Quote:Original post by paulcoz
Here's the comment of yours to which my comment was a response: 'everyone might be innocent, but not everyone poses a threat. a man that has proven himself capable of killing other humans does pose the kind of liability that i would like to see removed from society'.

Whoever wrote that might as well kill every person on this planet!
Including themselves as they just proven they are capable of killing others.

Add a little twist and we can justify genocide!

Not one person on the plane can backup the air marshall's statement that the man said he had a bomb. This was over-reaction by gung-ho wanna-be cowboys who got their job just in the hopes they get to shoot someone one day.

Quote:Original post by Frank Henry

Quote:Original post by paulcoz
Here's the comment of yours to which my comment was a response: 'everyone might be innocent, but not everyone poses a threat. a man that has proven himself capable of killing other humans does pose the kind of liability that i would like to see removed from society'.

Whoever wrote that might as well kill every person on this planet!

i wrote that, but i should have been more specific.

the crux of the matter is ofcource in the word 'proven': nothing can be proven. its all about standards of proof: ofcource you can argue anybody is a danger to society, but there is such a thing as an acceptable risk. most people dont meet any sort of reasonable standard of proof that says they are a liability to society.

Quote:
Including themselves as they just proven they are capable of killing others.

Add a little twist and we can justify genocide!

as a moral relativist, you can justify everything and nothing. its not about whats just, its about what we want. killing myself and genocide are not on my list.

Quote:
"one last time: i think hes innocent, and since everyone is, this doesnt matter in the slightest"

I could do without this ridiculous circular logic, Eelco. If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?!

Firstly, you said in your second last post that you introduced the deterministic universe to 'challenge the idea that this man was innocent' (which whether you intended it or not meant you were presenting an argument that you believed implied his lack of innocence, and I suppose guilt). When that argument didn't work out, you said that you introduced the universe to argue that his innocence is irrelevant. These are two completely different things. You have either revised your stated reasons for posting the argument (which suggests you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole), or you're not doing a very good job articulating them. Keep this in mind, the next time you feel like chiding me for my misunderstandings about the basis of your beliefs and arguments.

Secondly, I said Alpizar was innocent *of being a bomber* (see my reply to boolean, in which he also challenged the assertion I made that Alpizar was innocent). That statement is true in the context in which I made it (that of our justice system, whether or not you agree personally that such a system is possible and/or worthwhile). This man's (or any other's) being innocent (which implies innocence of something) is NOT an irrelevant concept in the context of a justice system, because it indicates whether a crime (a quantity of what we have previously determined to be harm) took place or is about to take place (which gets us back to the points we have been discussing about threats and standards of proof). In our justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty. Running off a plane is not ample evidence of a threat. I can make anything you say appear irrelevant by taking it out of its original context and putting it into another. You accuse me of bad debating?!

Why can't you just admit that bringing up determinism (as part of an attempt to undermine my point, which was made in a specific context) was a waste of time? You've already said it is of 'no concern'. Threats and proof can be discussed (with or without innocence) in either system. Introducing determinism has just served to complicate the discussion unnecessarily.

Quote:
"decisions in court are often based on indirect observations, so your parralel with something directly observable as your microwave isnt all that good."

What do decisions in court have to do with acknowledging the different meanings of two separate words in the English language, which is what you were supposed to be addressing? I'm not asking you to complicate the matter by introducing unnecessary angles, analogies or philosophy. I'm just asking if you understand what 'suspecting' means in plain English? Do you comprehend what 'knowing' means? Do you think these two separate words have the same meaning according not to your own beliefs, but to the widely understood dictionary definitions which everyone but you uses to communicate?

I agree that decisions in court (those after the fact, eg. after an event of harm) are often based on indirect observations, but returning to the case of Alpizar, the air marshalls made their decisions based on *direct* observations, as was the case in the example of mine you tried to discredit (see my next point for more on that). The issue of 'knowing' in this case cannot be clouded with claims of the indirect. Did they see he had a bomb? Obviously not, thus they could not have 'known'. If they'd seen, they would have 'known' and then they would have been justified in countering the harm he was about to cause. Until then, they only 'suspected' and I'd say their standards of proof were so appallingly low, there was no way they could be certain of his guilt: a man panics and runs from a plane and all of a sudden the marshalls assume he has a bomb?

Quote:
"regardless, your proclaimed knowledge of your microwave rests on a whole bunch of assumptions aswell. maybe it was stolen since you last saw it? maybe someone framed you, made it seem as if you had a microwave?"

Framed me to make it seem like I had a microwave? That's a good one. I take your point about stolen property, but assume that I'm standing in my kitchen looking at the microwave (just as the air marshalls were standing there looking at Alpizar), perhaps even switching it on and cooking food in it, it's reasonable to make the claim, due to the *direct* observation involved. Once a terrorist with a bomb has been identified, it's unlikely their state is going to change any time soon - they're unlikely to be stolen, or turn into an innocent civilian.

The latter example just further demonstrates your occasional inability to maintain rationality during discussion.

Quote:
"you are right in saying i should explain myself better. i made my last post in a hurry, my apologies.

say we have a man, he kills a few people, is found guilty, and is sent to jail. everyone goes home, and rejoices in justice prevailing. but could this man help who he has become? i dont think so. he got dealt a bad hand, and now he is rotting away in jail. why is this man behind bars? without appeals to higher powers, ie from a purely morally relativistic perspective, it is as follows: we dont want him running around anymore, and since we are in the mayority, we can make that happen. do we care that this man gets screwed over doubly? no, instead of admitting its nothing but a purely selfish act, we call it justice, so we can both put this man behind bars AND feel good about it. what you call justice, is in my eyes nothing but selfishness. im not condemning you or anyone for that, merely observing it.

in the light of the above, you are right that the word 'justice system' is a tad misplaced."

We don't have to feel good about putting someone behind bars. I think you're making a gross generalisation there. A man who kills a few people demonstrates his inability to co-exist with others in our society and loses his right to freedom so that others can have their right to live. The decision involves a weighing of the pros and cons. I think that the justice system should primarily concern itself with harm reduction, not with being selfish ('ha ha, he had to go to jail'), although I'll grant that some people do have that attitude. It's selfish to murder people. I'm sure there are many criminals in the world whose incarceration will never benefit me personally, but that doesn't mean I don't think other people have a right to benefit by offenders being sent to gaol. The harm of having the man in prison is outweighed by the harm that would be caused if the man was left to roam free, taking the lives of others at his whim. I disagree that justice is all about selfish acts. Selfish would be taking glee at throwing people you don't like into prison or executing them as punishment without cause, rather than for the sake of keeping other people safe. Selfish would be having different rules for yourself than for others. Not everyone has these attitudes, however much you like to say they do to try to rationalise your own self-centredness.

