RE: Re: About 5yr. log retention
Ken Brown[SMTP:k.brown@ccs.bbk.ac.uk] Jim Choate wrote: [...]
And just about every business you go into has video gear, some pointed out the door. It's amazing if you walk around looking for this stuff and keep a list. Anyone doing anything that might attract uniformed attention should be going the major Ninja route...
I wonder what they think of Muslim women who go completely veiled? (I don't know if you have any in Austin but there are quite a few in London).
Ken
Many places have 'mask laws' which criminalize the wearing of masks in public. Some times there are exceptions for costume balls, etc, but generally these laws are very selectively enforced. I seem to remember there were some prosecutions in the US in relation to the WTO protests and in London following the May Day protests. Unless there is a specific loophole for Muslim women's veils, I suppose they are technically in violation, but as I said, these laws are hardly ever invoked. If say, there were a rash of terrorist attacks involving veiled persons occured, there'd be crackdown. Peter Trei
"Trei, Peter" wrote:
Many places have 'mask laws' which criminalize the wearing of masks in public. Some times there are exceptions for costume balls, etc, but generally these laws are very selectively enforced. I seem to remember there were some prosecutions in the US in relation to the WTO protests and in London following the May Day protests.
Unless there is a specific loophole for Muslim women's veils, I suppose they are technically in violation, but as I said, these laws are hardly ever invoked. If say, there were a rash of terrorist attacks involving veiled persons occured, there'd be crackdown.
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the "masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it - they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet privacy, where we are unwilling to give in to even more privacy being taken away, but we CAN (and 99% of your typical AOL user survey WILL, if they get offered, say, one hour free surfing).
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the "masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it - they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Vogt"
where we are unwilling to give in to even more privacy being taken away, but we CAN
if i were to cloak my desire for privacy in the words of the Great Squid, would it be more legitimate?
Me wrote:
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the "masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it - they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet privacy, where we are unwilling to give in to even more privacy being taken away, but we CAN
if i were to cloak my desire for privacy in the words of the Great Squid, would it be more legitimate?
does it matter? the point is that almost everyone even here is not willing to go to jail or worse for "another tiny bit of privacy". we don't draw a sharp boundary. we don't say, for example, that knowing my street is ok, but knowing my house number is over the line. and the total population is even worse. the vast majority of internet users would give you pretty much anything for a minimal return ("one hour free surfing"), and everything else for a larger one ("$100 for my political and sexual preferences? sure.") the muslim veil, on the other hand, IS a sharp boundary. as I understand it, it is NOT permisable to lift it in public under ANY circumstances. rounding that up, I'd guess that if we were religious about our privacy, things may be different (possibly just more ugly, but who knows).
At 1:41 PM +0100 12/8/00, Tom Vogt wrote:
Me wrote:
In English it is preferable to write "I wrote," though "Me wrote" is honored in some subcultures.
if i were to cloak my desire for privacy in the words of the Great Squid, would it be more legitimate?
does it matter?
the point is that almost everyone even here is not willing to go to jail or worse for "another tiny bit of privacy". we don't draw a sharp boundary. we don't say, for example, that knowing my street is ok, but knowing my house number is over the line. and the total population is even worse. the vast majority of internet users would give you pretty much anything for a minimal return ("one hour free surfing"), and everything else for a larger one ("$100 for my political and sexual preferences? sure.")
the muslim veil, on the other hand, IS a sharp boundary. as I understand it, it is NOT permisable to lift it in public under ANY circumstances.
Me was making a different point, that presumably there is no legal distinction, at least in America, between the religion of Islam and the religion of the Great Squid. As to your language about "it is NOT permissable ...under ANY circumstances," there are many religious beliefs which are overruled by law in the U.S. Mormon polygamy (several spouses), for example. Peyote rituals, for another example. Though there are some "variations in regulations" allowable for various religions, such as rules about wearing hats in military services, etc., there is a very general principle in the U.S. which says that the law applies equally to all, regardless of religious beliefs. (This is a major reason for having a minimal state, with the set of laws only being the "Schelling points" (a game theory term many of us like to use) which nearly all persons can agree to.) The Great Squid has equal standing with Mohammed, in other words. Things are dramatically different in Germany and other countries, we all understand. But in the U.S., no particular religion is supposed to have any special favor in the eyes of the law. There are even Satanist chaplains/priests in the U.S. armed services. --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
Tim May wrote:
At 1:41 PM +0100 12/8/00, Tom Vogt wrote:
Me wrote:
In English it is preferable to write "I wrote," though "Me wrote" is honored in some subcultures.
that part is put in automatically by netscape. I don't usually add obvious statements like "look, I can write" to my mails. :) anyways, my whole point was that for many people, religion is as or even more important than law. I'm sure you have a fair share of them as well. so things can get pretty interesting when 2 such high-level values collide. more interesting than a collision between, say, the law and a more-or-less important demand for privacy. that's the whole point. I know some people just can't help turning every spelling error into an attack on their fundamental values, but frankly, that's not my problem.
At 12:45 PM +0100 12/11/00, Tom Vogt wrote:
Tim May wrote:
At 1:41 PM +0100 12/8/00, Tom Vogt wrote:
Me wrote:
In English it is preferable to write "I wrote," though "Me wrote" is honored in some subcultures.
that part is put in automatically by netscape. I don't usually add obvious statements like "look, I can write" to my mails. :)
anyways, my whole point was that for many people, religion is as or even more important than law. I'm sure you have a fair share of them as well. so things can get pretty interesting when 2 such high-level values collide. more interesting than a collision between, say, the law and a more-or-less important demand for privacy.
that's the whole point. I know some people just can't help turning every spelling error into an attack on their fundamental values, but frankly, that's not my problem.
Lighten up. It was a joke. (I even provided a hint, in the "honored in some cultures.") --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
Tim May wrote:
Lighten up. It was a joke.
(I even provided a hint, in the "honored in some cultures.")
sorry, I've been working overtime on some stuff here lately, and I was too tired to get it. also, I'm tired of the nitpicking some people here exhibit as if there were nothing more important to do than ignore the main point of a posting and nibble on the minor errors.
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tom Vogt wrote:
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the "masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it - they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet privacy, where we are unwilling to give in to even more privacy being taken away, but we CAN (and 99% of your typical AOL user survey WILL, if they get offered, say, one hour free surfing).
That's a tad misleading. Muslims have the stricture not out of privacy concerns but property concerns of the husband. Remember, women are things to those ragheads. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the "masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it - they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet privacy, where we are unwilling to give in to even more privacy being taken away, but we CAN (and 99% of your typical AOL user survey WILL, if they get offered, say, one hour free surfing).
That's a tad misleading. Muslims have the stricture not out of privacy concerns but property concerns of the husband. Remember, women are things to those ragheads.
I didn't say they are veiled because they value privacy, did I? nope, I didn't. stop reading into my words and start reading the words themselves. thank you.
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Tom Vogt wrote:
I didn't say they are veiled because they value privacy, did I? nope, I didn't. stop reading into my words and start reading the words themselves. thank you.
I didn't say you did. I DID say your statement was misleading because it only mentions privacy. That isn't the only issue with your example. As a result, it's a weak argument. As usual, you pick an example, it has a couple of nit picks you skipped or thought unimportant, and you get all defensive when they're pointed out. Almost like you're still searching for Mr. Goodbar still... Pick your examples more carefully and explain them a bit more carefully and you won't have this problem. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
I didn't say they are veiled because they value privacy, did I? nope, I didn't. stop reading into my words and start reading the words themselves. thank you.
I didn't say you did. I DID say your statement was misleading because it only mentions privacy. That isn't the only issue with your example. As a result, it's a weak argument.
As usual, you pick an example, it has a couple of nit picks you skipped or thought unimportant, and you get all defensive when they're pointed out. Almost like you're still searching for Mr. Goodbar still...
Pick your examples more carefully and explain them a bit more carefully and you won't have this problem.
eh, where exactly is your problem? frankly, I don't care if people without brains could get "mislead" or something I said has a hair in it that you can split. maybe I should add a disclaimer to my mails: "some intelligence required. parts not included"
Jim is turning in to Tim... Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tom Vogt wrote:
that would be interesting to watch. for those people, the "masquerade" is NON optional, and - as I understand it - they simply can't give in. contrary to all the internet privacy, where we are unwilling to give in to even more privacy being taken away, but we CAN (and 99% of your typical AOL user survey WILL, if they get offered, say, one hour free surfing).
That's a tad misleading. Muslims have the stricture not out of privacy concerns but property concerns of the husband. Remember, women are things to those ragheads.
-- Jim Choate wrote:
Muslims have the stricture not out of privacy concerns but property concerns of the husband. Remember, women are things to those ragheads.
Ken Brown wrote:
Jim is turning in to Tim...
