Ken Cotton

You can have a universal system that doesn't focus on making everyone happy. Cancer is effectively a universal reality for human beings, but that doesn't make everyone happy - it makes everyone equally unhappy. The idea that there are times where you can use violence as the final arbiter of disagreement doesn't make everyone happy, it makes everyone equally unhappy. I'd like to live in a world where that isn't the case, but that isn't the world we live in.

100% incorrect. I support violent competition. A fist fight or armed fight where you kill your opponent is as equally valid a form of conflict resolution as intellectually beating someone. Society has insitutionalized and formalized violence into the state and sport not because we believe at our core that violence has no place, but because we've established a working model where we can express violence in that method. I support violence as a final means of arbitration. I simply aim to win.

That video was actually really funny. You can object to the points about parenting or whatever if you want, but the mannerisms and impression were really entertaining.

Correct. You can claim an aversion toward violence done against you, but you can't claim that there aren't grounds for it. Everyone who engages in win-lose contests completely understands that they could be on the losing end, which is what drives the competition. This is what lends people to a cynical view of human rights or war crimes in a world where human rights are routinely violated and war crimes routinely ignored. They are both fictional constructs with no material basis. I'm aware, but objectively there is no real difference. The only difference between killing/displacing insects and plants versus human beings is an entirely emotional and arbitrary attachment toward human beings. It becomes a simple math equation once you remove the chemicals responsible for skewing the view. In a more objective view however, violently attacking a human being is no different from violently attacking anything else. All a human being does is factor in additional sociological consequences. No. Superior creatures consume inferior creatures, or form parasitic/mutually beneficial arrangements with them. I would oppose someone trying to eat or rape me through the use of violence. If I were subjugated, my feelings or decisions would be moot. I can be as opposed to being eaten as I want, and if a bear still mauls me, that's not going to stop the process of it eating me.

The initiation of violence is universal. From eating plants, tilling land, breathing, etc. All living creatures initiate violence against other living creatures in order to reproduce. That is the one constant among living beings. At least as far as reason and logic is concerned, the suggestion that human on human violence is immoral is absolutely arbitrary. There's nothing factual that supports that it is wrong to initiate violence against another person. Whether that violence is physical, emotional, or intellectual, superiority is extremely attractive. It goes against the very core of our reproductive reality to oppose acts of domination and subjugation.

I have to agree that I endorse limited acts of violence. Violence is neither good nor bad, it is simply a fact of life. All animate objects display varying degrees of violence. Even the most puritan vegan in the world routinely kills other living things simply by existing. Human lives are objectively no more valuable than any other living creature. It doesn't seem to stand to reason to me to put violence into a special box and try to stow it away. Philosophically, I am deeply confused as to where the idea of non-violence comes from. It seems completely arbitrary.

You could always just close your eyes, spin around a few times, and hit one randomly. That seems like the fairest thing to do, in terms of abdicating the responsibility of informed decision making.

The debate had some pretty depressing moments. Cenk trying to explain how he'd never engage in torture or do a first-strike was particularly pitiful. There's no way that he'd ever be placed in that position of power and authority if he had such an unwillingness to do necessary evil. It's really just the prattling of a self-absorbed idealogue mired in their own theories about how the world works. As usual Harris easily demonstrated how pragmatic use of force can be beneficial to the greater good, a concept understood by virtually all leadership. Perhaps the most frustrating element of the "debate" was the disregard for context. Cenk kept cherry picking from history examples that suited his argument instead of dealing with the here and now. In the context of a physical war with ISSI and fundamental extremism the violence done by those followers is more pronounced. Similarly in the greater worldwide culture war between Western values and Middle Eastern values the scrutiny of the enemy belief systems is more important. Any adherent of basic freedoms should regard oppressive religious mandates as tools of the enemy. When a person says that a man or woman can't show their hair because of supernatural or superstitious reasons that aren't based in reality, then that person needs to either adjust their worldview or stop propagating it. The convert or kill strategy is completely acceptable and the default modus operandi of virtually all living creatures. Those creatures who form symbiotic or mutually beneficial arrangements can be loosely regarded as having successfully "converted" the other group to their core cause. ( the continued prosperity of the lifeform and its kind ) The fact that Cenk has tricked himself into thinking this is no longer true speaks volumes of his ignorance about the real world. Ultimately this conversation serves to illustrate how certain elements of the Left are completely out of control. Cenk's ideal society is a complete nightmare with no foundation in the real world. Listening to him talk at length about complex socio-political subjects outside of his speciality is frustrating at best. Within the context of American Politics his thoughts are usually much more concise, accurate, and informative. I wish the same could be said for his understanding of violence and its practical applications.