Quote:
"no, there is no difference. the executioner of the law, who shoots someone 'consciously' in the head, has nothing to do with it. they could be robots for all i care. i (as a civillian) am the one creating the laws, they are my responsibility, not of the one enforcing them."

i create buildings, people die
i (might) drive a car, people die
i create laws, people die

its a harsh world, thats for sure."

The executioner of the law has as much free will as you, who presumes to be creating the laws do, despite any claim that you or they may make to the contrary (the government made them do it).

If this is your attitude, I have to wonder why you're concerned with preventing bombers from blowing up planes at all costs? After all, people die, huh? Why should bombers be held to account more rigorously than anyone else? Are the passengers who agree that bombers should be neutralised because they don't want to be blown up, selfish? I think you need to be more consistent. You can't argue an attitude without compromise when it is aligned with a point you want to make (eg. 'everyone enacting justice is doing so out of selfishness') and then compromise it in another, because it appears unreasonably harsh.

Quote:
"you can never be sure someone is a threat. if you feel just telling you have a bomb and ignoring repeated orders is not being sure enough, we might actually have a base to argue on."

Yes, you *can* be sure someone is a threat. If someone is pointing a gun at you and shooting (but luckily for you missing), then they are trying to kill you. Noone needs to die for you to know that (please don't reply with one of your nonsensical, 'one in a trillion' alternate-reality case studies). If you only suspect that someone has a gun (for whatever reason) and see them reaching into their pocket, there is nowhere near the same certainty of intent to kill, especially if you suspected them of planning an attack on a crowd and they walked five miles away from that crowd, or left the country or some such. This is simple stuff - don't make it more complicated that it needs to be.

Quote:
"yes, thats the sentence i was referring to. lets summarize:

sentence 1: 'a man that does X...'
where X is something ive already said many times i am not convinced alpizar did. could it be i wasnt referring to him, but to some hypothetical man?

sentence 2: 'Y however, is another matter'
where Y, preventive strikes, clearly DOES refer to the alpizar case. so i explicitly call alpizar 'another matter' than 'a man that does X'

hmmm...

the only depths that seem to have been sunken to are those of reading comprehension."

At the time I first challenged you regarding your denial that you were referring to Alpizar when you said 'a man that has proven himself capable of killing other beings', you had never 'said many times' that you doubted the allegation that Alpizar had claimed to have a bomb. You did speculate *once*, but that was not until LATER in the same post, by which time I had already read the sentences in question and written my reply. Go back and re-read the posts you made prior to the point at which I challenged you, which is what my assertions were based on. So...no, while it could have been that you were referring to a hypothetical man, I thought it was unlikely at the time and if you were, you didn't make that at all clear. Perhaps if you had made an effort to distinguish your comments ('a man that has proven himself capable of killing other beings, *unlike Alpizar*' or 'go around claiming you are a threat *like Alpizar did*' or some such) people wouldn't have to guess what you're saying and possibly misunderstand you? If you want to clarify your position, that's fine - but, don't pretend that everything you've said has been crystal clear. You've already admitted in another one of the other points we have discussed (see above), that you could have explained yourself better, which is due to your omitting illuminating details - that's not the first time either.

Yes, your reading comprehension is fine. I wish you'd do something about your writing skills.

Quote:
"you know, direct personal attacks like that could get you suspended. atleast be subtle, it so much funnier that way."

I thought it was a valid criticism at the time, rather than a personal attack. There are far worse things I could have called you. Regardless, I accept that I misinterpreted your comments. I apologise for calling you a liar.

Quote:
"no, im not dodging your point. im saying there is none. this particular line of reasoning has been debated to death already in this thread. 'why would he do that?' kind of questions are irrelevant. it assumes that the person you are dealing with is sane, which as demonstrated by this very case, is a false assumption."

I didn't ask you to speculate about the actions of an *insane person*. I asked you to explain why a terrorist with a bomb on a plane would not detonate it or try to hi-jack the plane, and walk away from the target? There is a point. It isn't irrelevant. It doesn't assume anything. It doesn't make false assumptions. Re-read the point in my previous post and answer the question, or accept that you're dodging it.

Quote:
"the 'your dodging my point' thing, is part of the bad debating."

No it's not. It's reasonable to assume that if someone disagrees with anothers opinion, they will at least be courteous enough to explain why they disagree by articulating their opinions, by discussing the subject in detail. If you don't reply to a point or allow an exchange to reach it's logical conclusion, that's bad form. You don't do these types of things if you want to increase your credibility. Giving generic, unrelated or "witty" replies or just not quoting arguments you can't or will not answer in future posts, doesn't cut it.

Quote:
"you ask me an unanswerable question, trying to make it seem as if my argument hinges on it. i could go along with your question, implicitly acknowledging its one i need to answer in the first place, fail miserably and look stupid, or i could choose to ignore it, and look stupid in the eyes of the unsuspecting bystander when you close in for the kill with your inevitable claim of me dodging your point. im sorry, its not going to work."

Explain how the question was unanswerable. If I ask you a question, I only expect your opinion. There's nothing to say your response has to correspond precisely with facts you couldn't possibly know.

I understand your second point - you'd rather not answer my questions and have everyone believe that you wouldn't condescend to do so, than attempt to answer them and have everyone see the truth of my statements: that you sometimes refuse to admit when you're wrong, that your principles are inconsistently applied: that your opinions and standards change based on whether or not the people being sacrificed by them are members of your own family or not. You're prepared to accept certain negative treatment for other people, because you don't believe it will ever be given to you or your own family. In your own words, it's all about 'what I want'. Arguing with you, seems to be more and more pointless.

Quote:
"i was referring to your sorryness for me. its always nice to know others care about you."

Stop with your witticisms and focus your attention on the debate. Address the original point you dodged, if you can...I argue that there is a difference between objective assertions (criticisms) and inflammatory insults. See my next point.