When Jews are murdering small children in reprisals against stone throwing by young men, and Arabs are blowing up school buses, then anti semitic statements against both Arabs and Jews become legitimate, indeed required. Are you an anti semite, or are you indifferent to the murder of children. Choose one. Yes, Virginia, not only are there individual evil people, but there are entire evil nations that demand and expect that their members do evil things, a demand widely supported and forcefully encouraged by the people of that nation. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG N6hvr8nWXopwCzktuWlQMZpBXyVkyyohyyGfxxcd 4aXcdw/9Raf7wyVHdrlnGQGeL79UzvNj/vRMzjF+p
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, James A. Donald wrote:
When Jews are murdering small children in reprisals against stone throwing by young men, and Arabs are blowing up school buses, then anti semitic statements against both Arabs and Jews become legitimate, indeed required.
I've been saying for nearly 20 years the Jews have become the Nazi's. Bottem line, neither side has hands that are not so bloody that they shouldn't all go home and beat their weapons into plow shears. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
"James A. Donald" wrote:
When Jews are murdering small children in reprisals against stone throwing by young men, and Arabs are blowing up school buses, then anti semitic statements against both Arabs and Jews become legitimate, indeed required.
Are you an anti semite, or are you indifferent to the murder of children. Choose one.
Yes, Virginia, not only are there individual evil people, but there are entire evil nations that demand and expect that their members do evil things, a demand widely supported and forcefully encouraged by the people of that nation.
evil, of course, is a question of perspective. most of those "evil" nations/people regard the US pretty much the same way. :-)
-- James A. Donald:
Yes, Virginia, not only are there individual evil people, but there are entire evil nations that demand and expect that their members do evil things, a demand widely supported and forcefully encouraged by the people of that nation.
Tom Vogt:
evil, of course, is a question of perspective. most of those "evil" nations/people regard the US pretty much the same way. :-)
Stalin and Hitler were especially firm believers in the principle that evil is merely a question of perspective, and thus any nation that got in the way of mass murder, notably the US, was, by their theory, especially evil. Indeed Stalin made "objectivism" a thought crime, punishable by death. By "objectivism" he meant the belief that truth was a matter of fact, rather than authority. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG sGUzebEImqjIGE2qYEUZxQwyALaHoqCWaQOsjcXw 4m3XSJEty7kWxZnNp6n7nk2GGFIzjIkMczsbG1RQT
"James A. Donald" wrote:
evil, of course, is a question of perspective. most of those "evil" nations/people regard the US pretty much the same way. :-)
Stalin and Hitler were especially firm believers in the principle that evil is merely a question of perspective,
and you seriously believe you can debunk a point by pointing out that there's a few assholes among its followers? oh, come on.
and thus any nation that got in the way of mass murder, notably the US, was, by their theory, especially evil. Indeed Stalin made "objectivism" a thought crime, punishable by death. By "objectivism" he meant the belief that truth was a matter of fact, rather than authority.
"evil" could, I believe, be *defined* as "the term pretty much everyone uses to describe his or her enemies". on the other hand, I don't know many people who don't consider themselves righteous, good, etc. thinking about it, objective is a word that has been abused quite a lot by virtually any faction in power during a given time. it's not been too long since the existence of god, heaven and hell was an "objective fact". stalins definition of "objectivism", as you repeat it above, is just one more of those abuses. what you say is merely that he called everyone who opposed his philosophy by that term. however, in most of the worlds we're living in today, the label of a thing is seperate from the thing itself.
-- Tom Vogt:
evil, of course, is a question of perspective. most of those "evil" nations/people regard the US pretty much the same way. :-)
James A. Donald:
Stalin and Hitler were especially firm believers in the principle that evil is merely a question of perspective,
Tom Vogt:
and you seriously believe you can debunk a point by pointing out that there's a few assholes among its followers? oh, come on.
If morality is merely relative, then what is wrong with murdering a few million jews, kulaks, or people as irritating as James A. Donald? All a matter of perspective, isn't it?
"evil" could, I believe, be *defined* as "the term pretty much everyone uses to describe his or her enemies".
People who use this definition have a disturbing tendency to define entire social groups, races, classes, as their enemies. The reason we define certain killings as murder is not because "the bible tells us so", but because we want to know if a killing indicates that the killer is apt to kill murderously. In practice we notice that one piece of metal is like another, and other kinds of metal unlike, and we call one such group of pieces of metal "iron", "iron" being our word for that commonality that makes them alike. The naming does not make it iron, but the character of the metal itself. Similarly we observe that one deed, and one man, is like another, and another unlike, and we call one such group of men and deeds "evil", "evil" being our word for that commonality that makes them alike. Let us look at how real people in real life use the word "evil": Immediately after the bombing of Serbia, lots of US government officials went out on TV to argue that the bombing of Serbia was necessary and advisable because the ruler of Serbia was "evil". I do not have a transcript, but it seemed clear to me that they did not argue that he was evil, therefore deserved to have his soldiers blown up, but instead argued that he was evil, therefore his soldiers were likely to cause harm, therefore it was a wise precaution to blow his soldiers up. They unhesitatingly drew an empirical conclusion from a normative fact, and they reasonably expected that everyone listening would find the alleged normative fact compelling evidence for the empirical conclusion. They crossed the "is ought gap" without the slightest difficulty, and so does everyone else except for monsters and philosophers. I find it striking that many of the philosophers who have such great difficulty with this alleged gap have some connection to monstrous regimes. Not all of them by any means, but most of them. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ILP99SyVaIkmx215wqr43UJJ0hQduNWeaZ0/k7GM 4mzrCxbxrsnsEX63mRLtarq6nQ94evNZW18Avove4
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:09:04AM -0800, James A. Donald wrote: [...]
If morality is merely relative, then what is wrong with murdering a few million jews, kulaks, or people as irritating as James A. Donald? All a matter of perspective, isn't it?
Believing that evil is a matter of perspective does not necessarily make one a moral relativist. I believe that both good and evil do not exist objectively. However, I don't kill people because a) I would feel bad about it and b) I don't want people killing me back, and c) The type of society I'd like to live in wouldn't function very well if people just went around killing each other willy nilly.
"evil" could, I believe, be *defined* as "the term pretty much everyone uses to describe his or her enemies".
People who use this definition have a disturbing tendency to define entire social groups, races, classes, as their enemies.
I fully agree with this definition, yet I don't define anyone to be my "enemy" except those who deliberately stand in the way of the things I want to do (nobody right now except maybe the govt).
The reason we define certain killings as murder is not because "the bible tells us so", but because we want to know if a killing indicates that the killer is apt to kill murderously.
I'm assuming by murderously you mean arbitrarily, which makes them a danger to others.
In practice we notice that one piece of metal is like another, and other kinds of metal unlike, and we call one such group of pieces of metal "iron", "iron" being our word for that commonality that makes them alike. The naming does not make it iron, but the character of the metal itself.
Similarly we observe that one deed, and one man, is like another, and another unlike, and we call one such group of men and deeds "evil", "evil" being our word for that commonality that makes them alike.
When you call someone evil, you're begging the question of their evilness. I've heard lots of people (including myself) called evil to further someone else's aims, that the word no longer has any meaning any more. I'd rather hear "he kills arbitrarily" than "he's evil." I do use the term "evil" occasionally, but it's usually referring to ideas or nasty hacks, and usually in a jocular fashion.
Let us look at how real people in real life use the word "evil":
Immediately after the bombing of Serbia, lots of US government officials went out on TV to argue that the bombing of Serbia was necessary and advisable because the ruler of Serbia was "evil". I do not have a transcript, but it seemed clear to me that they did not argue that he was evil, therefore deserved to have his soldiers blown up, but instead argued that he was evil, therefore his soldiers were likely to cause harm, therefore it was a wise precaution to blow his soldiers up.
They unhesitatingly drew an empirical conclusion from a normative fact, and they reasonably expected that everyone listening would find the alleged normative fact compelling evidence for the empirical conclusion.
They crossed the "is ought gap" without the slightest difficulty, and so does everyone else except for monsters and philosophers. I find it striking that many of the philosophers who have such great difficulty with this alleged gap have some connection to monstrous regimes. Not all of them by any means, but most of them.
At first I thought in this section you were arguing against this particular
use of the term 'evil,' and then you go on to say that the use of this term
made it possible for the govt to convince people that bombing Serbia was a
good thing without having to argue about it, and you say that this is good?
How many other groups of people do you think have been convinced to do
violence this way? I guess it's OK when the US does it, but not OK when
Hitler calls Jews evil?
Evil *is* a subjective concept, and whenever you hear it you should
immediately become *very* suspicious and ask why, regardless of whether you
think it's obvious that someone's evil, because I think sometimes the
answer will surprise you.
