Alan C. Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families' Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would kill the families of terrorists in order to win the fight against ISIS.The billionaire businessman was asked by the hosts of Fox News' "Fox and Friends" how to fight ISIS but also minimize civilian causalities when terrorists often use human shields."The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.Trump said he would "knock the hell out of" ISIS, and criticized the U.S. for "fighting a very politically correct war."
J. D. Stembal Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 If we can't out-breed them, let's out-bleed them. It's disheartening that this comes from the mouth of a modern capitalist. Remember that ethically, if you are thinking about casting a vote for Trump, you have no problem with murder. 3 2
AccuTron Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Okay, doubt removed, he's totally bonkers. 1 1
Wuzzums Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 Does he mean the children included? Because that might sway my opinion on his statement. ISIS supporters are in some manner responsible for ISIS' deeds, so by this logic their families are in some manner responsible for ISIS' deeds. I wouldn't say they should be punished in an equal fashion, that's going way too far. His response seems to be pure K. I'm prone to irrational hatred too when I feel aggressed upon, it's biological. After the Paris attacks I fully expected there to be a "Burn a Quran Day" or a "Bomb The Mosques With Pork Meat Day" but nothing of that sort happened. Fighting a warfare with flowers is completely alien behavior for me. Nevertheless, it's the media. I either have to hear it from him directly or see some official statement to even remotely consider passing judgement on the guy.
Donnadogsoth Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 The problem with the unscrupulous fighting the scrupulous is that if it becomes known that the latter will not fire on civilians, the former will start strapping civilians to their tanks, embedding civilians in their squads, chaining civilians to their artillery pieces, and keeping civilians with them in their camps, their ammunition dumps, their oil refineries, and their convoys. So, because the scrupulous are so scrupulous, the unscrupulous win. The solution for this is not to outright murder anyone, not to outright target any civilian, but to make it clearly known that there is no value in a human shield, that that shield will be blown up or shot through as though it isn't there. And the ones shooting through it will know in their hearts that they are not the efficient cause of these deaths, but rather the ones using human shields are the efficient cause, by pushing innocent people into the lines of their enemies' fire. Trump isn't wrong, he's just unpolished. He's a political diamond in the rough who just needs some philosophical tumbling in order to turn out a fine defender of WTC.
shirgall Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 The problem with the unscrupulous fighting the scrupulous is that if it becomes known that the latter will not fire on civilians, the former will start strapping civilians to their tanks, embedding civilians in their squads, chaining civilians to their artillery pieces, and keeping civilians with them in their camps, their ammunition dumps, their oil refineries, and their convoys. So, because the scrupulous are so scrupulous, the unscrupulous win. The solution for this is not to outright murder anyone, not to outright target any civilian, but to make it clearly known that there is no value in a human shield, that that shield will be blown up or shot through as though it isn't there. And the ones shooting through it will know in their hearts that they are not the efficient cause of these deaths, but rather the ones using human shields are the efficient cause, by pushing innocent people into the lines of their enemies' fire. Trump isn't wrong, he's just unpolished. He's a political diamond in the rough who just needs some philosophical tumbling in order to turn out a fine defender of WTC. You're headed in the right direction. The scruples argument is missing an element known as "The Doctrine of Competing Harms", which in essence argues that it is appropriate to take an action that endangers another if inaction would be a greater danger to others. If a crazed bomber may escape to kill again and certainly is likely to, it can okay to endanger the hostage in the moment. The typical Doctrine of Competing Harms scenario is the more mundane swerving across the double-yellow line to avoid a pedestrian when driving around a blind corner and there's a possibility of unseen oncoming traffic. Even so, I don't think it can be argued that coldly planning and executing the murder of terrorists' families has either this kind of necessity, immediacy, or even a paucity of alternative approaches. 2
J. D. Stembal Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 The problem with the unscrupulous fighting the scrupulous is that if it becomes known that the latter will not fire on civilians, the former will start strapping civilians to their tanks, embedding civilians in their squads, chaining civilians to their artillery pieces, and keeping civilians with them in their camps, their ammunition dumps, their oil refineries, and their convoys. So, because the scrupulous are so scrupulous, the unscrupulous win. The solution for this is not to outright murder anyone, not to outright target any civilian, but to make it clearly known that there is no value in a human shield, that that shield will be blown up or shot through as though it isn't there. And the ones shooting through it will know in their hearts that they are not the efficient cause of these deaths, but rather the ones using human shields are the efficient cause, by pushing innocent people into the lines of their enemies' fire. Trump isn't wrong, he's just unpolished. He's a political diamond in the rough who just needs some philosophical tumbling in order to turn out a fine defender of WTC. When was the last time war was about anything other than killing civilians? How many civilians has the United States killed in the Middle East? How many civilians has Israel killed in Palestine? War is about destroying or disrupting the economy of a nation, so you must kill civilians. There is no rule about playing fair. This isn't a game. There are no scruples in politics or war. The United States and other Western nations are now reaping the violence that they have sowed. Ron Paul has the right idea. Get the fuck out of the Middle East. (Mole. Mole. Mole.) 2
Guest Gee Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 How is this not simply the limit of ostracising bad parents? I think this is a brilliant idea. 1 1
Guest Gee Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 If we can't out-breed them, let's out-bleed them. It's disheartening that this comes from the mouth of a modern capitalist. Remember that ethically, if you are thinking about casting a vote for Trump, you have no problem with murder. great way to make more terrorists Okay, doubt removed, he's totally bonkers. Seriously, how does it not follow? If you accept the legitimacy of ostracizing family for the voluntary abuse of children not just because of the immorality of the abuse but also because of the negative impact such children will have when released into society. When the end result is the child committing suicide by bomb and murdering those who have not, of their own free will, contributed towards any act of aggression towards said family how does it not follow that it is NOT legitimate to do so now? Also, how is this not preferable preferable to holding a whole population accountable by waging total war? 1 1
J. D. Stembal Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 Trump: "We have no choice."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76An3ZxWNfk More Trump fear-mongering and pandering to the weak-minded. 1 1
Donnadogsoth Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 Trump: "We have no choice." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76An3ZxWNfk More Trump fear-mongering and pandering to the weak-minded. Strong-minded people believe in accepting members of a religion that, since its inception, has declared war on the world? The House of Islam versus the House of War?