Quote:
"im sorry, but if you sprinkle your posts so royally with condecending statements like that, forgive me when i am unable (or unwilling) to extract the point. could you summarize it again?"

Considering the statement I was responding to ('your empathy is heart-warming') which was essentially a joke for your benefit (completely unrelated to the discussion, I should add) and a blatant way of steering the discussion away from my previous point, do you really think it would be surprising if I thought less of you? Given the fact that you admit to being selfish and that you won't answer legitimate questions that would allow us to scrutinise the shortcomings of your system and beliefs, I'd say the condescension is justified.

FYI, the point in question concerned the difference between objective assertions of fact (he's blind or he's mentally ill) and insults (he's thick as a plank). The former are neutral statements, the latter are intended to be derogatory and are more often inflammatory. You wouldn't admit you were wrong. They *aren't* the same thing.

Quote:
"look up the definition of a strawman: this is not one of them."

Saying that's the case doesn't make it so. You said the man in your example walked unknowingly to his death and that a shout would have saved his life. You didn't mention any other people in the example, so it was reasonable to assume there were none (in fact, I can imagine you accusing me of introducing elements you didn't specify). There were no people to be hurt by any action I might take to save him. You were implying that given my theories I wouldn't have saved this man, by saying that his blood would be on my hands. That is a straw-man, plain and simple. Respond to the point. Admit that is the case.

Quote:
"my point was, that just because innocent people might get hurt because of your actions, doesnt mean you shouldnt do it. the people that might get hurt because of your inaction are every bit as important."

It's a valid point, but not one I agree with. The people who might get hurt because of your inaction are every bit as important, but that doesn't mean they have more worth collectively than the people who are hurt as the *direct* result of your action. If it's the choice between saving one person and saving many (with noone else to get hurt), obviously you save the larger number of people. But, where you have to consciously choose to kill someone (even to save many)...I draw the line there. Human lives shouldn't be treated like integers when weighing their value, which is VERY subjective. I certainly consider what I have to lose personally, when making my judgements and deciding to which societal rules I want to be subjected. Being selfish is not 'what I want'. Hence, my assertions of moral superiority in the context of a moral system, *whether or not you adhere to such a system*. I really don't see why you objected so strongly, seeing as morality (what is just) is seemingly not important in your universe.

There's also the issue of moral culpability - you may not agree with this (being concerned with the 'greater good' and all), but bear with me: If you weren't directly responsible for people being placed into a position in which they die, you are not morally culpable for their deaths (their blood is not on your hands, you are not responsible for their deaths) if you do not choose to save them because that was not possible without killing another. You could say that this inaction results in their deaths, but the alternative is to make moral compromises that can end up leading to inconsistencies in the application of judgements and the taking of actions which don't always results in the 'greater good'. If you choose to kill someone, their blood is on your hands.

Also, consider the issue of consent. In condoning this attitude, you are dictating to someone else, to what they should sacrifice their life. Did they consent to giving their life for the principle of the 'greater good'? Did the individual you sacrificed want to give their life to save those other people? In this respect, your attitude (which is enforced by the administrators of society) is an authoritarian one. You are denying people their individual choice. This is unjust. What if they have a differing view on the subject that they believe is less harmful than yours? One that seeks the 'greater good', but not at the expense of the rights of individuals, not when the judgements that are made devalue the lives of people that they are supposed to be benefiting.

Another concern I have with the 'greater good' is that it allows events such as this (Alpizar) to happen - a man who was not about to cause an amount of harm has been shot. Clearly a mistake has been made, because he has been killed without any positive benefits (lives being saved) that would make his shooting worthwhile in either a justice system or another system that is concerned with the 'greater good'. The 'greater good' / 'justice' did not eventuate in this case. I don't think it's appropriate in either belief system, to weigh harm (in this case, a man dying) against *benefits (in this case, lives being saved) which may not eventuate*. As I said before, it's one thing to weigh the death of a 'bomber' (a label representative of someone about to cause harm) against the deaths of 'innocents' (a label representative of those who aren't about to cause comparable harm) onboard a plane or in an airport terminal, and decide to choose the death of the 'bomber', therefore bringing about the 'greater good'. It's another entirely to take an action which may cause harm without any positive effects to compensate, to take action which depends on the realisation of unforseeable events. I don't agree with people taking gambles where these serious decisions are concerned, which is what happens when you act only on suspicions.

Finally, I have a problem with adhering strictly to the principle of 'greater good' because of the moral compromises involved (I'm talking about justifying things which are harmful to others who are not causing harm themselves). Adopting this principle, doesn't allow any defense against choosing certain individuals (a sub-class you could say) whose lives are able to be expended, even in a wholesale manner. Where do you draw the line, between the sacrifice of a few deaths and many? Is it acceptable to partake in mass genocide (sacrifice 700,000 to benefit 1,000,000) if that results in the least overall harm? Consider this:

------------
It would be possible to implement a system tommorow which concerned itself with sacrificing some members of the community for the benefit of society, which would result in less harm being caused worldwide in the future than is currently the case. If we were to give the lives of select healthy individuals to certain ventures (for example, one in the field of medical science - we could experiment on people and test and advance our unproven/elementary medical theories, or implement an organ donor system in which the lives of a few are given to benefit many requiring various transplants) we could work towards eliminating a lot of suffering and death that is currently experienced by humanity. Whether or not we can conclusively say that there will be long-term benefits (in the case of medical science, valuable research and/or cures) is irrelevant - that is unprovable (according to you), but it's highly likely that this will be the case if we persist long enough. As far as determining whose lives are given away in order to implement this system, it can be said that certain criminals currently in corrective institutions have 'proven that they are capable of killing other people' - so we'll use them. It could also be argued, using your criteria of (paraphrasing) 'those who are a liability in our society', that people who don't consent to give their lives to this undeniably effective system, are a liability by their choices to our goal of achieving the 'greater good' - keeping in mind that there is no distinction (according to you) between those who *directly* cause harm themselves and those who contribute to the overall level of harm by their *inaction*. I'm sure there are other, more fitting examples than medical science - substitute those if necessary.

Do you agree, given your opinions, that such a system should indeed be implemented? If not, in accordance with your principles - which are not concerned with concepts such as innocence, guilt, direct or indirect responsibility, justice etc... - on what grounds (non-moral, non-just) could you choose not to implement such a system, if it were deemed conducive to the 'greater good'?
------------

Please explain your rationale, so that I can better understand your motives. Is there some rational, consistent thought process going on here, or are your choices made based on arbitrary whims ('what I want')? If it's the latter, this conversation is over.

