wrote:I will pose one last point which clearly backs this view nearly every time, a gunmen is killing people and is not willing to be captured or surrender, what do you do? To save others from dying you would kill the gunman, with out a shadow of doubt facing that situation.

Now apply this to ISIS soldiers who believe in dying for their cause and are willing to do so.

That's not a preemptive issue.

If his/her crime is in the past, the punishment may follow. And if it is one gunman, the punishment should be applied to him. One man...one crime...one punishment.

This is the problem when we get to talking about terrorists and 9/11 or 7/7. We talk about populations when we should be talking about 1, 2, or 19 individuals. Terrorism is an act, not a person.

by Guest Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:44 pm

If you do not give a shit why say it, illogical and it is a tad poor when again you have used mine, double standards Quill

No I made my argument clear, as in my last point:

I will pose one last point which clearly backs this view nearly every time, a gunmen is killing people and is not willing to be captured or surrender, what do you do? To save others from dying you would kill the gunman, with out a shadow of doubt facing that situation.

Now apply this to ISIS soldiers who believe in dying for their cause and are willing to do so.

I will add a second, many Japanese soldiers were shot out of hand by American troops when they were trying to surrender. The reality is many had no intention of surrendering and many American soldiers paid with their lives. It then became a practice to shoot them than take them prisoner and it was justifiable based off the amount of times American soldiers lost their lives to Japanese pretending to surrender.

So my argument is very clear, it is also clear you did not read the whole context of what he actually stated, where again we are talking about a real threat to many people, of which many different groups are being persecuted and if they could not be captured, that it "may" I stress that word again for those struggling it seems, be ethical to kill them.

by Guest Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Brasidas wrote:I will pose one last point which clearly backs this view nearly every time, a gunmen is killing people and is not willing to be captured or surrender, what do you do? To save others from dying you would kill the gunman, with out a shadow of doubt facing that situation.

Now apply this to ISIS soldiers who believe in dying for their cause and are willing to do so.

That's not a preemptive issue.

If his/her crime is in the past, the punishment may follow. And if it is one gunman, the punishment should be applied to him. One man...one crime...one punishment.

This is the problem when we get to talking about terrorists and 9/11 or 7/7. We talk about populations when we should be talking about 1, 2, or 19 individuals. Terrorism is an act, not a person.

Yes it is a preemptive issue, if you have a Police officer been called to such a situation, which happens often, knowing the actions of previous gunmen who are randomly shooting people.
We are talking about about 20 thousand actually in ISIS, no small figure.

by nicko Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:13 pm

Do unto others as they would do unto you,------------only do it first!!

by Original Quill Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:52 pm

Didge wrote:If you do not give a shit why say it, illogical and it is a tad poor when again you have used mine, double standards Quill

Wha, wha, whaa…

Didge wrote:I will pose one last point which clearly backs this view nearly every time, a gunmen is killing people and is not willing to be captured or surrender, what do you do? To save others from dying you would kill the gunman, with out a shadow of doubt facing that situation.

Now apply this to ISIS soldiers who believe in dying for their cause and are willing to do so.

The difference is clear and present danger, the test that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States, used “to determine under what circumstances limits could be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press or assembly.” The First Amendment is all about ideas without force or violence. If someone is posing a clear and present danger, you don’t need to worry about his ideas…it becomes a case of force vs. force, anyway.

But that is not the Harris thesis. The latter maintains that “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.” This is not force vs. force, but force vs. thought. The danger of using force to combat thought is obvious. Phillip IV tried it with the Templars. Henry VIII tried it with Thomas Becket. The Roman Church tried it with the Inquisition. Not only does it not work, but it leaves the door open for all manner of abuse.

If you want to creep away from your original thesis defending killing for beliefs, so be it. I don’t blame you. But have the integrity to admit you are doing that.

Didge wrote:I will add a second, many Japanese soldiers were shot out of hand by American troops when they were trying to surrender. The reality is many had no intention of surrendering and many American soldiers paid with their lives. It then became a practice to shoot them than take them prisoner and it was justifiable based off the amount of times American soldiers lost their lives to Japanese pretending to surrender.

So my argument is very clear, it is also clear you did not read the whole context of what he actually stated, where again we are talking about a real threat to many people, of which many different groups are being persecuted and if they could not be captured, that it "may" I stress that word again for those struggling it seems, be ethical to kill them.

You keep going back to the other side of clear and present danger. War is war, and you can’t slice the salami so thin just to find some esoteric example that fits your argument.

If we are talking about war and, say, the Battle of Iwo Jima, we are talking about complete uncertainty amid an ongoing battle. The important point is that in a war, hostility is the default option. When hostility and killing are the default option, this puts the question in a wholly different light. You are not killing for ideas, but for victory in battle.

Again, you are allowing your thesis to creep.

by Sponsored content