ShadowWhoWalks Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 Who knew, leading the GOP polls requires a celebrity to sell himself as unique; ex. brash statements, and mixing the occasional idiocy (unfortunately not unique in contemporary candidates) with a shock factor. All while cashing in on the anti-PC frustration, seems there was a pretty good market in fear mongering as well. Strong-minded people believe in accepting members of a religion that, since its inception, has declared war on the world? The House of Islam versus the House of War? Weird how different political climates produces terms such as house of calm, house of truce, house of safety, and house of invitation. While I am all for getting rid of idiotic immigration policies, your position is exactly playing into ISIS' hands.
Donnadogsoth Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 Who knew, leading the GOP polls requires a celebrity to sell himself as unique; ex. brash statements, and mixing the occasional idiocy (unfortunately not unique in contemporary candidates) with a shock factor. All while cashing in on the anti-PC frustration, seems there was a pretty good market in fear mongering as well. Weird how different political climates produces terms such as house of calm, house of truce, house of safety, and house of invitation. While I am all for getting rid of idiotic immigration policies, your position is exactly playing into ISIS' hands. I'm not sure what you mean, but don't wish to make a mistake. Can you elabourate more?
fractional slacker Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 It's war rhetoric, not policy. Trump is saying fight fire with fire. Anything short of that and you give the enemy an advantage. 1
regevdl Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Gross. Well.... that's pretty much what Israel does. They don't kill the family necessarily but they bulldoze their homes or imprison their families. Seems to be working well for them to stop the conflict (SARCASM FONT). I"m not saying take the ISIS families in and coddle them but not go on the other end of the pendulum either. Neither extreme has proven successful. But we also can't pussyfoot around either. How about.... stop bombing the M.E. Stop meddling in civil wars and in countries that pose no threat, maybe, before saying random, useless crap as a candidate of the POTUS, use your capital intel to build up these countries. It's common knowledge that the best way to deter terrorism is to financially stabilize areas of population. History shows, especially in Iraq these people won't stop fighting with each other. I really hope that changes and evolves to a better, more peaceful future. But He's basically wanting to do the killing for these people. gross.
regevdl Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 It's war rhetoric, not policy. Trump is saying fight fire with fire. Anything short of that and you give the enemy an advantage. More than you know. The conventional war but also war among ourselves...between left and right. THe more extreme he speaks, the more extreme the left speaks. Either way the war in the M.E. wages on, even the left is cool with that. It's to keep the blood thirst going on the right and to get the left to point out what a psychopath he is or appears to be rather than expose the real crimes that we are still decimating actual humans overseas that never posed a threat or attacked the U.S. so, everything in the poltical world is in check.
Mister Mister Posted December 14, 2015 Posted December 14, 2015 Gross. Well.... that's pretty much what Israel does. They don't kill the family necessarily but they bulldoze their homes or imprison their families. Seems to be working well for them to stop the conflict (SARCASM FONT). I"m not saying take the ISIS families in and coddle them but not go on the other end of the pendulum either. Neither extreme has proven successful. But we also can't pussyfoot around either. How about.... stop bombing the M.E. Stop meddling in civil wars and in countries that pose no threat, maybe, before saying random, useless crap as a candidate of the POTUS, use your capital intel to build up these countries. It's common knowledge that the best way to deter terrorism is to financially stabilize areas of population. History shows, especially in Iraq these people won't stop fighting with each other. I really hope that changes and evolves to a better, more peaceful future. But He's basically wanting to do the killing for these people. gross. As an inhabitant of Israel I have to ask, do you think if the U.S. and U.K. rescinded aid from Israel tomorrow, would anything change for Israel.