Quote:
"i agree, police reviewings shouldnt be done by a team of retired officers (or the swat, as seems to have been the case here). independency is key."

Ok. I'm glad we can agree on something.

Quote:
"sorry, i didnt see any point. only you squirming as you refused to acknowledge the fact it is indeed a loaded question. we dont need to make a big fuss about it, im willing to assume it was a mistake."

I'm not 'squirming' in the slightest. At least I do you the courtesy of responding to all your points with an answer, instead of just not quoting the ones in future posts that steer the course of the discussion away from exchanges that might challenge my arguments or undermine my case, as you've done repeatedly in this thread. You're the one you refuses to acknowledge facts - you challenge the legitimacy of questions which if answered might allow us to actually progress the points we are discussing to their logical conclusion and allow us to see whose arguments can stand up under scrutiny. Rather than ceding a point, you have a habit of citing unreal examples and questioning the meanings of standard words in the dictionary until your opponents give up trying to have a rational, concise discussion in frustration.

They are "loaded" questions. Why does that matter? They are certainly heavy and emotional, but that is appropriate considering we were discussing your empathy for people outside your family, or rather a perceived lack of it, and I wanted to stress the ramifications of the principles we are discussing (eg. the sacrifice of others for the 'greater good'). How would you suggest I communicate the import of your decisions without making it personal? Why won't you just go ahead and answer them since you say your arguments aren't dependent on the answers? You have nothing to lose by doing so, if that is so.

Quote:
"being too certain of yourself is a form of arrogance. every preventive strike might be based on misconceptions, no matter how sure you think you are of yourself. unless you are omniscient ofcource."

I made it clear I disagree with preventive strikes. I asked you why you condoned this one involving Alpizar given the evidence (essentially, a man running from a plane).

Quote:
"its not a silly wordgame. 'there is no proof, only standards of proof', is a true sentence."

I don't agree. See my previous point about the dictionary definitions of the terms 'knowing' and 'suspecting'. There is proof of (it is possible to 'know') many things in the practical (non-impractical-philosophical) realm. Just because some things are more likely possibilities than others, does not mean that some quantities are not absolutely provable (or not). There are also standards of proof, but proof (eg. 'this man IS a terrorist because he we've seen he has a bomb') and the standards of it are two entirely different things. See my earlier examples of *direct observation*.

There is no doubt that after seeing a civilian in possession of a bomb on an airplane or in an airport where such items are forbidden the air marshalls would have proof that they were about to harm others (why would they even think that, without a direct or indirect observation?). Suspecting someone has a bomb because they have run from a plane is not even remotely in the same league - it has in no way relied on *direct or indirect observation* of behaviour consistent with malicious intentions, the prerequisites for suspecting and knowing. Until they had actually witnessed certain things with their own eyes and thus 'knew', they were just speculating...given the evidence (or lack of it), I have to ask - why?

Quote:
"you called my hypothetical situation where officers needed an autopsy confirmed death before returning fire rediculous, or something along those lines, which suggests you also agree standards of proof must be lowered outside of courtrooms."

No, I challenged your implication that using my theories, people have to die before we know that someone is trying to kill them, when that someone is aiming, pointing and firing a gun directly at them. Attempted murder is a crime too. Leave your hypotheticals and unreal situations out of this. See my previous point about obvious, *provable* cases of self-defense vs. vague suspicions about other peoples conduct. It has nothing to do with standards - it's just a matter of common sense.

I don't agree that standards of proof must be lowered outside of courtrooms (I'm talking about standards of proof, not the entire legal process). In fact, I think that the reason that Alpizar died is that the standards were lowered - see my next point. Proof is definitely required before executing someone on the spot. What we're arguing about here, is not standards of proof, but the decision not to take the time to seek proof in supposed emergency situations.

Quote:
"so our disagreement isnt 'if' standards of proof should be lowered outside court, but how much precisely."

I disagree. I think that in this case we're arguing about the marshalls lowering the standards of proof such that the chances of any variables input not being "proof" after a judgement are a thousand to one. Clearly, their paranoia was at work. I'm arguing that the standards of proof (evidence) need to be much the same as that required in courts. Also, see my previous point.

Quote:
"now youve lost me."

I don't wonder. You're prepared to make statements such as 'justice is an illusion' and (paraphrasing) 'people who seek justice should acknowledge they are selfish', but you're not prepared to accept the implications that these ideas have for your worldview if you're a consistent, rational human being. It must bother you greatly that there are all these selfish victims of crime out there, taking comfort in the fact that they don't have to live in fear anymore because their abusers have been put behind bars. Also, if you don't understand my comments (they are fairly straight-forward) - see my previous point about your inclination to challenge even the most simple, widely understood concepts. Probably, this is just another case of you giving a quick, not particularly considered answer that you later have to clarify.

Paulcoz.

[Edited by - paulcoz on December 14, 2005 6:42:08 AM]

You just killed Wavinator. I hope you’re happy.

Fun stats:

13 pages of text

5,138 words

24,529 characters

i think im now officially a candidate for the longest post ever made on gamedev...

Quote:Original post by paulcoz
I could do without this ridiculous circular logic, Eelco. If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?!

Firstly, you said in your second last post that you introduced the deterministic universe to 'challenge the idea that this man was innocent' (which whether you intended it or not meant you were presenting an argument that you believed implied his lack of innocence, and I suppose guilt). When that argument didn't work out, you said that you introduced the universe to argue that his innocence is irrelevant. These are two completely different things. You have either revised your stated reasons for posting the argument (which suggests you're trying to dig yourself out of a hole), or you're not doing a very good job articulating them. Keep this in mind, the next time you feel like chiding me for my misunderstandings about the basis of your beliefs and arguments.

indeed i was wording myself wrongly there. i wasnt trying to challenge this man was innocent, i was trying to challenge the idea that his innocence has any implications whatsoever. my apologies.