--
Sean R. Lynch KG6CVV
"James A. Donald" wrote:
If morality is merely relative, then what is wrong with murdering a few million jews, kulaks, or people as irritating as James A. Donald? All a matter of perspective, isn't it?
or indians, right? "the only good indian is a dead indian". all of our countries have a bloody past. some are just more recent than others. all were over before I was born, so they're all alike to me. as to your question: you are close. there are, of course, a lot of things wrong with killing any large number of any people. however, try describing one completely without adding a personal belief or ethic background. example: killing 1 mio. jews is evil, because - because of what? there's a lot of "becauses", but none of them works without a subjective set of ethics. you won't find a "because" that has the structure of, say, a mathematical proof.
"evil" could, I believe, be *defined* as "the term pretty much everyone uses to describe his or her enemies".
People who use this definition have a disturbing tendency to define entire social groups, races, classes, as their enemies.
I agree.
The reason we define certain killings as murder is not because "the bible tells us so", but because we want to know if a killing indicates that the killer is apt to kill murderously.
In practice we notice that one piece of metal is like another, and other kinds of metal unlike, and we call one such group of pieces of metal "iron", "iron" being our word for that commonality that makes them alike. The naming does not make it iron, but the character of the metal itself.
Similarly we observe that one deed, and one man, is like another, and another unlike, and we call one such group of men and deeds "evil", "evil" being our word for that commonality that makes them alike.
you are changing the meaning of "we" without noticing it. in the 2nd paragraph, "we" means pretty much everyone. in the third, "we" is much smaller. for example, the nazis would certainly have agreed to calling iron "eisen" (the german word for "iron"). however, they didn't call the mass murdering of jews that. maybe that's because they were evil, but now you have a snake that's eating it's own tail, because you allow only people who are not evil to define what evil means.
They crossed the "is ought gap" without the slightest difficulty, and so does everyone else except for monsters and philosophers. I find it striking that many of the philosophers who have such great difficulty with this alleged gap have some connection to monstrous regimes. Not all of them by any means, but most of them.
that's because they are so readily abused by them. almost everyone is prone to not listening to what someone else really has to say, but to draw conclusions quickly. go into any anti-nazi newsgroup and argue a careful position, ask for evidence and draw conclusions only from facts. want to make a bet on how long it takes until you're called a nazi? to the politicians: the point here is that they could expect (and were obviously right so) that the vast majority of readers has a very similiar definition of "evil" and other details of ethic background. had they spoken not to their own people, but to the people of serbia, they could not have "crossed the gap" with such ease. it's almost a shame that the cultural differences on the globe become smaller and smaller every year. today, if you want to find a really interesting example (people who think it's unacceptable to, say, eat in public) today, you have to refer to some almost-extinct tribe in the middle of somewhere nobody ever heard about.
-- James A. Donald
If morality is merely relative, then what is wrong with murdering a few million jews, kulaks, or people as irritating as James A. Donald? All a matter of perspective, isn't it?
At 11:43 AM 12/13/2000 +0100, Tom Vogt wrote:
example: killing 1 million. jews is evil, because - because of what? there's a lot of "becauses",
I notice you imply that the Nazi liquidation of the Jews has been wildly exaggerated. Killing several million Jews is murderous because killing Jews merely for being Jewish is like killing me, therefore someone who liquidates the Jews is likely to kill me, someone who favors rendering society Jew free is likely to kill me if he had the power. Similarly anyone who thinks that Stalin was too soft on the kulaks (read the various commie criticisms of Stalin) would certainly kill me if he had the power, for the same reasons as he would kill the kulaks.
but none of them works without a subjective set of ethics.
Bullshit.
you won't find a "because" that has the structure of, say, a mathematical proof.
You cannot prove that iron is iron with the structure of a mathematical proof, because it is a fact about the world, and empirical fact, ultimately resting on the evidence of the senses. To deduce the necessary "because", one must start from the nature of man, and the nature of the world. James A. Donald:
The reason we define certain killings as murder is not because "the bible tells us so", but because we want to know if a killing indicates that the killer is apt to kill murderously.
Similarly we observe that one deed, and one man, is like another, and another unlike, and we call one such group of men and deeds "evil", "evil" being our word for that commonality that makes them alike.
Tom Vogt:
you are changing the meaning of "we" without noticing it. in the 2nd paragraph, "we" means pretty much everyone. in the third, "we" is much smaller. for example, the nazis would certainly have agreed to calling iron "eisen" (the german word for "iron"). however, they didn't call the mass murdering of jews that.
Then they were wrong, just as they would have been wrong had they called iron copper. And evidence that they were wrong is that a great many of them died of that error, for nazis killed more nazis than they did commies, just as the commies killed more commies than they did nazis, something that anyone could have foreseen had he recognized that killing Jews was murder, that killing capitalists for being capitalists was murder. The Nazi claim was that the killing of Jews was not indicative of a propensity to murder Aryans. The commie claim was that killing of capitalists was not indicative of a propensity to murder proletarians. These claims, of course, were false, because killing Jews capriciously, or because they were Jews, or killing capitalists capriciously or because they were capitalists, is in fact morally similar to killing anyone whimsically and capriciously, is in fact murder. Not "deemed to be murder". Not "socially constructed as murder". It really is murder, really is capricious and unreasonable killing, and hence it really is indicative of propensity to kill people capriciously, which is why we feel about murder as we do, feel that it is wrong. If the nature of man and the world was what you imagine it to be, if it was true that killing Jews was not indicative of propensity to kill Aryans, then Trotsky's "their morals and ours" would be right and I would be wrong; Hobbes in "Leviathan" would be right and I would be wrong. The evidence however is that I am right and you are wrong, that I am right and Trotsky is wrong, that I am right and Hobbes is wrong, that I am right and Hitler was wrong The evidence is that killing Jews is like killing me, that killing witches is like killing me, that killing capitalists is like killing me. Not "socially constructed as like killing me". Really like killing me. James A. Donald:
They crossed the "is ought gap" without the slightest difficulty, and so does everyone else except for monsters and philosophers. I find it striking that many of the philosophers who have such great difficulty with this alleged gap have some connection to monstrous regimes. Not all of them by any means, but most of them.
Tom Vogt
that's because they are so readily abused by them. almost everyone is prone to not listening to what someone else really has to say, but to draw conclusions quickly. go into any anti-nazi newsgroup and argue a careful position, ask for evidence and draw conclusions only from facts. want to make a bet on how long it takes until you're called a nazi?
I observe the contrary -- that people who go into anti Nazi newsgroups and purport to argue a careful position that the Jews were not murdered, or at least no very many of them, and anyway they had it coming, are generally not called nazis by most people, even though they quite obviously are nazis. Same goes, even more strongly, for commies, even those who loudly announce that they reject Lenin and Stalin, and then proceed to argue that Lenin and Stalin were softies, that they failed to suppress capitalism with sufficient vigor.
they spoken not to their own people, but to the people of serbia, they could not have "crossed the gap [between is and ought" with such ease.
The people of Serbia were wrong to vote fascists into power, though US intervention saved them from themselves, so they did not discover for themselves the consequences. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG r1v0E/KCznABDLa6ZzZMz0HCCjkL5oqcH5T5Lrjp 4gqox4cUDyE8NirpaFKg+VDudBY74EaZWjv4VAldo
"James A. Donald" wrote:
At 11:43 AM 12/13/2000 +0100, Tom Vogt wrote:
example: killing 1 million. jews is evil, because - because of what? there's a lot of "becauses",
I notice you imply that the Nazi liquidation of the Jews has been wildly exaggerated.
stop telling me what I'm implying, will you? I'm quite confident that I know that better than you do.
Killing several million Jews is murderous because killing Jews merely for being Jewish is like killing me, therefore someone who liquidates the Jews is likely to kill me, someone who favors rendering society Jew free is likely to kill me if he had the power.
Similarly anyone who thinks that Stalin was too soft on the kulaks (read the various commie criticisms of Stalin) would certainly kill me if he had the power, for the same reasons as he would kill the kulaks.
but none of them works without a subjective set of ethics.
Bullshit.
only if you change the subject, as you did above. all along we've been talking about "evil". suddenly, in your two examples above, the word doesn't appear anymore. pointing out a potential danger is NOT the same as putting a moral label on something.
you won't find a "because" that has the structure of, say, a mathematical proof.
You cannot prove that iron is iron with the structure of a mathematical proof, because it is a fact about the world, and empirical fact, ultimately resting on the evidence of the senses. To deduce the necessary "because", one must start from the nature of man, and the nature of the world.
that's why the "say" is there. it's an example, one possibility, a counter-point to the ethical argument. it's not all-inclusive.
Tom Vogt:
you are changing the meaning of "we" without noticing it. in the 2nd paragraph, "we" means pretty much everyone. in the third, "we" is much smaller. for example, the nazis would certainly have agreed to calling iron "eisen" (the german word for "iron"). however, they didn't call the mass murdering of jews that.