regevdl Posted December 15, 2015 Posted December 15, 2015 As an inhabitant of Israel I have to ask, do you think if the U.S. and U.K. rescinded aid from Israel tomorrow, would anything change for Israel. Yes and no. If they cut aid to Israel they have to cut aid AND arming everyone. That way, Israel's neighbors won't have an advantage and neither will Israel. Then, Israel won't need a $4billion military. It will cost much less and hopefully be able to be funded by the taxpayers actually receiving the 'benefits' of the service of their compulsory military. Or generous donations. Even if they need to give up free and crappy healthcare to do it. My understanding of the aid deal with Israel is that we give a mix of cash and weaponry etc and they have to commit to buying US product. I don't know the specific amounts but it's like I give you $1000 and you have to spend at least $600 at my electronics store. lol So..it's just another Corporate Fascist ploy by the Military Industrialized Complex It will give the US and Israel more credibility and reduce the 'reasons' for the US to be present in the M.E. I think it will bring an overal more stable environment in the ME if we cut all aid and weaponry to these countries. It's a large task. YOu have to overcome the Jewish lobby in the US and the religious fanatics who control part of the gvt in Israel. Israelis have been trying to overthrow these people for a very long time. bascially they are communists, that should't be a shock. it's hard to defeat communists without 'war'. You cannot reason with them, they are violent and manipulative and it only takes a few of them to control everyone. The weird thing is, when I discuss this dynamic with Israelis who agree with the danger of these religious fanatics who are behind the curtains, I am the only one that calls them communists or oligarchs. They condemn them as 'religious fanatics' which might be accurate but I told them, there is still a lot of marxist tactics popping up in Israeli politics that religion is simply a convenient front. LIke in the US they pose as 'capitalists', etc. They are fascinated by this perspective and a little confused, much of what I bring to them is TOTALLY new and I take my time with Israelis. I don't want to startle them because they are VERY tribal and even though I am accepted and respected, I am not Jewish and I'm not Israeli so at times still seen as the 'outsider' or brushed off like' well, you are still naive because you are new here, etc) But, for the most part, with some exceptions, they are far more open to reason and logic than many Americans I have had conversations with. Israel has already admitted it has nukes. I drive past the nuke site on my way to the city. Anyone who still denies it here gets a good lecture from me. lol So those nuke deniers are dwindling fast. But even if people bitch and moan at the hypocrisy of Israeli gvt, the gvt earned and deserve it BUT...they have nukes so it's their protection. that's the name of the statist game. Get nukes, no one touches you. Hell 2 years ago I watched an Israeli documentary on Israeli TV on how Ben Gurion and 2 other people Built the damn things. That's why Iran wants them, to avoid invasion and attack. Now, correct me if I'm inaccurate but part of the recent Iran deal had a clause that stated if Israel attacks Iran, the US is obligated to defend Iran. If that is accurate then this is great. Netanyahu has already shut up about Iran. Israelis hate him. American boot lickers of Israel tell me, 'well if they hate him why is he always re-elected'. I simply reply, 'by that logic Americans love Obama. good to know! I will pass that on to Israelis' (as Israelis loathe obama). BUt even when they loathe him, I share that he's no different. It's not to give him credit but that they are loathing a ghost because on the outside, he appears to have efficacy with the position of a finger wagging disapproval of Israel but he has given more military aid and intervention in the ME that benefits Israel more than the US than BUsh who seen as very pro-Israel. So I never let any of these types of myths go past me when I speak to Israelis. lol They want nothing to do with Iran and are not afraid of Iran/ Ok, so when I say 'no' nothing will change. I don't mean NOTHING will but you have to see Israel in several different lights. On the geopolitical stage and on the stage of their own internal problems with Gaza/Palestine. STopping aid might bring more stability overall in the ME, but won't solve this issue completely. That's probably why the gvt won't even consider it and call it an 'antisemetic' suggestion because they know that if we cut aid and suddenly the ME is far more peaceful....then..... heads will need to roll.... How many generations were conned into believing that this AID feeds orhpans and defends the defenseless and arms the 'good guys'. I mean. the REAL terrorists and axis of evils will be exposed. Palestine also needs to get it's head out of its ass. The occupation is horrendous but there are many and most areas that Israel has nothing to do with. A fraction of the aid reaches Palestine/Gaza so cutting that off will be a short term harm to them but they can recover because they are not wholly dependant on it as much as Israel is, if that makes sense. I'll give a small example. Their agriculture. many countries around the world will not buy Palestinian or many Arab produce. That may seem racist to some, until you have seen their farms. I can only speak for the Palestinian farms. I live on the border with Jordan but their farms are just specks of green against a desert backdrop but, i do know that Israel and Jordan share agriculture technology and education with each other so I am sure their agriculture is a step up in the Arab world compared to most. Witht hat said, I have seen farms in West Bank that are about 90 miles from us. They look like a well manicured garbage dump. They don't clean up the plastics from prior season, they simply 'mulch' them and plant over them. outside of their villages, they leave dead animal carcasses and garbage on the outer edge of the city...not even in one area.... just take it