Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
From: IN%"vznuri@netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 22-MAY-1996 15:50:29.93 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu" "E. ALLEN SMITH" CC: IN%"vznuri@netcom.com", IN%"cypherpunks@toad.com" Subj: RE: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace Received: from netcom11.netcom.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I50FPCUY748WW02X@mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Wed, 22 May 1996 15:50 EDT Received: from localhost (vznuri@localhost) by netcom11.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom) id MAA29965; Wed, 22 May 1996 12:52:08 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 May 96 12:52:07 -0700 From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 May 96 00:57:00 EDT." <01I4ZKIOEV7G8Y5IL9@mbcl.rutgers.edu> To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu> Cc: vznuri@netcom.com, cypherpunks@toad.com Message-id: <199605221952.MAA29965@netcom11.netcom.com> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH
I will quote an anonymous AP proponent with the initials EAS
the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing, not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means" argument used by most here), but that in addition it is supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? for g*d's sakes, promote your depraved scheme under any other heading, but do not claim it is "ethical" unless you want to further demonstrate how far from morality you have twisted your brain.
In other words, if I'm shooting at you, it's unethical for you to shoot back?
The above is evidence that your accusing anyone of reposting private email is the pot calling the kettle black, LD (unless, as Dr. Vulis said, you're too dumb to be him). That was specifically sent in private email, for the simple reason that I saw no reason to clutter up the list with another response like the 10 others that had been sent.
get a clue. I didn't argue against someone shooting at you. I argued against the claim that you should be allowed to shoot anyone in the government because you think the government is corrupt.
Nobody, so far as I know, is arguing that one ought to shoot anyone in the government... I'd be in danger if that were the case, given that my current employer is a state university. If someone is in government and is doing something very wrong (although one may disagree on what is wrong, of course), then they're a proper target.
I do achnowledge the rightness of self-defense against governmental evildoing.
ah, now there's where the silly non-sequitur of AP proponents comes in. "the government is corrupt, therefore we should be able to shoot any government employees we choose". the government is not sticking a gun down your throat this minute, are they? well, why are you seriously contemplating the converse? oh, you say that FIGURATIVELY the government is doing this to you? and you want to respond LITERALLY? I wonder who is the tyrant in this situation?
If the only workable method of self-defense is to kill the person, then that's a justifiable means of self-defense. Hopefully, other means of removal of those in government who do what is wrong is possible; I do my best to work for this. But if it isn't, I'll support AP as an alternative.
To use your example of Hitler, somehow I think an assasination of him would have been ethical.
I used him as an example of the kind of thinking that "murdering your enemies solves all your problems". yes, that was his point of view, and you inform me that you share it? well, congratualations!! hitler doesn't have too many friends and can use all the sympathy he can get.
All your problems? No. But leaving it out as a possible partial solution is irrational.
murdering Hitler would not have solved all the problems of WWII. the problem was militarism that was embodied by many cultures outside of his own, e.g. Japan and Russia.
Executing Hitler would have saved a lot of lives, even if it didn't stop the war entirely. Germany without him would, more than likely, not have held together nearly as long as it did.
AP proponents believe that:
1. the world is full of people that are part of the problem or part of the solution
2. I can tell precisely the difference
No, I don't think that I can tell precisely the difference. But it appears possible that I'd make less mistakes than the current government does, even considering only the cases in which they do kill people (e.g., shootouts with drug dealers et al).
3. I'd like to kill those that are part of the problem.
If that's the only way that works, yes.
4. if AP existed, and it appeared there was a way to kill other people without trace, I would go through with it.
Again, if that's the only way that works, yes.
5. I have a lot of teachers I hated in my childhood too. I think I will go for them next. possibly not before seeing if they beg for mercy.