Then they were wrong, just as they would have been wrong had they called iron copper.
but the point is that the one point can be settled, the other not. it's hard to maintain that iron is copper in face of all evidence. it seems to be very easy to continue believing that "only a dead indian/jew/arab/american/nip/whatever is a good one" even if the whole world is convinced otherwise.
And evidence that they were wrong is that a great many of them died of that error, for nazis killed more nazis than they did commies, just as the commies killed more commies than they did nazis, something that anyone could have foreseen had he recognized that killing Jews was murder, that killing capitalists for being capitalists was murder.
if dying for your belief proves you wrong, xianity has been wrong from the start. (not that I wouldn't agree on that point) but you're playing bait&switch again. you're moving from evil to wrong to murderous as it pleases your argument. try to stick to the one term we're discussing. we can talk about "wrong and right" afterwards, it's no less interesting, but it IS a different point.
Not "deemed to be murder".
Not "socially constructed as murder".
It really is murder, really is capricious and unreasonable killing, and hence it really is indicative of propensity to kill people capriciously, which is why we feel about murder as we do, feel that it is wrong.
so? I don't understand why you're arguing at length for something that's never been questioned. the point is that calling this "evil" is a subjective point and that there is no such thing as "objective evil". I don't care for right and wrong at this point. I don't care for murder or not, or for 1 mio., 10 mio. or 50 mio. dead. it's not that I'm indifferent to those questions, it's just that they simply aren't the topic.
Tom Vogt
that's because they are so readily abused by them. almost everyone is prone to not listening to what someone else really has to say, but to draw conclusions quickly. go into any anti-nazi newsgroup and argue a careful position, ask for evidence and draw conclusions only from facts. want to make a bet on how long it takes until you're called a nazi?
I observe the contrary -- that people who go into anti Nazi newsgroups and purport to argue a careful position that the Jews were not murdered, or at least no very many of them, and anyway they had it coming, are generally not called nazis by most people, even though they quite obviously are nazis. Same goes, even more strongly, for commies, even those who loudly announce that they reject Lenin and Stalin, and then proceed to argue that Lenin and Stalin were softies, that they failed to suppress capitalism with sufficient vigor.
interesting. I've been labeled nazi in german newsgroups pretty much immediatly for pointing out a few real factual errors in someone's argument. maybe the anti-nazi groups over here are much more touchy than yours.
they spoken not to their own people, but to the people of serbia, they could not have "crossed the gap [between is and ought" with such ease.
The people of Serbia were wrong to vote fascists into power, though US intervention saved them from themselves, so they did not discover for themselves the consequences.
please not start an argument about "the people of X are so stupid that we, the enlightened people of Y have to save them from themselves". I dare to say that permutations of that argument have killed more people in history than any other reason has. it's always those who believe they are the good ones who cause the most evil. feeling yourself divine just pulls out the stops.
-- James A. Donald:
Killing several million Jews is murderous because killing Jews merely for being Jewish is like killing me, therefore someone who liquidates the Jews is likely to kill me, someone who favors rendering society Jew free is likely to kill me if he had the power.
Similarly anyone who thinks that Stalin was too soft on the kulaks (read the various commie criticisms of Stalin) would certainly kill me if he had the power, for the same reasons as he would kill the kulaks.
Tom Vogt
all along we've been talking about "evil". suddenly, in your two examples above, the word doesn't appear anymore.
The word murder does appear. Murder is defined as "wrongful killing.", hence is by definition a particular kind of evil. Indeed it is the archetypal example of evil, the type specimen of evil. The point is that to know whether a killing indicates the killer is likely to kill me, I have to make a moral judgement of the killing, to determine that the killing is morally similar to killing me. Trotsky thought that killing political enemies of the bolsheviks was different from killing Trotsky. He was wrong. Conversely people who believe that the Vietnam war was an evil act of aggression are likely to erroneously believe that Vietnam veterans are dangerous people, whereas people who have a more balanced view of the Vietnam war have a more accurate perception of Vietnam veterans. Tom Vogt:
you are changing the meaning of "we" without noticing it. in the 2nd paragraph, "we" means pretty much everyone. in the third, "we" is much smaller. for example, the nazis would certainly have agreed to calling iron "eisen" (the german word for "iron"). however, they didn't call the mass murdering of jews that.
James A. Donald:
Then they were wrong, just as they would have been wrong had they called iron copper.
Tom Vogt:
but the point is that the one point can be settled, the other not.
Surely the events of the twentieth century settled the matter decisively. Those who believe otherwise are monsters or fools, knaves or dupes. When people die as a result of their error, others should learn.
it's hard to maintain that iron is copper in face of all evidence. it seems to be very easy to continue believing that "only a dead indian/jew/arab/american/nip/whatever is a good one" even if the whole world is convinced otherwise.
If this was so, why do regimes that propagate evil ideas find it so vital to control all sources of information? Their hostility to empirical evidence, their hostility to the mere act of paying attention to empirical evidence, shows that it is not so easy to maintain false moral beliefs in the face of the evidence, shows that most people can not only easily cross the is-ought gap, but scarcely refrain from doing so. Anyone who propagates false moral beliefs also propagates false emprical claims supporting those false moral beliefs -- hence for example the continual debates where Marxists claim that Marx's predictions are coming true. If there was an is ought gap, they would find it unnecessary to so tightly couple moral and factual claims.
And evidence that they were wrong is that a great many of them died of that error, for nazis killed more nazis than they did commies, just as the commies killed more commies than they did nazis, something that anyone could have foreseen had he recognized that killing Jews was murder, that killing capitalists for being capitalists was murder.
if dying for your belief proves you wrong,
But they did not die for their beliefs. Had they died fighting jews they would of died for their beliefs. Instead they were killed by their fellow nazis.
but you're playing bait&switch again. you're moving from evil to wrong to murderous as it pleases your argument.
Evil, wrong, and murderous are not different categories. "Murderous" is the classic example of evil, and when I talk of "wrong" I say that the Trotsky's moral judgements were in error.
It really is murder, really is capricious and unreasonable killing, and hence it really is indicative of propensity to kill people capriciously, which is why we feel about murder as we do, feel that it is wrong.
so? I don't understand why you're arguing at length for something that's never been questioned. the point is that calling this "evil" is a subjective point and that there is no such thing as "objective evil".
Those who are aware of the existence of objective evil predicted that the nazis and the commies would murder friend and enemy alike. Those blind to this obvious fact failed to make that prediction. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG z9OF8tAFvxs87kvxsMf4W5TXyaYXwPPjl3mFaQ8z 4QqcZRNgYRTRscDdm+ybXHDBw13zxicQPiIhHcz7f
Hello cypherpunks - Any suggestions as to how to read the contents of a standard 1.44 MByte floppy disk while it is inside a paper & bubblewrap diskette mailer? What about a CDROM in a similar mailer? No fair just opening the envelope, since we are going to assume that the mailer is sealed in such a way as to make it obvious to the recipient that it was opened in transit. Let's say that we're not real concerned if the snooper finds out what's on the diskette, but we do want to know _absolutely_for_sure_ whether or not the snooper does know what's on the disk. Dave Ross ross@hypertools.com
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Ross wrote:
Any suggestions as to how to read the contents of a standard 1.44 MByte floppy disk while it is inside a paper & bubblewrap diskette mailer? What about a CDROM in a similar mailer?
Interesting question.
No fair just opening the envelope, since we are going to assume that the mailer is sealed in such a way as to make it obvious to the recipient that it was opened in transit.
Fair. For the magnetics I'd use a SQUID array. You couldn't use any sort of NMR because of the intense magnetic fields. They'd wipe the disk. Though resolution may be an issue even for the SQUID's. I've only played with one and it was lab, not industrial (ie $$$$), quality. For the CD I'd probably use some sort of NMR at a high scan frequency (ie higher resolution) and create a 3D map of the geometry of the CD (ie where are the edges and where are the bubbles). Then I'd import that into a AutoCAD and use AUTOLisp to overlay a standard template. Then the AUTOLisp routine could deduce what recognizable filesystems were on it. From there it could convert it into a dd sort of image. This would get more complicated for multi-layer disks. Note that using AUTOLisp doesn't bode well in the speed deamon department.
Let's say that we're not real concerned if the snooper finds out what's on the diskette, but we do want to know _absolutely_for_sure_ whether or not the snooper does know what's on the disk.
So the technique must be repeatable? Or do you mean what would be the mechanisms to verify that it had in fact been snooped (ie we know 'somebody' snooped it)? ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
"James A. Donald" wrote:
Tom Vogt
all along we've been talking about "evil". suddenly, in your two examples above, the word doesn't appear anymore.
The word murder does appear. Murder is defined as "wrongful killing.", hence is by definition a particular kind of evil. Indeed it is the archetypal example of evil, the type specimen of evil.
weird, a couple thousand years of history disagree with you. until the very recent past, pretty much everyone was sure that killing enemies, unbelievers or other people isn't "evil". probably isn't even "murder". ironically, you seem to agree somewhat that bombing a couple hectars of an "evil nation" isn't murder, either...