to the village/city edge and dump is sort of the standard. Kids play around it, animals and livestock are roaming around, it's behind homes...it's a disaster. Yet again, Israel is blamed for all of their problems. What in the hell does Israel have to do with their disgusting low standards of agriculture and basic sanitation for that matter? But they keep people in this 'blame israel' so they don't complain to their own gvt and by doing that, Israel actually HAS some amazing ag technology but they refuse to connect in such a way so their produce can at least make it on the global market which would really really HELP Palestinians. We have Gazans who have special permission to come into ISrael and they come to our village to buy our dates because they are the best. I am not just saying that. I have shipped them around the world to various people and I ate California dates in the US and these dates are the best. But anyway, the GAzans even prefer Israeli produce, that's how bad the standards are in Palestine because the gvt refuses to network or improve because they they lose out on the 'blaming/victimization' element that keeps their subjects loyal. Palestine's gvt is very unstable and hamas and the gvt are always at odds and Hamas pretty much runs Gaza against the gvt demands, etc. it's weird and confusing. Most of the Hamas leaders are living large in other countries. But anyway, because they can always use Israel as the boot on their neck, excuse, they dno't have to do jack crap to build their infrastructure. So Palestinians are victimized twice. Once by Israel, twice by their own gvt. So, without the US meddling and Israel having the obvious disproportionate advantage, Palestine is less capable of these arguments that everything is Israel's fault and they need to start answering for themselves. Gaza is another complex issue that I am still trying to wrap my head around and filter propaganda on both sides. It's VERY difficult, even while living here. There were import blockades but prior to that, when there weren't, much of the goods were hoarded by Hamas and not distributed, or, say, concrete that was suppose to be used for infrastructure were used for Hamas terror tunnels or bunkers, etc. I have a few contacts IN Gaza and they confirm this. Hama controls everything and thus controls the people. It's a heartwrenching situation. So, stopping aid won't necessarily fix that issue. so many of these things have to come from within. Even Egypt understands the comlexities of Gaza. During the war last summer, Egypt refused refugees because things are so mangled there. THey know Hamas uses civilians as hostages and terror-assets etc. It's the same tactic as ISIS. so...it's not so simple in that regard. also during last war I think I remember (again, I'm trying to go off memory so if anything is inaccurate I apologize and welcome any corrections) that the Palestinian gvt was at odds with Hamas even during the war! they cut off funding to Hamas in Gaza in order to stave off missile attacks into Israel and by that Hamas was propagandzing that the food/money shortages were because of Israel. The people there have very little way to fact check or question the validity. Even though Hamas in Gaza is against it's own gvt, they still blame Israel. It's such a mind-fuck I cannot even devote enough time or brain capactity to be an expert at it. I find sticking to the larger principles, repeating and using these tragic events as validation to my arguments is the best way I think either Egypt needs to take over Gaza or Israel and be done with it. Offer the people there to become Egyptian citizens or to live in Israel or West Bank. Because it is physically separated from West Bank yet the 'capital' is located in West bank with Israel in the middle. It's a problem wrapped in a problem. But...that'll never happen. lol I do talk about the aid angle with Israelis and they are receptive to it. I also use Socratic method to explain /challenge why Israel isn't the type of democracy they think it is...this is VERY well received. I thought I would be labeld a Nazi and hung but I've only been called a Nazi once in 4 years with these arguments, so not bad! lol There are a lot of peace groups and integration groups (integrated baseball camps ) etc so it's shifting. Most people realize those changes cannot and will not come from politics. Plus Israel has it's own internal conflicts. School system issues of over crowded schools and your run of the mill arguments against he state in general that people are active in. So I'm sorry if that was more than you bargained for but there is so much to think about in this one topic 'aid' that I felt the need to indulge a full wide angle perspective. 1
Guest Gee Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to post an actual argument as to why this bad! Come on people! If you turn your child into a fucking stone age version of a ICBM why should you not be treated like a munitions factory?! 1
shirgall Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to post an actual argument as to why this bad! The circumstance the justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. No person, group, or state is justified in killing for any other reason. 3
Guest Gee Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 The circumstance the justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. No person, group, or state is justified in killing for any other reason. I understand that is a rule. I recall a solder in Northern Ireland convicted of murder because he shot at a car and killed a man who had tried to run him and a fellow solder over at a check point. It was legal for him to shoot at the man in the car when it was trying to run him over but the second the car had failed to run him over and was driving away it was no longer lawful to shoot at the man or the car. As the bullet that killed the man in the car was one which was shot as the man in the car was driving away, not when the car was trying to run over the solders, this was an act not of self defence, but of murder. I completely understand the rules and the laws. But asking for an argument, not an assertion.