Quote:
Secondly, I said Alpizar was innocent *of being a bomber* (see my reply to boolean, in which he also challenged the assertion I made that Alpizar was innocent). That statement is true in the context in which I made it (that of our justice system, whether or not you agree personally that such a system is possible and/or worthwhile). This man's (or any other's) being innocent (which implies innocence of something) is NOT an irrelevant concept in the context of a justice system, because it indicates whether a crime (a quantity of what we have previously determined to be harm) took place or is about to take place (which gets us back to the points we have been discussing about threats and standards of proof).

i do believe i said asmuch that i agree 'innocence' as an indicator of 'this man didnt perform this action' is a useful concept. if that was what you were trying to say, I agree.

Quote:
In our justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty. Running off a plane is not ample evidence of a threat. I can make anything you say appear irrelevant by taking it out of its original context and putting it into another. You accuse me of bad debating?!

there you go on about proving again. at the moment im writing this, ive already typed out god knows how many words of reply, but it all feels rather pointless if we still disagree on such a fundamental level.

regardless, i don’t think its all that unreasonable to allow officers to fire on people that ignore repeated orders. if you’re unable to follow such basic orders as: put your hands in the air, you should be well supervised, probably in some locked room. Interaction with society requires personal responsibility. Take this responsibility or accept the consequences.

Quote:
Why can't you just admit that bringing up determinism (as part of an attempt to undermine my point, which was made in a specific context) was a waste of time? You've already said it is of 'no concern'. Threats and proof can be discussed (with or without innocence) in either system. Introducing determinism has just served to complicate the discussion unnecessarily.

no, it served to outline why i think alpizars illness was irrelevant.

Quote:
What do decisions in court have to do with acknowledging the different meanings of two separate words in the English language, which is what you were supposed to be addressing? I'm not asking you to complicate the matter by introducing unnecessary angles, analogies or philosophy. I'm just asking if you understand what 'suspecting' means in plain English? Do you comprehend what 'knowing' means? Do you think these two separate words have the same meaning according not to your own beliefs, but to the widely understood dictionary definitions which everyone but you uses to communicate?

i understand the meaning of both words, and that they are both extremes of one continuum of certainty. the shades of gray might not be that important in day-to-day use, but in a legal setting, they are (or atleast should be) everything.

Quote:
The issue of 'knowing' in this case cannot be clouded with claims of the indirect. Did they see he had a bomb? Obviously not, thus they could not have 'known'. If they'd seen, they would have 'known' and then they would have been justified in countering the harm he was about to cause. Until then, they only 'suspected' and I'd say their standards of proof were so appallingly low, there was no way they could be certain of his guilt: a man panics and runs from a plane and all of a sudden the marshalls assume he has a bomb?

if that was the case i would fully agree with you. however, visual evidence is not everything. If (if, mind) someone pleads guilty himself (for instance, by claiming to have a bomb), even if the rest of the case is very very weak, that should still be enough to take action.

Quote:
Framed me to make it seem like I had a microwave? That's a good one.

do not act as if you do not see the parallel. framing is ofcource ridiculous in the case of a microwave, but when considering proving in the context of a legal system, which hypotheticals aside, we are talking about, its always a very real possibility.

Quote:
The latter example just further demonstrates your occasional inability to maintain rationality during discussion.

it did? And you accuse me of being too brief…

Quote:
We don't have to feel good about putting someone behind bars. I think you're making a gross generalisation there.

You are the one taking the liberty of calling it justice, of labelling him as bad, and implicitly, yourself as good.

The winners write history. its always the same story, they were just, and the losers were the bad guys. no wonder good always prevails, uh?

Quote:
A man who kills a few people demonstrates his inability to co-exist with others in our society and loses his right to freedom so that others can have their right to live. The decision involves a weighing of the pros and cons.

yeah, it involves a weighting of the pros and cons of the ones making the laws. clearly it doesn’t weight the pros and cons of the murderer at all, since he gets screwed no matter what. its purely selfish, dont deny it. not that i say there is anything wrong with the selfish act of trying to keep yourself alive though, everyone does it.

Quote:
I think that the justice system should primarily concern itself with harm reduction, not with being selfish ('ha ha, he had to go to jail'), although I'll grant that some people do have that attitude.

Im not talking about ‘ha ha ha’ kind of responses. That’s more schadenfruede than selfishness. Im talking about using the term justice for a situation where one man gets nothing, so that others can have everything, kind of selfishness.

Quote:
I disagree that justice is all about selfish acts. Selfish would be taking glee at throwing people you don't like into prison or executing them as punishment without cause, rather than for the sake of keeping other people safe.

the 'collective' creates laws to protect the interests of the 'collective'. the collective is selfish, which is no coincidence: its made up of selfish individuals. don’t try to muddy the waters by making it seem as if you create laws just to protect others. You share the collective benefit aswell as the collective selfishness.

Quote:
Selfish would be having different rules for yourself than for others. Not everyone has these attitudes, however much you like to say they do to try to rationalise your own self-centredness.

everyone DOES have these attitudes.

We DO have different rules for murderers and non-murderers. well, but it was their own choice to become a murder you say, everyone who murders gets the same treatment, so its ok, right?

I can say the same about ignoring orders. the same rule for everyone: if you ignore orders, you should get shot. if you don’t want to get shot you simply shouldn’t ignore orders.

its the same thing.

Quote:
The executioner of the law has as much free will as you, who presumes to be creating the laws do, despite any claim that you or they may make to the contrary (the government made them do it).

yes, but they dont matter for the discussion between you and me. they might aswell be robots. This discussion isaboutwhat laws we can and cannot/shouldn’t create.

Quote:
If this is your attitude, I have to wonder why you're concerned with preventing bombers from blowing up planes at all costs? After all, people die, huh? Why should bombers be held to account more rigorously than anyone else? Are the passengers who agree that bombers should be neutralised because they don't want to be blown up, selfish? I think you need to be more consistent. You can't argue an attitude without compromise when it is aligned with a point you want to make (eg. 'everyone enacting justice is doing so out of selfishness') and then compromise it in another, because it appears unreasonably harsh.

laws will be created in the interest of those creating them.

bombers should die before 'innocent' people do, because that is the creature we are. we put our own lives above those of others. justice is merely a concept created to justify the actions of those writing history. its especially usefull in todays world, where people have a great aversion to admitting to what kind of selfish creature they are. there is nothing 'just' about it. it was you vs. them, and you won. that’s all there is to it.