The point is that to know whether a killing indicates the killer is likely to kill me, I have to make a moral judgement of the killing, to determine that the killing is morally similar to killing me.
I never disagreed on the pragmatic point. however, there's still a vast difference between "I'm afraid X might kill me, too" and "X is evil". two examples: you can be afraid of becoming victim of a natural disaster, but I don't think you'd label that evil. OTOH I'm fairly sure that someone can earn the "evil" label without killing a single being.
James A. Donald:
Then they were wrong, just as they would have been wrong had they called iron copper.
Tom Vogt:
but the point is that the one point can be settled, the other not.
Surely the events of the twentieth century settled the matter decisively. Those who believe otherwise are monsters or fools, knaves or dupes. When people die as a result of their error, others should learn.
nice, but old trick of passing judgement on someone in such a form that it also invalidates his (possibly different) judgement on you. but it's just cheap dialectics, not "truth". remember that many more non-germans died in WW2 than germans. we really shouldn't use body-count as a measure of truth. during the invasion of poland, the polish casualties were several orders of magnitude higher than the german ones. according to your logic, these people died because they believed erreneous that they should defend themselves against german aggression. according to your logic, they were fools and others should have learned from their errors. france definitely shouldn't have defended itself, should it? but they were fools, according to your argument, and died as a result of their error. others should have learned and stopped opposing the germans. you can't judge history while it's still in the making. unfortunately, history is pretty much always unfinished. some ancient greek ideas that were burried 2000 years ago were resurrected earlier this century. there's no "right" and "wrong" in history, only events. we are the ones who put signs unto the events, blinding ourselves to the fact that anything a subject does is by definition subjective.
it's hard to maintain that iron is copper in face of all evidence. it seems to be very easy to continue believing that "only a dead indian/jew/arab/american/nip/whatever is a good one" even if the whole world is convinced otherwise.
If this was so, why do regimes that propagate evil ideas find it so vital to control all sources of information? Their hostility to empirical evidence, their hostility to the mere act of paying attention to empirical evidence, shows that it is not so easy to maintain false moral beliefs in the face of the evidence, shows that most people can not only easily cross the is-ought gap, but scarcely refrain from doing so.
"evil regimes" aren't the only ones who try to control information as much as possible. pretty much every corporation believes that it needs an extensive PR machinery in order to control the flow of information about itself. "evil regimes" just couple this desire with the ability to actually conduct an extensive control. then again, I don't quite see your point here. you happily proceed to define qualities of "evil", skipping by the very step of declaring something evil that's the whole point of this discussion.
Anyone who propagates false moral beliefs also propagates false emprical claims supporting those false moral beliefs -- hence for example the continual debates where Marxists claim that Marx's predictions are coming true. If there was an is ought gap, they would find it unnecessary to so tightly couple moral and factual claims.
who decides what is wrong and right in moral beliefs? you ever had any sex outside a marriage? not long ago, that was widely accepted as being one of the worst sins imaginable. there's no "right" or "wrong" in morals. there's just people who declare certain things to be one or the other. oh, and don't rest your points on anyone's predictions not having come true. for every marx who made predictions that didn't happen, there's 10 non-marxs who did the same.
And evidence that they were wrong is that a great many of them died of that error, for nazis killed more nazis than they did commies, just as the commies killed more commies than they did nazis, something that anyone could have foreseen had he recognized that killing Jews was murder, that killing capitalists for being capitalists was murder.
But they did not die for their beliefs. Had they died fighting jews they would of died for their beliefs. Instead they were killed by their fellow nazis.
your point is? that the percentage of "friendly fire" defines what is right and what is wrong?
but you're playing bait&switch again. you're moving from evil to wrong to murderous as it pleases your argument.
Evil, wrong, and murderous are not different categories. "Murderous" is the classic example of evil, and when I talk of "wrong" I say that the Trotsky's moral judgements were in error.
sorry, I disagree heavily. "1+1=3" is wrong, but neither evil nor murderous. then, there's a lot of "sinful", "wrong" or "evil" things in every culture that have nothing to do with murder. and there's even murder that is not regarded as wrong or evil by lots of people, such as the death sentence. these things may be related, but they're definitely not identical.
so? I don't understand why you're arguing at length for something that's never been questioned. the point is that calling this "evil" is a subjective point and that there is no such thing as "objective evil".
Those who are aware of the existence of objective evil predicted that the nazis and the commies would murder friend and enemy alike. Those blind to this obvious fact failed to make that prediction.
that's two broad categories and two broad predictions. you could just as well write "that's just the way it is". I'm tired of this, so let's cut it short: if "evil" is objective, there ought to be a way to measure it. an objective test that says "evil" or "not evil". name it.
-- Tom Vogt:
all along we've been talking about "evil". suddenly, in your two examples above, the word doesn't appear anymore.
James A. Donald:
The word murder does appear. Murder is defined as "wrongful killing.", hence is by definition a particular kind of evil. Indeed it is the archetypal example of evil, the type specimen of evil.
Tom Vogt:
Weird, a couple thousand years of history disagree with you. until the very recent past, pretty much everyone was sure that killing enemies, unbelievers or other people isn't "evil". probably isn't even "murder".
If you are confused about the difference between war and peace, you must be seriously confused about a lot of things.
ironically, you seem to agree somewhat that bombing a couple hectars of an "evil nation" isn't murder, either...
Those who claim to that killing people in warfare is no different from killing people in peace, are more likely to exterminate subjects during peacetime, than they are likely to refrain from killing enemies in wartime. Tom Vogt:
but the point is that the one point can be settled, the other not.
James A. Donald:
Surely the events of the twentieth century settled the matter decisively. Those who believe otherwise are monsters or fools, knaves or dupes. When people die as a result of their error, others should learn.
Tom Vogt:
nice, but old trick of passing judgement on someone in such a form that it also invalidates his (possibly different) judgement on you. but it's just cheap dialectics, not "truth".
remember that many more non-germans died in WW2 than germans. we really shouldn't use body-count as a measure of truth.
Remembering that both german and non german deaths were caused by germans, we should use body count as a measure of evil. James A. Donald:
Anyone who propagates false moral beliefs also propagates false emprical claims supporting those false moral beliefs -- hence for example the continual debates where Marxists claim that Marx's predictions are coming true. If there was an is ought gap, they would find it unnecessary to so tightly couple moral and factual claims.
Tom Vogt:
who decides what is wrong and right in moral beliefs?
Common sense. James A. Donald:
And evidence that they were wrong is that a great many of them died of that error, for nazis killed more nazis than they did commies, just as the commies killed more commies than they did nazis, something that anyone could have foreseen had he recognized that killing Jews was murder, that killing capitalists for being capitalists was murder.
Tom Vogt:
your point is? that the percentage of "friendly fire" defines what is right and what is wrong?
Friendly fire is an accident, an error. The murder of commies by commies and nazis by nazis was planned from the very beginning. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG YivChPEwc3KGWpVxNl2s9XFXHcCSZAlwgBzWfY/U 4RvCdxlreJ2EC2bq0c1LTl+Q1HNKyDAe8UFcrF4O3
"James A. Donald" wrote:
Tom Vogt:
Weird, a couple thousand years of history disagree with you. until the very recent past, pretty much everyone was sure that killing enemies, unbelievers or other people isn't "evil". probably isn't even "murder".
If you are confused about the difference between war and peace, you must be seriously confused about a lot of things.
the above holds true for both, peace and wartimes. please try again.
ironically, you seem to agree somewhat that bombing a couple hectars of an "evil nation" isn't murder, either...
Those who claim to that killing people in warfare is no different from killing people in peace, are more likely to exterminate subjects during peacetime, than they are likely to refrain from killing enemies in wartime.
I can't remember the US declaring war on any of the recent nations they've bombed. care to point me to the relevant documents?
Tom Vogt:
nice, but old trick of passing judgement on someone in such a form that it also invalidates his (possibly different) judgement on you. but it's just cheap dialectics, not "truth".
remember that many more non-germans died in WW2 than germans. we really shouldn't use body-count as a measure of truth.
Remembering that both german and non german deaths were caused by germans, we should use body count as a measure of evil.
body count not of those who died, but of those who killed? yeah, that works for WW2. does it work for vietnam?
Tom Vogt:
who decides what is wrong and right in moral beliefs?
Common sense.
whose common sense? (I'm refraining from the usual reply of "common sense is what tells you that the world is flat")
Tom Vogt:
your point is? that the percentage of "friendly fire" defines what is right and what is wrong?