Donnadogsoth Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 The circumstance the justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. No person, group, or state is justified in killing for any other reason. What about immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of harm to one's civilisation? War is not merely kill-or-be-killed tactics, it's also strategy, and in many strategies innocents are killed in strategic maneuvers that, strictly considered, are not faced with immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm. Sometimes it's just an ammunition dump with a few bottom-dog guards that the warplanes destroy.
shirgall Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 What about immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of harm to one's civilisation? War is not merely kill-or-be-killed tactics, it's also strategy, and in many strategies innocents are killed in strategic maneuvers that, strictly considered, are not faced with immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm. Sometimes it's just an ammunition dump with a few bottom-dog guards that the warplanes destroy. The "otherwise unavoidable" requirement is not optional. There are plenty of ways to prevent cultures from supplanting your own. War is the conflict of state on state, and yes it does have some interesting rules and traditions, but that doesn't change the underlying universal that a state should not declare war on another unless it meets the same criteria that I outlined. And, frankly, the US is a weasel in this regard since no war has been declared since the one in Korea. I remember a significant number of armed engagements since then.
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 The circumstance the justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. No person, group, or state is justified in killing for any other reason. I would agree with the statement: "A circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent.", but not with your statement. I can think of 2 other circumstances off the top of my head which justify the use of lethal force: 1. I think attempts to damage or steal your property that you depend upon to live gives justification for use of lethal force to prevent that. I'm referring to property beyond your own body. I can think of plenty of scenarios where having my property taken from me could result in my death. Obviously if someone steals my tamagotchi that doesn't give me justification for the use of lethal force to prevent the theft. 2. If someone or some group imprisons you in their home, but provides you with all the things you need to stay alive and the only way of escaping is by attacking them so aggressively that they may die, then your attacks are justified.
shirgall Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 I would agree with the statement: "A circumstance that justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent.", but not with your statement. I can think of 2 other circumstances off the top of my head which justify the use of lethal force: 1. I think attempts to damage or steal your property that you depend upon to live gives justification for use of lethal force to prevent that. I'm referring to property beyond your own body. I can think of plenty of scenarios where having my property taken from me could result in my death. Obviously if someone steals my tamagotchi that doesn't give me justification for the use of lethal force to prevent the theft. 2. If someone or some group imprisons you in their home, but provides you with all the things you need to stay alive and the only way of escaping is by attacking them so aggressively that they may die, then your attacks are justified. You will find that lethal force in the defense of property will not be well-regarded by your fellow sentients. You will go through a lot of work to go back to the idea that theft of your property will be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger to your life... which is in my original formulation anyway, so it is not a useful distinction. It is not difficult that someone who imprisons you intends death or grave bodily harm for you, especially if they let you see their faces to identify them. This also goes back to my original formulation. I stick with my assertion that the only circumstance that justifies lethal force is the one I gave. (This is also not a formulation that is an excuse... it is a full-on justification. Excusable homicide is quite different from justifiable homicide.)
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 I replied in purple. You will find that lethal force in the defense of property will not be well-regarded by your fellow sentients. I didn't say it wouldn't be. I'm talking about what is morally permissible. You were too. Obviously, just because an action is morally permissible to perform doesn't mean you should or must perform it. It also doesn't mean that the people around you will support your morally permissable action. You will go through a lot of work to go back to the idea that theft of your property will be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger to your life... which is in my original formulation anyway, so it is not a useful distinction. Sorry, no. If someone attempts to steal some food from me that I have collected up to survive over winter that is not "immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death". Not surviving winter is not immediate. It is also not "grave bodily harm": they are not attacking my body. That's why I stated my disagreement with your statement. It is not difficult that someone who imprisons you intends death or grave bodily harm for you, especially if they let you see their faces to identify them. This also goes back to my original formulation. Nope. I acknowledge that I said "home" in my example, so I'm modifying the 2nd circumstance I mentioned, but -- for instance -- look at a European country where you can be locked up in prison for the "crime" of trading drugs. The maniacs who lock you up believe they are righteous. In many European countries the prisons are relatively safe. You are fed, clothed, kept warm and protected from other people you are locked up with. You will be released at the end of your prison term. So: you have been unjustly imprisoned but provided with all the things you need to stay alive. Potentially you will be kept in prison for many years. There is no non-violent means of escape. There is also no "immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death" or high chance of "grave bodily harm to oneself" (like I said: inmates here are kept relatively safe). It may be possible to escape using extreme force. Do you think it is morally wrong to use extreme force against the prison guards to escape? Please note: I'm not asking if it's sensible to use extreme force. That's a different matter. In a European prison: it's probably not sensible. Maniacs working for the European state will likely find you and re-imprison you for a much longer period of time if you use extreme force to escape. I stick with my assertion that the only circumstance that justifies lethal force is the one I gave. (This is also not a formulation that is an excuse... it is a full-on justification. Excusable homicide is quite different from justifiable homicide.) Perhaps you will re-assess now that I have provided 2 potential scenarios that are not covered by your statement.