Quote:
Yes, you *can* be sure someone is a threat. If someone is pointing a gun at you and shooting (but luckily for you missing), then they are trying to kill you. Noone needs to die for you to know that (please don't reply with one of your nonsensical, 'one in a trillion' alternate-reality case studies).

what? how do you even know they were using live ammo if they didnt hit you? as i said, maybe it was a rubber bullet? maybe they were missing on purpose, only firing a warning sign? THOSE ARE VERY REAL POSSIBILITIES! yet you are already sure they were trying to kill. gee, those aren’t very high standards of proof. it seems like reaching conclusions before a judge has wrestled through all the facts is something you are not so aversed to afterall.

Quote:
If you only suspect that someone has a gun (for whatever reason) and see them reaching into their pocket, there is nowhere near the same certainty of intent to kill, especially if you suspected them of planning an attack on a crowd and they walked five miles away from that crowd, or left the country or some such. This is simple stuff - don't make it more complicated that it needs to be.

it depends on how you got the suspicion they had a gun. is it just your paranoia, or, for instance, did the person in question tell you so himself? Big difference.

Quote:
At the time I first challenged you regarding your denial that you were referring to Alpizar when you said 'a man that has proven himself capable of killing other beings', you had never 'said many times' that you doubted the allegation that Alpizar had claimed to have a bomb. You did speculate *once*, but that was not until LATER in the same post, by which time I had already read the sentences in question and written my reply. Go back and re-read the posts you made prior to the point at which I challenged you, which is what my assertions were based on. So...no, while it could have been that you were referring to a hypothetical man, I thought it was unlikely at the time and if you were, you didn't make that at all clear. Perhaps if you had made an effort to distinguish your comments ('a man that has proven himself capable of killing other beings, *unlike Alpizar*' or 'go around claiming you are a threat *like Alpizar did*' or some such) people wouldn't have to guess what you're saying and possibly misunderstand you? If you want to clarify your position, that's fine - but, don't pretend that everything you've said has been crystal clear. You've already admitted in another one of the other points we have discussed (see above), that you could have explained yourself better, which is due to your omitting illuminating details - that's not the first time either.

Yes, your reading comprehension is fine. I wish you'd do something about your writing skills.

it could have been clear what i said without the context of the first sentence, but by merely looking at the second.

however, i do agree i could have worded myself more clearly. nonetheless, id advice you to read a little more thoroughly next time before you pull out the insults. If this are the standards of proof you wield before commencing with the judging, I think potential bombers are better off with me running the show.

Quote:
I didn't ask you to speculate about the actions of an *insane person*. I asked you to explain why a terrorist with a bomb on a plane would not detonate it or try to hi-jack the plane, and walk away from the target? There is a point. It isn't irrelevant. It doesn't assume anything. It doesn't make false assumptions. Re-read the point in my previous post and answer the question, or accept that you're dodging it.

Hows about YOU stop dodging the point and answer my question: how in the name of hell can i answer that without making the false assumption that he is sane?!

Quote:
...In your own words, it's all about 'what I want'. Arguing with you, seems to be more and more pointless.

its not so much important what i want, its important what the majority of people want. well, define important, but thats whats going to happen. people demonstrate time and time again to value their own life over anything else, and that of others is hardly worth shit to them.

why would you expect these people to create laws that take the life of potential bombers in equal consideration to their own?

Quote:
Stop with your witticisms and focus your attention on the debate. Address the original point you dodged, if you can...I argue that there is a difference between objective assertions (criticisms) and inflammatory insults. See my next point.

your 'objective assertions' didnt seem to serve any other point than elevating your feeling of self-righteousness.

Quote:
Given the fact that you admit to being selfish

this only makes me more honest than you.

Quote:
FYI, the point in question concerned the difference between objective assertions of fact (he's blind or he's mentally ill) and insults (he's thick as a plank). The former are neutral statements, the latter are intended to be derogatory and are more often inflammatory. You wouldn't admit you were wrong. They *aren't* the same thing.

no, they are only derogatory in a derogatory context. there is nothing wrong in my world with noting that mentally ill people are more prone to performing stupid acts. i never let PC get in the way of simple observations.

Quote:
Saying that's the case doesn't make it so. You said the man in your example walked unknowingly to his death and that a shout would have saved his life. You didn't mention any other people in the example, so it was reasonable to assume there were none (in fact, I can imagine you accusing me of introducing elements you didn't specify). There were no people to be hurt by any action I might take to save him. You were implying that given my theories I wouldn't have saved this man, by saying that his blood would be on my hands. That is a straw-man, plain and simple. Respond to the point. Admit that is the case.

a strawman is where i reword your argument in such a way that its no longer the same argument you originally made, then attack it. i never even implied anywhere that my hypothetical situation was your argument/position. it was nothing but a way to show how i felt about the results of inaction: a factor that i felt was blatantly absent in your theory of bloodhydrodynamics.

Quote:
It's a valid point, but not one I agree with. The people who might get hurt because of your inaction are every bit as important, but that doesn't mean they have more worth collectively than the people who are hurt as the *direct* result of your action. If it's the choice between saving one person and saving many (with noone else to get hurt), obviously you save the larger number of people. But, where you have to consciously choose to kill someone (even to save many)...I draw the line there. Human lives shouldn't be treated like integers when weighing their value, which is VERY subjective.

but you do weight them, only irrationally. You said minimizing harm is your goal. Yet you take a principal stance of not shooting suspected threats (unless you feel like it, ofcource), so even if I were to show you conclusive evidence that shooting suspects has a clear net positive effect, youd be against it. BZZZT. Conflict.

Inaction is action. somehow, you weight the lives of those you kill much more heavily than of those you save. i believe the scientific term for this behaviour is ‘indecisiveness’, but its also known as 'cowardice'.

Quote:
There's also the issue of moral culpability - you may not agree with this (being concerned with the 'greater good' and all), but bear with me: If you weren't directly responsible for people being placed into a position in which they die, you are not morally culpable for their deaths (their blood is not on your hands, you are not responsible for their deaths) if you do not choose to save them because that was not possible without killing another. You could say that this inaction results in their deaths, but the alternative is to make moral compromises that can end up leading to inconsistencies in the application of judgements and the taking of actions which don't always results in the 'greater good'.

judging is never perfect. and such moral compromises are already made in the case of a policeman returning fire when being shot on. OMG, hes being judge and executioner all in one! yes, indeed. and mistakes do get made, which i think we should take care to minimize.