Friendly fire is an accident, an error. The murder of commies by commies and nazis by nazis was planned from the very beginning.
so he who murders his brother is by definition evil? with or without a look at his reasons? you didn't answer my two core questions, so I'll present them again in a short and easily digestable form: 1.) those you call "evil" will often see things the other way around. how do you resolve this issue without circular reasoning? (i.e. without saying that their judgement doesn't count because they're "evil") 2.) if "evil" is objective, there ought to be an objective measurement that can be applied to answer the question of a given person being "good" or "evil". name this measurement.
-- Tom Vogt:
Weird, a couple thousand years of history disagree with you. until the very recent past, pretty much everyone was sure that killing enemies, unbelievers or other people isn't "evil". probably isn't even "murder".
James A. Donald:
If you are confused about the difference between war and peace, you must be seriously confused about a lot of things.
Tom Vogt:
the above holds true for both, peace and wartimes.
Baloney. That is the "everyone else is doing it" excuse. Not everyone else is doing it. Those that were doing it, were monsters, and decent people had no hesitation in saying so, centuries ago as much as today. See, for example Saint Thomas Aquinas on the persecution of jews. Tom Vogt:
remember that many more non-germans died in WW2 than germans. we really shouldn't use body-count as a measure of truth.
James A. Donald:
Remembering that both german and non german deaths were caused by germans, we should use body count as a measure of evil.
Tom Vogt:
body count not of those who died, but of those who killed? yeah, that works for WW2. does it work for vietnam?
Sure. When the US fled, the killing escalated and spread, rather than diminished, showing that the cause of the war was communist aggression, something that had not been altogether clear before the US was defeated. Tom Vogt:
your point is? that the percentage of "friendly fire" defines what is right and what is wrong?
James A. Donald:
Friendly fire is an accident, an error. The murder of commies by commies and nazis by nazis was planned from the very beginning.
Tom Vogt:
so he who murders his brother is by definition evil? with or without a look at his reasons?
We know well the reasons why commies murdered commies and nazis murdered nazis.
you didn't answer my two core questions,
I have answered them repeatedly, and I will answer them yet again, but I expect you will keep on asking them anyway.
so I'll present them again in a short and easily digestable form:
1.) those you call "evil" will often see things the other way around. how do you resolve this issue without circular reasoning? (i.e. without saying that their judgement doesn't count because they're "evil")
Evil people are likely to do hurtful things (bad things) to me unless I get them first. Normal people will not do hurtful things to me unless I do bad things to them first. Hence my use of nazis, commies, and murder as illustrations and examples of evil. As I would point to the a particular piece of iron to define all iron, to define the category iron, in the same way I point to murder, nazis, and commies to define all evil, to define the category evil.
2.) if "evil" is objective, there ought to be an objective measurement that can be applied to answer the question of a given person being "good" or "evil". name this measurement.
See above. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 8szZeDQTARHFucMutKJJR/1rZ8k8hE1qhaaLa0DW 4c9IgbooyDMdUBDWP+X/wZH4kjYylqNZHDDk06v59
"James A. Donald" wrote:
Weird, a couple thousand years of history disagree with you. until the very recent past, pretty much everyone was sure that killing enemies, unbelievers or other people isn't "evil". probably isn't even "murder".
James A. Donald:
If you are confused about the difference between war and peace, you must be seriously confused about a lot of things.
Tom Vogt:
the above holds true for both, peace and wartimes.
Baloney. That is the "everyone else is doing it" excuse.
not at all. it's the "who are you to believe you can pass judgement on all of human history?" argument.
1.) those you call "evil" will often see things the other way around. how do you resolve this issue without circular reasoning? (i.e. without saying that their judgement doesn't count because they're "evil")
Evil people are likely to do hurtful things (bad things) to me unless I get them first. Normal people will not do hurtful things to me unless I do bad things to them first. Hence my use of nazis, commies, and murder as illustrations and examples of evil. As I would point to the a particular piece of iron to define all iron, to define the category iron, in the same way I point to murder, nazis, and commies to define all evil, to define the category evil.
you forgot intend. otherwise, innocent bystanders who get hit will always call the "good" guys who missed the target "evil" (according to your definition), and rightly so. but even with intend it doesn't work too well. your local police force will gladly introduce you to the concept of doing hurtful things to you without requiring you to do some to them first. all you have to do is, say, speed on the highway and refuse to stop when they ask you to. your definition works, I can't deny that, but only for extreme cases such as the nazi regime. then again, the nazis *were* convinced that the jews were not only doing bad things to them, but had been doing so for hundreds of years (the "jew world conspiracy", zion, etc). I'm afraid the nazis would have agreed to your definition just as well, pointing out the necessity of eliminating the jew conspiracy, or the whole world will suffer greatly. what about the israel/rest-of-the-near-east problem? both sides call themselves good and the other side evil. both sides have done and received their fair share of killing. both sides are convinced that the other will do hurtful things to them unless they get 'em first. is one or both of them evil? your "definition" doesn't answer that question. as I said, it works as a simplification for extreme cases, much like the florida election system works fine unless it's a close call.
-- Tom Vogt:
Weird, a couple thousand years of history disagree with you. until the very recent past, pretty much everyone was sure that killing enemies, unbelievers or other people isn't "evil". probably isn't even "murder".
James A. Donald:
If you are confused about the difference between war and peace, you must be seriously confused about a lot of things.
Tom Vogt:
the above holds true for both, peace and wartimes.
James A. Donald:
Baloney. That is the "everyone else is doing it" excuse.
Tom Vogt:
not at all. it's the "who are you to believe you can pass judgement on all of human history?" argument.
The nearest equivalent in European history to the crimes of the the nazis and commies was the spanish inquisition,and that was a small scale operation: Handcrafted murder rather than mass produced murder. Each victim was individually identified and processed, rather dumped by the truckload. They murdered about 12000, and the world was horrified by their crimes. Tom Vogt:
1.) those you call "evil" will often see things the other way around. how do you resolve this issue without circular reasoning? (i.e. without saying that their judgement doesn't count because they're "evil")
James A. Donald:
Evil people are likely to do hurtful things (bad things) to me unless I get them first. Normal people will not do hurtful things to me unless I do bad things to them first. Hence my use of nazis, commies, and murder as illustrations and examples of evil. As I would point to the a particular piece of iron to define all iron, to define the category iron, in the same way I point to murder, nazis, and commies to define all evil, to define the category evil.
Tom Vogt:
you forgot intend. otherwise, innocent bystanders who get hit will always call the "good" guys who missed the target "evil" (according to your definition), and rightly so.
what about the israel/rest-of-the-near-east problem? both sides call
No they do not. Laws of war are universally accepted by except by those who break them. Those who claim to find it terribly shocking that innocents get killed when legitimate military targets are attacked, never seemed to notice when their favorite terror regimes murdered hundreds of thousands of peasants in peacetime. themselves good and the other side evil. This is the classic problem of pointing out the mote in the other's eye while ignoring the beam in one's own eye. Both sides use the murder of children as a deliberate tactic to get their way. The middle eastern Jews are likely to murder any non Jew, as their christian allies in Lebanon so painfully discovered, and perhaps the crew of the USS Liberty discovered also, and the arabs are similarly likely to murder friends and allies. On both sides, murdering scum are in charge with overwhelming popular support. When Clinton was organizing peace talks, he had one arm around a murdering terrorist, and his other arm around another murdering terrorist. This was the basic cause of the lack of success in the peace talks.
both sides have done and received their fair share of killing. both sides are convinced that the other will do hurtful things to them unless they get 'em first. is one or both of them evil?
Both. As is confirmed by the propensity of both to deliberately murder innocents and allies. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG VnfVmTL/7mDyU4XZLDyD8zHodb0mVKA5dpJX00hW 4JXyerH5M3ax3YbbOf/qwLzGgzhPd4cUFKH+FjVZr
"James A. Donald" wrote:
James A. Donald:
Baloney. That is the "everyone else is doing it" excuse.
Tom Vogt:
not at all. it's the "who are you to believe you can pass judgement on all of human history?" argument.
The nearest equivalent in European history to the crimes of the the nazis and commies was the spanish inquisition,and that was a small scale operation: Handcrafted murder rather than mass produced murder. Each victim was individually identified and processed, rather dumped by the truckload. They murdered about 12000, and the world was horrified by their crimes.
I don't deny that the nazi (and communist) MURDERS were without equal. but again, we're not talking about murder, we're talking about evil, with murder being one (possibly the best?) example of murder. there's other evils beside murder. (rape, for an example that's widely considered to be of roughly the same degree).
Tom Vogt:
you forgot intend. otherwise, innocent bystanders who get hit will always call the "good" guys who missed the target "evil" (according to your definition), and rightly so.
No they do not.