ShadowWhoWalks Posted December 16, 2015 Posted December 16, 2015 I'm not sure what you mean, but don't wish to make a mistake. Can you elabourate more? Daesh comes from a socio-political situation (Iraq in the last 30 years), instability, political revolutions, chaos, economic sanctions, bombing, invasions. They claim to be fighting on behalf of the oppressed, fighting an invading army to protect innocent people from third parties, along with romantic notions of reestablishing the caliphate all naively taken at face value. Diluting the sentiment by slowing down on the bombing, invading, droning, imprisoning without charges, interfering in governments, arming and propping up oppressive tyrants, and treating countries like a private plaything for money and profit should be a good step. But statistically speaking and based on the threat-level, too much time and money have been wasted on this, and alienating the anti-ISIS Islamic academic and religious authority while acknowledging and contributing to Daesh's narrative doesn't help. How'd Daesh love a "No-Muslims Allowed" sign at the borders. Now what did Trump say? Total and complete shutdown, when asked if this will include Muslim Americans abroad his spokesperson said "Mr. Trump says everyone". Later on he said in an interview that it isn't complete and total and that there will be exceptions, which shows that he is baiting the media and pandering; he is a skilled entertainer, and skilled entertainers (and demagogues) know their audience, and people are more familiar with entertainers than politicians. The sentiment that Muslims are uniquely dangerous and antithetical to American values is actually supported by multiple GOP candidates (Let's ban refugees! Oh, but I wanna add a bill that makes an exception for "proven Christians"). Compare Edward R. Murrow with the cowardly neutral and faux analyticism of most US media: Trump decries political correctness, yet at the he is embracing and defining his tribe with victimhood identity politics and attempts to convince us that this plus emotions provides immunity against criticism, rather than defending an ideology and supporting it with logical argumentation. He supports a blind postmodern metanarative filled with obscurity, no different than the one about rape-culture or accusing white cops of crimes they didn't commit. Trump knows he can make all sort of erroneous fear-mongering statements knowing full-well that his supporters will rush to his defense regardless of the inaccuracies of his assertions if it fits their narrative. Paranoid politics to amass more power works (All the people calling Obama a dictator and switching to Trump is amusing). He invokes atavistic notions of a pre-multicultural America that is relatively ethnically pure; but when it comes to waiving conspiracies he is no different from liberals claiming that the National Rifle Association is responsible for the high crime rates; since the liberals are jumping at conspiracy theories it is OK to indulge in it too, huh. He is a 'reality' TV star first; he baits media attention with vaguely inflammatory statements so he can confirm it and take more attention time from his rivals, while attempting as a populist to pander to fear and previously unrepresented demography (the sort that believe Obama is not a US citizen). There is a mountin-worth of data for anyone willing to understand why attacks occur. His rhetoric has nothing to do with preventing terrorism or remedy the issues that contribute to terrorism. It's war rhetoric, not policy. Trump is saying fight fire with fire. Anything short of that and you give the enemy an advantage. I tried to see it as the media twisting his words to create a controversial headline, but there is no way around it: Trump is pro collective punishment.
Mister Mister Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to post an actual argument as to why this bad! Come on people! If you turn your child into a fucking stone age version of a ICBM why should you not be treated like a munitions factory?! I meant to quote you, not upvote you. You make it sound as if he would only target their parents. If this is the case, do you also support drone-bombing all parents of murderers regardless of religion or nationality? I mean, if there is an argument there, which I admit is interesting, why not just try them as accomplices, like a civilized society? But if I understand, I think it was implied that wives, siblings, children, etc. would also be targeted, so...that's completely evil
shirgall Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 If they are stealing your food and you don't have any obvious method of getting more before you starve to death, it's immediate and otherwise unavoidable. You have not stated the purpose for which they have imprisoned you, but in general imprisonment carries with it the threat of physical violence to keep you from leaving. If you fear the beating you will get if attempting to escape, and it's pretty likely such a beating is life-threatening, then it still falls to my original statement. If they lock you in a cage and you are solely reliant on them for sustenance, that is also life-threatening. The threat is there that they can starve you or dehydrate you at a whim.