No it isn't. The world stands poised to engage in another World War, perhaps the most lethal and thorough of them all. MAD from nuclear, chemical, and biological stockpiles will encourage the deployment of ground forces. The hell on earth that will be realized when the super powers of the world collide will be unknown to mankind. In the depths of carnarge, amongst fiery twisted metal and heaps of blown apart bodies, weakness and vulnerability will be rewarded only with pitiless death. The voracity and appetite of capitalism is not sated by world saving technologies with small profit margins. Electric cars and renewable energy could be mastered, but there isn't enough money in it and too much infrastructure is built around fossil fuels. It is only a matter of time before our easily accessed stores of oil run out. It is only a matter of time before global warming opens the arctic to competing claims of sovereignty and resources. Our FIAT currencies are run by parasitic international bankers with no allegiance to any particular state. Globalization in the hands of crony capitalists will turn entire nations into resource sectors. Fresh water sectors, manpower sectors, oil deposits, ore deposits, farmlands. The concept of the nation is already being whittled away as self-sustainability diminishes and countries rely increasingly on trade. Not trade for the goods needed to survive, but trade for hard currency dictated by powers held accountable to none. Areas that formerly grew crops for the local population instead turn to growing one large specific crop and exporting it for a profit. If you choose to embrace vulnerability, the given trait of women and children, expect to be crushed and raped as they have been through the countless years of human history. The only force that has ever stood against evil men of insatiable appetite and ruthlessness has been good men willing to do anything necessary to stop them. You are the only thing between the future of humanity and the gnawing hunger of the dark, you are the only thing that ever has been and the only thing that ever will be. It is up to you to own your destiny and to defend the genetic legacy imparted to you by hundreds of thousands of years of stuggle.

I do not understand the question. Isn't this just a simple triage situation where you divert the train to kill the single individual? Barring any additional details of course, like the 5 people being convicted killers/sex offenders and the single person being an innocent. That would immediately flip the choice around so that killing the 5 is preferable. There doesn't seem to be a lot of philosophy to this question. If you choose to be a non-active element and take no action either way, then you are likely to be fired unless you say you were frozen with fear or confusion. If you are at the trainyard as part of the greater mechanism of the yard and organization you are expected to fulfil certain functions. One of the basic functions of a person working in a place, especially a dangerous place like a trainyard, is the capacity to make meaningful decisions in times of emergency. I do not think that any hermit style Libertarian or such would ever face this dilemma, or at least, they wouldn't face it with any fascination toward the lives of those on the tracks. If you are a wandering person who doesn't really associate with people and you happen across this situation, you could easily just shrug it off as a weird anomaly. Hey, you might even proceed to loot the bodies because you have no emotional attachment to the people involved. Sure, there's an instinctual level of connection to other human beings, but a life of solidarity and brutality in nature can dull those reactions. Now, if you're a wage slave, you probably have some basic outline of what to do in emergencies drawn out for you. "You work here for X hours and get paid Y, these are your basic responsibilities." You also probably have a fairly good understanding of what your boss likes and doesn't like. If your boss likes the single person on the track a lot, and you know that, then you know that within the context of the trolley person its preferable for you to kill the 5 people. Universally Preferable Behaviour becomes Universally Predictable Behaviour, because without the context of a greater organization everyone acts in their own best interests. No one can fault the person for their choice because its the same choice they all would have made, because their job and purpose in the yard is to benefit their employer at the expense of their time and energy. In the end the trolley problem is an unlikely but relatively simple problem. It's one that can get hours of thought, but in context affords only seconds to solve. The trolley problem is less a problem to solve and more a test of one's personality.

My advice as a fellow Canadian is to harness that instinct toward a productive end. People are naturally going to get upset about something as serious as a political attack at the capital. Is it wrong for that anger to manifest in a desire to kill the attacker? I certainly think it is completely acceptable for the gunman to have been shot dead. I also think its perfectly acceptable that any co-conspirators or people otherwise aligned with ISSI be banished or executed. The best thing we can do is redirect the anger away from generic groups and focus it onto specific perpetrators.