But i do not favor the alternative of NOT giving executioners of the law also emergency judging powers. Its simply not a viable alternative. If an officer has good enough reason to believe hes being shot at, he needs to be allowed to fire back. If an officer has a good enough reason to believe someone is a bombthreat, he should be allowed to gun him down asap.

Quote:
Also, consider the issue of consent. In condoning this attitude, you are dictating to someone else, to what they should sacrifice their life. Did they consent to giving their life for the principle of the 'greater good'? Did the individual you sacrificed want to give their life to save those other people? In this respect, your attitude (which is enforced by the administrators of society) is an authoritarian one. You are denying people their individual choice. This is unjust. What if they have a differing view on the subject that they believe is less harmful than yours? One that seeks the 'greater good', but not at the expense of the rights of individuals, not when the judgements that are made devalue the lives of people that they are supposed to be benefiting.

the same applies to the murderer you 'justly' put behind bars. did they consent to being locked up for the principle of the greater good, for the protection of society? my guess is no. In this respect, your attitude (which is enforced by the administrators of society) is an authoritarian one.

if the majority of people don’t like someone roaming their streets, they can put him behind bars, effectively taking his life. And they do. similarly, people can choose to gun down people they feel are a threat that needs dealing with quickly. no, its not fair. im not the one suggesting the world is fair in the first place.

Quote:
Another concern I have with the 'greater good' is that it allows events such as this (Alpizar) to happen - a man who was not about to cause an amount of harm has been shot. Clearly a mistake has been made, because he has been killed without any positive benefits (lives being saved) that would make his shooting worthwhile in either a justice system or another system that is concerned with the 'greater good'. The 'greater good' / 'justice' did not eventuate in this case.

yes, it was a mistake, but your talking to the wrong person. im not the one yelling: VERY GOOD.

Quote:
I don't think it's appropriate in either belief system, to weigh harm (in this case, a man dying) against *benefits (in this case, lives being saved) which may not eventuate*. As I said before, it's one thing to weigh the death of a 'bomber' (a label representative of someone about to cause harm) against the deaths of 'innocents' (a label representative of those who aren't about to cause comparable harm) onboard a plane or in an airport terminal, and decide to choose the death of the 'bomber', therefore bringing about the 'greater good'. It's another entirely to take an action which may cause harm without any positive effects to compensate, to take action which depends on the realisation of unforseeable events. I don't agree with people taking gambles where these serious decisions are concerned, which is what happens when you act only on suspicions.

but you do agree with a policeman returning fire without the intervention of a court? do we finally agree it is a matter of where to draw the line?

Quote:
Finally, I have a problem with adhering strictly to the principle of 'greater good' because of the moral compromises involved (I'm talking about justifying things which are harmful to others who are not causing harm themselves). Adopting this principle, doesn't allow any defense against choosing certain individuals (a sub-class you could say) whose lives are able to be expended, even in a wholesale manner. Where do you draw the line, between the sacrifice of a few deaths and many? Is it acceptable to partake in mass genocide (sacrifice 700,000 to benefit 1,000,000) if that results in the least overall harm?

not acceptable to those 700,000 id wager. if you agree to such a thing or not, all depends which side of the fence you are on. you falsely assume that the common interest always trump individuals ones, which is not how human beings work at all. There only is a common interest as long as there is a common goal.

Quote:
It would be possible to implement a system tommorow which concerned itself with sacrificing some members of the community for the benefit of society, which would result in less harm being caused worldwide in the future than is currently the case. If we were to give the lives of select healthy individuals to certain ventures (for example, one in the field of medical science - we could experiment on people and test and advance our unproven/elementary medical theories, or implement an organ donor system in which the lives of a few are given to benefit many requiring various transplants) we could work towards eliminating a lot of suffering and death that is currently experienced by humanity. Whether or not we can conclusively say that there will be long-term benefits (in the case of medical science, valuable research and/or cures) is irrelevant - that is unprovable (according to you), but it's highly likely that this will be the case if we persist long enough. As far as determining whose lives are given away in order to implement this system, it can be said that certain criminals currently in corrective institutions have 'proven that they are capable of killing other people' - so we'll use them. It could also be argued, using your criteria of (paraphrasing) 'those who are a liability in our society', that people who don't consent to give their lives to this undeniably effective system, are a liability by their choices to our goal of achieving the 'greater good' - keeping in mind that there is no distinction (according to you) between those who *directly* cause harm themselves and those who contribute to the overall level of harm by their *inaction*. I'm sure there are other, more fitting examples than medical science - substitute those if necessary.

Do you agree, given your opinions, that such a system should indeed be implemented? If not, in accordance with your principles - which are not concerned with concepts such as innocence, guilt, direct or indirect responsibility, justice etc... - on what grounds (non-moral, non-just) could you choose not to implement such a system, if it were deemed conducive to the 'greater good'?

Please explain your rationale, so that I can better understand your motives. Is there some rational, consistent thought process going on here, or are your choices made based on arbitrary whims ('what I want')? If it's the latter, this conversation is over.

Very good question. Stresses again how much I like to argue these kind of things. It’s a great way to get an insight into others, but mostly into yourself.

indeed i would choose not to implement such a system, and i would expect my selfish fellow man to choose likewise. my non-moral, non-just grounds (which I take pride in) for this are as follows:

1: like you, i am in favour of jailing people who have committed murder. i, and most people with me, feel it reduces the chance of getting killed in the future: something we instinctively dont like. some people, namely murderers, suffer a lot of ill effect from this law: their life was probably pretty shitty to begin with, and now its completely ruined. but do i care? nope. i dont think ill ever be subject to this law: all i need to do is not kill

2: like you, i am in favor of criminals who are shooting to be shot back at. it has undeniable positive effects: i doubt anybody would even want to become an officer if they are nothing but walking targets. on top of that, all i need to do not to find myself on the wrong end of this law is not shoot at people. for me, and apparently for you, the pros outweigh the cons. but for everybody? hell no. laws like this create plenty of room for accidents. its just that regardless, i feel the pros outweigh the cons.

3: unlike you, i am in favour of shooting people who are a perceived danger and ignore repeated and simple orders. it has a positive effect, in parallel with (2). draconian law you say? accident might happen? yes, some people will be negatively affected by this law, but like with (1&2), i think the net effect for me will be positive. all i need to do is raise my hands when an officer requests so: i can live with that. i think the net effect for most people will be positive. but its not really important what you or i think: what’s important in our representative government, is that i think most people would support this law if they think about it well enough. Simply because they are selfish creatures.

