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"? =09I'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. =09Not 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. =09Absolutely. >> 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. =09It 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. =09If 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. =09I 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. =09Sure, 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. =09Not 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. =09Again, "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). =09I did, but I don't like blondes, so we're okay. ;) =09DS 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>