Laws of war are universally accepted by except by those who break them. Those who claim to find it terribly shocking that innocents get killed when legitimate military targets are attacked, never seemed to notice when their favorite terror regimes murdered hundreds of thousands of peasants in peacetime.
you are too fixated on war. I wasn't talking about war. and besides, even in war it's a little sarcastic to tell the family who just lost its mother that "shit happens" and that the "laws of war" which say that shit happens are universally excepted, so rejoice and be happy, it's all for the greater good. innocent bystanders get hit in ALL circumstances. there's a lot of death every year when police forces shoot innocents. there's a lot of "small scale" military action that's not yet quite war (such as most of the recent US activity which is better described with the words "world police" than "war"). if you leave out intend, then you running over the neighbor's kid by 100% accident makes you evil, because you did hurtful things to them without them doing any to you first.
what about the israel/rest-of-the-near-east problem? both sides call themselves good and the other side evil.
This is the classic problem of pointing out the mote in the other's eye while ignoring the beam in one's own eye.
yepp, we agree completely that they're all insane. the difference is:
both sides have done and received their fair share of killing. both sides are convinced that the other will do hurtful things to them unless they get 'em first. is one or both of them evil?
Both. As is confirmed by the propensity of both to deliberately murder innocents and allies.
...that I don't label them "evil", and by doing so - according to your definition - declare a right for myself to take 'em out. your problem is still circular reasoning. the arabs who say that the US is evil are wrong because they are evil, and they are evil because you say so (or because your definition says so, which is pretty much the same). your problem is that it works perfectly well the other way around: james who says that the nazis are evil is wrong because he is himself evil, and he is evil because the nazis say so (because if he says bad things about the nazis, he must be part of the jew world conspiracy). on a pure logical level, these two statements have identical truth values. since they collide, the only possible conclusion is that they're both wrong.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Tom Vogt wrote:
same). your problem is that it works perfectly well the other way around: james who says that the nazis are evil is wrong because he is himself evil, and he is evil because the nazis say so (because if he says bad things about the nazis, he must be part of the jew world conspiracy). on a pure logical level, these two statements have identical truth values. since they collide, the only possible conclusion is that they're both wrong.
That's true, but I do not think it means what you think it means. To start with, james, who is not nearly as famous for his crimes as the nazis are for theirs, can be assumed not to have committed nearly as many atrocities as the nazis. Murders on one side -- six million (est.) Murders on the other side -- unknown, but I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about someone who committed more than a few hundred. The logic as presented flawlessly distinguishes the evil ones in this case. The fact that each side can say the same things about the others is beside the point. I can say that pigs fly, and I can say that birds fly. On a pure logical level, these two statements are identical. Hence the only possible conclusion is that they're both wrong? Uh, no. The only possible conclusion is that it's necessary to observe pigs and birds and *see* which statement, if any, is true. Bear
Ray Dillinger wrote:
same). your problem is that it works perfectly well the other way around: james who says that the nazis are evil is wrong because he is himself evil, and he is evil because the nazis say so (because if he says bad things about the nazis, he must be part of the jew world conspiracy). on a pure logical level, these two statements have identical truth values. since they collide, the only possible conclusion is that they're both wrong.
That's true, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
To start with, james, who is not nearly as famous for his crimes as the nazis are for theirs, can be assumed not to have committed nearly as many atrocities as the nazis. Murders on one side -- six million (est.) Murders on the other side -- unknown, but I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about someone who committed more than a few hundred. The logic as presented flawlessly distinguishes the evil ones in this case.
you are ignoring that "the nazis" is a far larger group than james is. also, you're only arguing body count. the nazis were not arguing that the jews were KILLING the "aryan race", at least not in the immediate murder sense. of course the comparison is flawed. to make it more equal, one would have to compare two groups, say the jews and the nazis. both thought of the other as the ultimate evil. the nazis went to kill the jews, justifying their deeds with the fear that the jews would otherwise be doing evil to them. according to james' definition, they (the nazis) were actually the GOOD guys! that's the point. you can use the "evil people are those who harm others, good people are those who fight evil people" definition to justify ANYTHING. now I definitely don't say the nazis are good (my grandfather died in a nazi prison). I just say that even though I would agree calling them "evil", that is still a subjective category, and I don't demand that the rest of the universe agree with me.
The fact that each side can say the same things about the others is beside the point. I can say that pigs fly, and I can say that birds fly. On a pure logical level, these two statements are identical. Hence the only possible conclusion is that they're both wrong? Uh, no. The only possible conclusion is that it's necessary to observe pigs and birds and *see* which statement, if any, is true.
the difference is that your "I say" are comments about actual, observable events in the outside world. james' "I say" relate to non-observable phenomena, where a "verification through observation" approach isn't in the range of options.
-- At 11:54 AM 12/20/2000 +0100, Tom Vogt wrote:
your problem is still circular reasoning. the arabs who say that the US s evil are wrong because they are evil, and they are evil because you say so (or because your definition says so, which is pretty much the same). your problem is that it works perfectly well the other way around: james who says that the nazis are evil is wrong because he is himself evil,
No it does not work the other way around. Normal people killing nazis and commies is not equivalent to nazis and commies killing normal people, for normal people are a threat only to evil people, whereas nazis and commies are a threat to everyone, including their fellow nazis and commies The jews really were not making war on western europe, germany, and the aryan race. The nazis really were making war on western europe and the jews. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG br1/2MCNDvWwcJ2M8Dvq8FyVBvK2oTCMI94Mmvra 46BFa5AqIkINc0XMGGdWY6FY4FRFUEhxZJ10nSHmx
"James A. Donald" wrote:
your problem is still circular reasoning. the arabs who say that the US s evil are wrong because they are evil, and they are evil because you say so (or because your definition says so, which is pretty much the same). your problem is that it works perfectly well the other way around: james who says that the nazis are evil is wrong because he is himself evil,
No it does not work the other way around.
Normal people killing nazis and commies is not equivalent to nazis and commies killing normal people, for normal people are a threat only to evil people, whereas nazis and commies are a threat to everyone, including their fellow nazis and commies
james, this is EXACTLY what I'm getting at. your line works perfectly, provided that the fact that the nazis are either evil or wrong is already established beforehand. see: ...for nazis are a threat only to evil people, while jews are a threat to everyone, including their own race. could almost be straight from Mein Kampf. (duh, do I have to add a disclaimer here that I don't mean this, but simply use it as an example of how these fuckers might argue/have argued?)
The jews really were not making war on western europe, germany, and the aryan race. The nazis really were making war on western europe and the jews.
I agree completely. I just don't claim that my reality tunnel is valid for everyone else.
-- Tom Vogt:
your problem is still circular reasoning. the arabs who say that the US s evil are wrong because they are evil, and they are evil because you say so (or because your definition says so, which is pretty much the same). your problem is that it works perfectly well the other way around: james who says that the nazis are evil is wrong because he is himself evil.
James A. Donald:
No it does not work the other way around.
Normal people killing nazis and commies is not equivalent to nazis and commies killing normal people, for normal people are a threat only to evil people, whereas nazis and commies are a threat to everyone, including their fellow nazis and commies
Tom Vogt:
james, this is EXACTLY what I'm getting at. your line works perfectly, provided that the fact that the nazis are either evil or wrong is already established beforehand.
see: : : for nazis are a threat only to evil people, while jews are : : a threat to everyone, including their own race.
Whether they were a threat or not is an objective fact. Jews were not a threat (unless perhaps one happens to live in Eretz Israel). Nazis were a threat. Anyone who says otherwise does not merely have different moral preferences. He is deluded or lying. In particular jews were not a threat to germans and the aryan race, whereas nazis really were a threat to everyone. That the nazis tended to murder anyone including their fellow nazis, and commies tended to murder anyone including their fellow commies, is an objective fact, capable of being true or false. That normal people do not tend to murder anyone, but only those that really do threaten them, is also an objective fact capable of being true or false. From such objective facts, we can determine that the nazis really were objectively evil. It is certainly true that many jews intended and continue to intend to steal the promised land from those currently occupying it, but the nazis intended to steal the whole world, and enslave everyone in it, whereas zionist jews merely intend that the current inhabitants of places near Israel shall go a few hundred miles further away. Those oppressed by the nazis were kept against their will and prevented from fleeing. Those oppressed by Israel refuse to leave, despite the fact that most jewish Israelis would very much like them to go away. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 7zfGQCzejsZpazkZGmLVe4irTUsEc5wcWJCz0ejb 4ki3SWlor/2iug//RcJrd507Ly6tJQnPJ3RYPIX8h
"James A. Donald" wrote:
Whether they were a threat or not is an objective fact. Jews were not a threat (unless perhaps one happens to live in Eretz Israel). Nazis were a threat. Anyone who says otherwise does not merely have different moral preferences. He is deluded or lying.
In particular jews were not a threat to germans and the aryan race, whereas nazis really were a threat to everyone.
That the nazis tended to murder anyone including their fellow nazis, and commies tended to murder anyone including their fellow commies, is an objective fact, capable of being true or false.
That normal people do not tend to murder anyone, but only those that really do threaten them, is also an objective fact capable of being true or false. From such objective facts, we can determine that the nazis really were objectively evil.
