Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:33:36 -0700 From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> To: <paul@freebsd-services.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: helping victims of terror Message-ID: <20010927183337.AAA631@shell.webmaster.com@whenever> In-Reply-To: <20270000.1001605981@lobster.originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:53:01 +0100, Paul Richards wrote: >>> You should differentiate between communism and the USSR. Communism is an >>>idealogy and it is not one that demands that military force be used to >>>overthrow capitalist markets. >> Any ideology that includes the notion that private property is >>inherently coercive can be used to justify the use of force against those >>who practice it. >Umm, not related to my point below, but where does communism state that >private property is "coercive"? I'm not sure what you mean by "where does cummunism state", communism is not a particular book or document but an ideology. I can show you quotations from several documents written by communists or about communism. You may not find it in a 'sound bite'. >> Often only because of other errors in the ideology. For example, if >>some >>ideology claimed that having blonde hair was a crime comparable to murder, >>you can blame that ideology for justifying the killing or imprisoning of >>blonde people, even if that ideology also includes complete pacifism and >>the notion that only god can punish murders. The >If there was an ideology that said having blonde hair was a crime but that >violent actions were evil then it is not the fault of the ideology for >violence against people with blonde hair since those perpetrating the >violence are not believers in the ideology, they're just haters of people >with blonde hair who have picked out that one piece of someone elses >ideology to justify their actions. Not at all. The people who hold each individual tenet of an ideology bear responsibility of the logical implications of that tenet, even if they don't choose to draw them, even if they hold other beliefs that contradict that tenet. >That is very relevant to the current situation. Absolutely. >> comission of a crime comparable to murder can reasonably justify the use >>of retaliatory lethal force, and thus so can the ideology even if it >>includes other unreasonable elements. >You're now applying your own idealogy to pieces of someone elses, that's not >a valid course of debate. It is if I am correct. Again, an ideology bears full responsibility for the logical conclusions of its beliefs even if its believers choose not to hold the. Your argument is equivalent to "that's what you think", which while true, is not a refutation if I'm correct. You will have to show that drawing that conclusion is unreasonable, not just that some people fail to draw it. >Your own ideology says that a crime comparable to >murder justifies the use of retaliatory force but you're drawing that >opinion from your own idealogy, not the one you're criticising for having an >opinion on blondes that you disagree with. If I am correct, what difference does it make whether it's my opinion or not? "That's what you think" is not a valid refutation except on a kindergarten playground. If I am wrong, you must argue so, not merely that others disagree with me. >Don't assume that some other ideology that equates certain acts to murder >will also have the same view that muder justifies retaliatory force. I don't, but I don't care. Other people's irrational views only interest me insofar as judging what their consequences are. >To use >our silly model, if being blonde is equivalent to being a murderer it does >not follow that being blonde deserves the death penalty. The idealogy can be >pacifist and view all such crimes as issues to be dealt with in a peacable >manner. Dye blondes to be brunette, council murderers until they reform etc. Sure, but the bad parts of the ideology are still bad and still deserve blame for their logical consequences even if the believers fail to draw them (because someone else always will). >You may not agree with the beliefs of this "idealogy" but you can't pick the >bits you don't like in isolation and then apply your ideaology to come to a >conclusion, any ideaology has to be viewed as a whole. Not at all! Each individual belief can be judged for correctness and blamed for error. There is no "credit" for errors which "cancel themselves out". >When you do that you may find that defining blondes to be murders might not >seem as abhorrent as it would if you did it within your idealogy, because >the way the ideaology deals with murderers is different to yours. Again, "that's what you think" is not an appropriate refutation. I have used the concept that force is an appropriate way to deal with murders. If you wish to argue against it, you must do so from reasonable principles otherwise I am entitled to use it. >(I didn't pick this silly example, apologies to offended blondes). I did, but I don't like blondes, so we're okay. ;) DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010927183337.AAA631>