I invite you to look at the psychological defense mechanism known as projection, preferably along with a trained psychiatrist or clinical psychologist in inpatient therapy. -Allen
Nobody, so far as I know, is arguing that one ought to shoot anyone in the government... I'd be in danger if that were the case, given that my current employer is a state university.
uhm, I hate to bring this up, but the topic of discussion is ASSASSINATION POLITICS. those that are in favor of it are in favor of KILLING POLITICIANS THEY DON'T LIKE. there is absolutely no way you can flimflam your way around this basic tenet of the philosophy, no matter how much you or other proponents snivel about "our rights, violations, justice, due process" etc. now it is quite possible you might be advocating killing politicians other than with guns, perhaps death by covering them with honey and putting them in anthills. but get a clue about what you are advocating!! killing politicians you don't like!! (above statement is equivalent to: well, I SUPPORT AP, but only insofar as I don't put my own job at risk. if anyone who employs me THINKS I support AP, please realize you are mistaken)
If someone is in government and is doing something very wrong (although one may disagree on what is wrong, of course), then they're a proper target.
"proper target". another lovely euphemism for "target practice for submachine guns".
If the only workable method of self-defense is to kill the person, then that's a justifiable means of self-defense.
of course, that is what AP proponents are asserting. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY they shout. it's our last result. we have no other choice. Hopefully, other means of removal
of those in government who do what is wrong is possible; I do my best to work for this. But if it isn't, I'll support AP as an alternative.
hee, hee. what is your criteria? "if the government doesn't repeal taxes tomorrow, we're fully justified on going on a shooting spree at our local government offices". no? oh, perhaps you require a little more provocation? perhaps a government cleark has to look at you snidely when you go to review your driver's license? pray tell, what is the line? please illuminate my ignorance. you see, I have a hard time telling when someone ought to be put to death. the AP proponents such as yourself seem so sure of yourself that I'm quite envious. at times TCM and other cpunks display as much confidence and I must admit I'm quite embarrassed not to have such security in my own judgements. can one of the experts here teach me how to pick out the people in a crowd that deserve execution? surely there must be some simple trick to it all that others here are not fully sharing. [hitler]
I used him as an example of the kind of thinking that "murdering your enemies solves all your problems". yes, that was his point of view, and you inform me that you share it? well, congratualations!! hitler doesn't have too many friends and can use all the sympathy he can get.
All your problems? No. But leaving it out as a possible partial solution is irrational.
ah, so you do have admitted sympathies for the "kill thine enemies" approach. yes, perhaps I was too hasty. killing your opponents has many very obvious and delectable advantages. I'll have to consider it any future situations I encounter and decide if it would be a useful approach.
AP proponents believe that:
1. the world is full of people that are part of the problem or part of the solution
2. I can tell precisely the difference
No, I don't think that I can tell precisely the difference. But it appears possible that I'd make less mistakes than the current government does, even considering only the cases in which they do kill people (e.g., shootouts with drug dealers et al).
so in other words, if you were in charge of the government, it would be far better off?
3. I'd like to kill those that are part of the problem.
If that's the only way that works, yes.
ah, but you seem to have exhausted all other solutions. could you inform me when you are going to actually put into play your ideas on assassination politics? I want to attempt to gauge the results informally. if government suddenly becomes less oppressive while various bureacrats begin dropping like flies, I'll know who to thank!!
4. if AP existed, and it appeared there was a way to kill other people without trace, I would go through with it.
Again, if that's the only way that works, yes.
but that is your own and other AP's exact beliefs. "nothing else works. we're just going to have to start putting politicians to death for their crimes against humanity". of course you/they don't use this terminology, but that's the obvious insinuation to anyone with half a brain. unless you really DO believe the idiotic propaganda terms you guys use like SELF DEFENSE JUSTICE RIGHTS FAIR TARGET blah blah blah
5. I have a lot of teachers I hated in my childhood too. I think I will go for them next. possibly not before seeing if they beg for mercy.
I invite you to look at the psychological defense mechanism known as projection, preferably along with a trained psychiatrist or clinical psychologist in inpatient therapy.
I invite you to consider the meaning of the exhortation, "thou shalt not kill", and the consequences of defying it.
participants (2)
-
E. ALLEN SMITH -
Vladimir Z. Nuri