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 I replied in purple... If they are stealing your food and you don't have any obvious method of getting more before you starve to death, it's immediate and otherwise unavoidable. I can think of 2 ways of interpreting your use of the term "immediate" in your statement: "... the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death ...". 1. The action being performed that causes the danger is immediate. Keyword: action. 2. The result of the action that has been performed is immediate. Keyword: result. If you were using the term "immediate" as in point 1 (the action), then it would not be meaningful. This is because all actions are performed in the immediate. You can remember performing an action in the past (recalling a memory) and you can plan to perform an action in the future (using imagination), but you cannot actually perform an action in the past or the future. So it's not physically possible to steal someone's food in the future. You can only plan to steal someone's food in the future. As the use of the term "immediate" in point 1 (an action) is not meaningful, it is only sensible for me to interpret your use of the term "immediate" as in point 2 (the result). In point 2 we are referring to when the effect of the action takes place. If I inject someone with poison and the poison does not begin to make them sick until 48 hours after the injection, then I can say that the effect of my action is not immediate. In my example of someone stealing my food which I require to survive a winter, I can say that the effect is not immediate. I will not die straight away. It may take as much as month before I die and I will likely not even become physically weak until days later. So, to bring you back to your statement: The circumstance the justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent. No person, group, or state is justified in killing for any other reason. It should now be obvious that stealing someone's food that they need to survive winter is not an "immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death". The resulting danger of death, of the theft is not immediate. This is unlike being stabbed, run-down by a car or shot where it is foreseeable, that you could immediately die. It should also be obvious that stealing someone's food that they need to survive winter is not "grave bodily harm". Stealing or even damaging someone's food supply is not stealing or damaging their body. Both your food and your body are your property, but they are not the same thing. Both your food and your body are required for you to live: but they are not the same thing. I maintain my claim that your statement does not cover all circumstances that justify the use of lethal force. You have not stated the purpose for which they have imprisoned you, I'm not sure what you mean by "purpose". I did state that the reason given for being imprisoned was "trading drugs". Some statists will claim trading drugs is "harming society" or "harming the state". Obviously trading drugs is not an immoral act and does not mean that a person should be caged for doing it. but in general imprisonment carries with it the threat of physical violence to keep you from leaving. If you fear the beating you will get if attempting to escape, and it's pretty likely such a beating is life-threatening, then it still falls to my original statement. If during your escape it's likely you will be beaten if caught and that beating is life-threatening then I agree. That cleanly falls within your original statement. It is however, possible to restrain someone without giving them a life-threatening beating. It's my understanding that in prisons in England you wouldn't be beaten if you attempted to escape. I think it's far more likely that you would be restrained using minimal force and manoeuvres which are designed not to cause serious harm or death. Once restrained I think it's unlikely, in England, that you would be beaten by the prison guards. What I have just pointed out (restrained without a beating) does not fall within your original statement. If they lock you in a cage and you are solely reliant on them for sustenance, that is also life-threatening. The threat is there that they can starve you or dehydrate you at a whim. Again: I can imagine scenarios like the one you have described. Those scenarios would fall within your original statement. I can imagine other scenarios (like the English prison I described above), where it would be highly irrational to assume they will starve you or dehydrate you. I've not seen any evidence that, this occurs in English prisons. I would not assume I would be starved or dehydrated if I was imprisoned in England. So again: this does not fall within your original statement. At this point, I'd like to point out that I am willing to accept your original statement if you make a good case for it. As it stands I think I have clearly outlined problems with your statement, so I do not accept it, as-is. I want to ensure that I only accept and internalize moral principles that are logically consistent and universally applicable. I think an empathetic person who has internalized irrational or incorrect principles is made weak and vulnerable to the manipulations of sociopaths. This is why I am making the effort to respond to your statement: * If I am wrong. I want to be corrected. That will make me stronger. * If I am right. I want to voice my corrections. That will make you stronger.
shirgall Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 The term "immediate" is usually interpreted with three essential elements: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. Does the actor have the ability to carry out the threat, is the threat likely to result in your death or grave bodily harm, and does it seem likely that the actor will carry out that threat. It's not about the result, because the result is your incapacitation or death. If you wait for the result you will not be able to change it. In the example of stealing food, if you were in the wilderness with no easy access to more food, and no way to travel the significant distance to get it, and therefore you are likely to starve to death without it, then stealing your food is an immediate threat. There are plenty of cases of imprisonment where lethal force is going to be hard to justify, for example, killing to escape jail where you were placed for committing a crime. While there are plenty of bad stories about jail, it doesn't seem likely to kill you, and therefore it seems hard to justify killing to get out of it. I don't think I've been attacking you in our conversation, only attempting to make the discussion clearer. I have a hard time constructing an argument to use lethal force in other circumstances, so I keep boiling back down to the original statement of the principle.