*IF* killing people (this way) is the definition of evil, and there is no other way to be evil but by being a murderer, *THEN* you are perfectly right. I still think murder and "evil", while touching each other, are not identical. I still think you're overly simplificating the problem, and that's exactly why it works so good in these extreme cases.
-- "James A. Donald" wrote:
That the nazis tended to murder anyone including their fellow nazis, and commies tended to murder anyone including their fellow commies, is an objective fact, capable of being true or false.
That normal people do not tend to murder anyone, but only those that really do threaten them, is also an objective fact capable of being true or false. From such objective facts, we can determine that the nazis really were objectively evil.
At 11:44 AM 12/27/2000 +0100, Tom Vogt wrote:
*IF* killing people (this way) is the definition of evil, and there is no other way to be evil but by being a murderer, *THEN* you are perfectly right.
I am merely using murder as the most extreme and unambiguous form of harm. The word "evil" has two senses. Harm suffered (morally neutral sense of the word "evil") and harm unjustifiably and willfully done, or the danger of such harm. (Moral sense of the word "evil") Situations often arise where it is not obvious what is "unjustifiable" and "willful", where such judgments are necessarily subjective, but in most of the cases that we care about, most of the time, it is perfectly objective. Someone is going about his own business, and out of the blue, someone robs him, assaults him, or someone denounces him as a class enemy, race enemy, class traitor, race traitor, etc. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 2b+rEh2sUmsbu7gKB3b5R54ObUVgCN2AUrNdNY0a 4eDYGULs/oewZgglw6c1M17S4HGW+43VCEjOse7Ia
"James A. Donald" wrote:
At 11:44 AM 12/27/2000 +0100, Tom Vogt wrote:
*IF* killing people (this way) is the definition of evil, and there is no other way to be evil but by being a murderer, *THEN* you are perfectly right.
I am merely using murder as the most extreme and unambiguous form of harm.
no, you are not. you are using a very specific form of murder as your "objective fact" which determines evil. how many more are there, for other forms of murder, for other forms of harm? for evil without suffering?
The word "evil" has two senses. Harm suffered (morally neutral sense of the word "evil") and harm unjustifiably and willfully done, or the danger of such harm. (Moral sense of the word "evil")
moral, by definition, is a function of culture. and the first case has already been kicked out dozens of times (because it includes accidents). besides, it's not at all neutral - some cultures consider certain forms of suffering as good (including some xian sects).
Situations often arise where it is not obvious what is "unjustifiable" and "willful", where such judgments are necessarily subjective, but in most of the cases that we care about, most of the time, it is perfectly objective. Someone is going about his own business, and out of the blue, someone robs him, assaults him, or someone denounces him as a class enemy, race enemy, class traitor, race traitor, etc.
in the extreme cases, things are obvious, which is NOT the same thing as being objective. just because the sky is obviously blue doesn't mean it's an objective fact. in fact, "the sky" doesn't even exist. now, to drag this thing a little bit closer to the topic, the interesting cases are those which are NOT extreme. what about the movie/record mafia and other control freaks? are they "evil"? they're not (yet) killing anyone, but they're surely doing harm (ask the people involved in the DeCSS case who've spent a couple thousand bucks on defending themselves). and more specifically: where is the line where they've become or will become "evil"? a good point was made by bruce perens on a /. forum: we cry murder when someone attacks the tools (decss, peacefire, napster, ...) instead of those who abuse them to do bad things (pirates etc). on the other hand, we are outraged about stuff like the recent IBM plans to encrypt harddrives - i.e. the tool, even before anyone has done anything bad with it. we're all a little israeli/arab. calling our opponents "evil" is just a tool of psychological warfare.
-- Tom Vogt:
*IF* killing people (this way) is the definition of evil, and there is no other way to be evil but by being a murderer, *THEN* you areperfectly right.
James A. Donald:
I am merely using murder as the most extreme and unambiguous example of harm.
Tom Vogt:
no, you are not.
Yes I am. I know what I meant, and I am fairly sure that I know what I wrote.
you are using a very specific form of murder as your "objective fact" which determines evil. how many more are there, for other forms of murder, for other forms of harm? for evil without suffering?
There cannot be evil without harm, or at least the threat and potential for harm. "Evil" in the morally neutral sense means suffering and/or harm. To do evil in the moral sense is one must cause suffering or harm, and to be evil one must cause the threat or potential for suffering and or harm. Of course not every harm that one causes is evil though most are (the classic counter example being self defence) but every evil requires a corresponding harm. They do not mean quite the same thing, but harm usually implies evil, and evil always implies harm. If no harm, then no foul.
The word "evil" has two senses. Harm suffered (morally neutral sense of the word "evil") and harm unjustifiably and willfully done, or the danger of such harm. (Moral sense of the word "evil")
moral, by definition, is a function of culture
Bullshit. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mJMcc+5SQQU3OQSanbPHsba6Mgc6Mt/9vlZKmkzT 4cnCEPiaZRM+Nu2mymijPst+rxNfVCZ3+1i5ZAT4v
"James A. Donald" wrote:
The nearest equivalent in European history to the crimes of the the nazis and commies was the spanish inquisition,and that was a small scale operation: Handcrafted murder rather than mass produced murder. Each victim was individually identified and processed, rather dumped by the truckload. They murdered about 12000, and the world was horrified by their crimes.
1 out of 10 for knowledge of history. I promise not to mention the witch hunts, or the French & Italian massacres of Protestants, or the aftermath of the Wars of religion, or the Thirty Year's War or Louis XIVs campaigns in Germany, or the Turkish massacres in Bulgaria & Armenia, or the slave trade (which certainly killed millions) or the Spanish persecution and expulsion of the Jews (whoops, that *was* the Inquisition, you already got that one) if you can tell me why the Tsarist pogroms of the late 19th century & the Black Hand were neither evil nor "mass produced". Ken
-- "James A. Donald" wrote:
The nearest equivalent in European history to the crimes of the the nazis and commies was the spanish inquisition,and that was a small scale operation: Handcrafted murder rather than mass produced murder. Each victim was individually identified and processed, rather dumped by the truckload. They murdered about 12000, and the world was horrified by their crimes.
At 11:16 AM 12/22/2000 +0000, Ken Brown wrote:
1 out of 10 for knowledge of history.
I promise not to mention the witch hunts, or the French & Italian massacres of Protestants, or the aftermath of the Wars of religion, or the Thirty Year's War or Louis XIVs campaigns in Germany,
War crimes, bad they though are, are not the same as similar crimes committed against an unresisting and disarmed populace. Many governments have committed crimes similar to those committed by the nazis and commies in the course of fighting guerrilla wars, for example the recent war crimes in Guatemala But when the guerrilla war ended, those governments ceased to commit those crimes. With commies and nazis, the end of resistance frequently resulted in an escalation, rather than diminution of those crimes, as for example recently occurred after the communist victories in Cambodia and South Vietnam. During the American war between the states, the feds created artificial famine in much the same way, for much the same reasons, as the Soviet, Cambodian, North Korean, and Ethiopian governments did, deliberately starving non combatants just as communist regimes did. When the war between the American states ended, so did hunger, whereas in communist states, the famine intensified as resistance diminished. The less the resistance, the greater the destruction. The difference between the US regime and the Pol Pot regime was small during war, but obvious after victory. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG jmKGEODS5+FIZeg+Uw98pzyOWCS2+J8lElvJBq8F 4Z7J6on5d8kQYvLw3jCS9FjKu9nBHlNRAj5tpgANr
"Trei, Peter" wrote:
Unless there is a specific loophole for Muslim women's veils, I suppose they are technically in violation, but as I said, these laws are hardly ever invoked. If say, there were a rash of terrorist attacks involving veiled persons occured, there'd be crackdown.
One of the reasons for mask laws is *specifically* veiled terrorists - wearing white spook outfits. The KKK is fortunately past its heyday, and the more common police problems when they hold marches are keeping the crowds from beating them up and unmasking them. Another reason for such laws may be bank robbers and highwaymen, but it's mostly the Klan. I did hear there was a case in Detroit or somewhere about mask laws being applied to veiled women, but the loophole to go for is the First Amendment protections on religious freedom. France, on the other hand, has had public schools ban girls from wearing head coverings, primarily because they emphasize the cultural differences. I read an article a while back about how the black dress outfit was becoming very common among Egyptian businesswomen. Not because they were traditionalists, but because the alternative, at least in Cairo, was that they were expected to dress fashionably and expensively, even though Egyption salaries for women haven't caught up with salaries for men, and the black dress is cheap, often more comfortable, and has enough traditional support that nobody can argue. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (11)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Ross -
James A. Donald -
Jim Choate -
Ken Brown -
Me -
Ray Dillinger -
Sean R. Lynch -
Tim May -
Tom Vogt -
Trei, Peter