4: now for your above scenario, its very simple: by definition of your hypothetical scenario, there is a positive effect, for everyone nonetheless. however, there are also people who pay the price for this system. how do i know i will not be one of them? Will I be able to exercise any control over this? will it be as simple as not murdering, not firing guns at people, or just raising my hands? lets see what you do have to say about this: people who don't consent to give their lives to this undeniably effective system, are a liability by their choices to our goal of achieving the 'greater good' - keeping in mind that there is no distinction (according to you) between those who *directly* cause harm themselves and those who contribute to the overall level of harm by their *inaction*.

nah, that doesnt sound too appealing to me, no. I wouldn’t want to give away control over my own fate in such a way, and on top of that, i consider my own life more important than the (unspecified, there are many kinds of) greater good.

Quote:
I'm not 'squirming' in the slightest. At least I do you the courtesy of responding to all your points with an answer, instead of just not quoting the ones in future posts that steer the course of the discussion away from exchanges that might challenge my arguments or undermine my case, as you've done repeatedly in this thread.

Excuse me, but you have a tendency of making the same point over and over again in a rather longwinded fashion. Sometimes I feel like cutting away paragraphs that I feel I have already responded to, for the sake of keeping all this readable, and im barely managing regardless: I realize this is dangerous territory: I could be, subconsciously or not, be trying to dodge your points, as you claim.

If you feel I ignored anything important, that I hadn’t otherwise already replied to, feel free to bring it to my attention again.

Quote:
You're the one you refuses to acknowledge facts - you challenge the legitimacy of questions which if answered might allow us to actually progress the points we are discussing to their logical conclusion and allow us to see whose arguments can stand up under scrutiny. Rather than ceding a point, you have a habit of citing unreal examples and questioning the meanings of standard words in the dictionary until your opponents give up trying to have a rational, concise discussion in frustration.

What unreal examples did I cite? And ofcource I challenge words used in the dictionary, and otherwise commonly understood words: Im arguing against the thoroughly ingrained mainstream western worldview. I continuously run into the problem that even the very language we use to communicate is simply too grown around the worldview you are defending too properly express my views, for Christ’s sake.

Quote:
They are "loaded" questions. Why does that matter? They are certainly heavy and emotional, but that is appropriate considering we were discussing your empathy for people outside your family, or rather a perceived lack of it, and I wanted to stress the ramifications of the principles we are discussing (eg. the sacrifice of others for the 'greater good'). How would you suggest I communicate the import of your decisions without making it personal? Why won't you just go ahead and answer them since you say your arguments aren't dependent on the answers? You have nothing to lose by doing so, if that is so.

Let me give you a example of a loaded question directed at you, so you might see where im coming from (exclaimer: this is for educational purposes only)

“Maybe if you wernt such a dick, you would see I am right?”

Would you dignify that question with an answer? If you would give an answer, no matter which, youd implicitly agree with me that you are indeed, a dick.

Quote:
I made it clear I disagree with preventive strikes. I asked you why you condoned this one involving Alpizar given the evidence (essentially, a man running from a plane).

You don’t disagree with preventive strikes if you agree with policemen returning fire.

And the evidence in this case is far from given, hence why I reserve judgement for anything but the hypotheticals we discuss.

Quote:
I don't agree. See my previous point about the dictionary definitions of the terms 'knowing' and 'suspecting'. There is proof of (it is possible to 'know') many things in the practical (non-impractical-philosophical) realm. Just because some things are more likely possibilities than others, does not mean that some quantities are not absolutely provable (or not). There are also standards of proof, but proof (eg. 'this man IS a terrorist because he we've seen he has a bomb') and the standards of it are two entirely different things. See my earlier examples of *direct observation*.

I am really confused at how you can say such things. What is even the worth of a direct observation? Observations only mean something assuming that you are sane. People can directly observe the most convincingly realistic of things, while others might see nothing of the kind.

Quote:
There is no doubt that after seeing a civilian in possession of a bomb on an airplane or in an airport where such items are forbidden the air marshalls would have proof that they were about to harm others (why would they even think that, without a direct or indirect observation?). Suspecting someone has a bomb because they have run from a plane is not even remotely in the same league - it has in no way relied on *direct or indirect observation* of behaviour consistent with malicious intentions, the prerequisites for suspecting and knowing. Until they had actually witnessed certain things with their own eyes and thus 'knew', they were just speculating...given the evidence (or lack of it), I have to ask - why?

No, I don’t think running from a plane are good grounds for shooting someone. Neither do i think ignoring orders is something you should always be shot for. However, if you are suspected of something for a reason other than the officers paranoia, like for example the very suspicion arousing event of someone claiming to have a bomb, ignoring orders after this point is no-go territory as far as im concerned.

Quote:
No, I challenged your implication that using my theories, people have to die before we know that someone is trying to kill them, when that someone is aiming, pointing and firing a gun directly at them.

The simple fact is that its impossible to prove their intentions, even if they aiming, pointing and firing a gun at you, AND proclaiming themselves they are trying to kill you.

There is no proof, yet we fire back regardless. Because the proof meets your standards.

Quote:
I don't agree that standards of proof must be lowered outside of courtrooms (I'm talking about standards of proof, not the entire legal process). In fact, I think that the reason that Alpizar died is that the standards were lowered - see my next point. Proof is definitely required before executing someone on the spot. What we're arguing about here, is not standards of proof, but the decision not to take the time to seek proof in emergency situations.

That’s about the fifth time you said that, and it’s in clear conflict with you agreeing with police returning fire. Im not going to make my arguments again, so you can proceed now with claiming im dodging the point.

Quote:
I don't wonder. You're prepared to make statements such as 'justice is an illusion' and (paraphrasing) 'people who seek justice should acknowledge they are selfish', but you're not prepared to accept the implications that these ideas have for your worldview if you're a consistent, rational human being.

Example, please?

Quote:
It must bother you greatly that there are all these selfish victims of crime out there, taking comfort in the fact that they don't have to live in fear anymore because their abusers have been put behind bars.

Male dolphins beat pregnant female dolphins until they have a miscarriage, then rape them.

It doesn’t bother me. I can appreciate the way to world works no matter how harsh it is.