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 The term "immediate" is usually interpreted with three essential elements: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. Does the actor have the ability to carry out the threat, is the threat likely to result in your death or grave bodily harm, and does it seem likely that the actor will carry out that threat. It's not about the result, because the result is your incapacitation or death. If you wait for the result you will not be able to change it. That makes no sense to me. The term "immediate" means right now: in present time. I'm not aware of any other definition. I'm not sure what you are describing with "elements: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy". Are you talking about a threat? They're certainly nothing to do with the word "immediate". Also: why are you using the term "immediate" in your original statement if you're not talking about the result? As I pointed out: all actions are performed in the present (in the immediate), so the only rational interpretation of "immediate" I can think of in your original statement is you are referring to an immediate death (an immediate result). You could actually drop the word from your original statement and then it will cover more scenarios where it's justifiable to use lethal force. In the example of stealing food, if you were in the wilderness with no easy access to more food, and no way to travel the significant distance to get it, and therefore you are likely to starve to death without it, then stealing your food is an immediate threat. You've introduced a new word into this discussion which isn't in your original statement: "threat". I interpret the terms "immediate threat" and "immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death" as different. They are not interchangeable. There are many immediate threats that don't involve you being in danger of death. There are other differences between the terms too. I certainly would not claim that an immediate threat justifies lethal force. I don't think you would either. If I replace the word "threat" in your sentence (above) with your original term ("immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death") then you haven't done anything more than re-state my example scenario. You haven't made an argument to rebut my comment about the context of the term "immediate". See my EDIT at the bottom of my post. I think I understand your point now. There are plenty of cases of imprisonment where lethal force is going to be hard to justify, for example, killing to escape jail where you were placed for committing a crime. While there are plenty of bad stories about jail, it doesn't seem likely to kill you, and therefore it seems hard to justify killing to get out of it. You used the word "crime". I only ever use that word to describe an action performed which is against the law of a state. As such: I never bring the word into a moral argument, as it isn't useful at all. Smoking cannabis is a "crime" in many countries. Attacking someone, unprovoked is also a "crime" in many countries. All that word means to me is: some statists have written down a list of actions which should be punished if not performed and some other actions that should be punished if they are performed. I just checked a few dictionaries and my understanding of the word is in-line with them. So just knowing that someone has committed a "crime" isn't enough to decide whether it is justified to kill to escape or not. I expect there are a number of kind, empathetic, virtuous and morally principled "criminals" in the world. I don't think I've been attacking you in our conversation, only attempting to make the discussion clearer. I don't think you've been attacking me in our convo either. We have both been challenging each other's statements I have a hard time constructing an argument to use lethal force in other circumstances, so I keep boiling back down to the original statement of the principle. Your original statement doesn't cover the winter food theft example I gave. I think you agreed that the winter food theft example is a scenario where it is justified to use lethal force. If you drop the term "immediate" from your original statement then it will cover the winter food theft example. Even without the word "immediate", I don't think your original statement covers my prison example, but I acknowledge that you haven't accepted that the prison example justifies use of lethal force. EDIT shirgall: I have thought about it some more and about what you've said. I think I understand your points about the use of the term "immediate". Take your sentence: (only slightly modified) A "circumstance [that] justifies lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death." Replace the term immediate with "non-immediate" and see what it looks like: A "circumstance [that] justifies lethal force is the non-immediate, otherwise unavoidable, danger of death." If you are thinking in terms of actions, then use of the word "non-immediate" implies that you can use lethal force if you predict/imagine an otherwise unavoidable, danger of death at any point of time in the future. Obviously it is not acceptable to use lethal force against someone because you have imagined an otherwise unavoidable, danger of death in the future. If this was acceptable then whenever anyone imagined the possibility of someone else trying to kill them, they could then immediately initiate force against that person. So you have used the word "immediate" to make it clear that this is not acceptable. Is my understanding correct?
shirgall Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 I think you are getting it. Immediacy is a necessary component, and it often speaks to avoidability. Let me give an example that actually happened: Husband says to his wife, "I've had it with you. I'm going out and when I come back if you are still here I'm going to kill you." He then leaves. In the past he has been a violent person and has beaten the wife, sometimes quite badly. She lays in wait and shoots him when he comes in the door. Is this justifiable? Maybe, in the moment. The immediacy is there. But she could have avoided it by leaving in the time after he left and before he came back. Let's apply this to the food situation we posited before: a fellow with a violent history tells a survivalist, "You have the only the food and water on the mountain. I'm going to go get my gun from my camp and come back here and shoot you." The survivalist shoots him right then, without the interlocutor leaving to get his gun. Is he justified? No. The danger was not immediate. 1
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 shirgall: Thanks for your clarification on your other points and for being patient with me. I think I struggled with the use of the word "immediate", because to me it is very obvious that you cannot justifying killing because of an imagined future, life-threatening danger (a non-immediate danger). I guess though; it might not be obvious to everyone, so it makes sense to explicitly state it. Let's apply this to the food situation we posited before: a fellow with a violent history tells a survivalist, "You have the only the food and water on the mountain. I'm going to go get my gun from my camp and come back here and shoot you." The survivalist shoots him right then, without the interlocutor leaving to get his gun. Is he justified? No. The danger was not immediate. Regarding this point; if the interlocutor then immediately turns and walks in the direction of his camp (which in this kind of situation I expect he would do), then surely the survivalist is in immediate danger. There is a known life-threatening, danger (not imagined) and the survivalist likely has no way of getting his [necessary for winter] food and water out of the area before the other guy returns to kill him and steal it. I don't think the survivalist should have to wait until the other guy returns with and draws his gun. Note: I'm only asking about the moral component of this situation, not the legality of it. For me, the morality of a situation is always more important than the legality. I will assess my moral obligations first and then I will consider the practical and legal aspects to it second and as subordinate to the moral obligations. I don't think a moral system should be designed around or constrained by what is provable and what is not provable in a court of law.
Recommended Posts