RE: Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows
Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
My apologies; I never meant that as the implication. I highly doubt that you, or most people, would ever be capable of evil on 1/10th the scale of this attack.
Thanks, but I'd go a bit further. The percentage of humans who would be capable of such evil has to be vanishingly small. Unfortunately, that percentage is not zero so this sort of thing continues to happen.
However, if you assume lack of conscience and moral indifference, this does become a cost/benefit situation.
We have to assume it because it demonstrably exists. The trick then is, to make the costs greater or the benefits less. Easier said then done, but those are our only alternatives.
One of the problems with capital punishment is that it isn't much of a deterrent, except to the Christians who believe in Hell.
I think a much strong argument can be made that those who do not believe in an afterlife would be more deterred than those who do.
You can only be executed once.
Yeah, but it's that once that counts forever. In any event, that's the situation in which we live. There will always be that tiny minority that will do evil. The rest of us are left to monkey with the cost/benefit to reduce the incidences of such evil. Life goes on.
Americans will do everything they can not to believe that this could have been a domestic action. We want to blame the "sand-niggers" and the "rag-heads." The fact that this could have been a sociopath with the ultimate get-rich quick scheme is unthinkable.[2]
And so far, unsupported by the facts. Time will tell. In the mean time, Meyer, I'll bet you, or anyone on this list, a C-note that this is the work of Bin Laden. Any takers? S a n d y
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Thanks, but I'd go a bit further. The percentage of humans who would be capable of such evil has to be vanishingly small. Unfortunately, that percentage is not zero so this sort of thing continues to happen.
Unmitigated bullshit, again. People, most people, will do whatever the hell they feel justified in doing. Concepts like 'good' or 'evil' are the fundamental failing of your argument. They are not universal. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Thanks, but I'd go a bit further. The percentage of humans who would be capable of such evil has to be vanishingly small. Unfortunately, that percentage is not zero so this sort of thing continues to happen.
Unmitigated bullshit, again.
People, most people, will do whatever the hell they feel justified in doing. Concepts like 'good' or 'evil' are the fundamental failing of your argument. They are not universal.
See my second to last post, Jim. I cannot think of any massive terrorist attack in which personal gain was the only motive. If there are any, the number is extremely small. Different societies have different definitions of evil; some evils are hard to justify by any means, however. -MW-
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
See my second to last post, Jim. I cannot think of any massive terrorist attack in which personal gain was the only motive. If there are any, the number is extremely small.
Different societies have different definitions of evil; some evils are hard to justify by any means, however.
They people engaging in them certainly felt justified. Whether you agree or not is really a different question. It also demonstrates the relativity of 'good' and 'evil'. If we were for a moment to accept the concept of 'universal evil' then we are faced with a simple litmus test. If it is really universal than a rock, rabbit, or person will find it equally offensive. Or are you perhaps suggesting that people are somehow 'universal' (ie anthropocentric)... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Santyana The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
[This is becoming a rat-hole, and I'm not interested getting too far into it. I think most of you understand my point.] On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Different societies have different definitions of evil; some evils are hard to justify by any means, however.
They people engaging in them certainly felt justified. Whether you agree or not is really a different question. It also demonstrates the relativity of 'good' and 'evil'.
Of course.
If we were for a moment to accept the concept of 'universal evil' then we are faced with a simple litmus test. If it is really universal than a rock, rabbit, or person will find it equally offensive.
Or are you perhaps suggesting that people are somehow 'universal' (ie anthropocentric)...
I am not stating that there is any act of "evil" necessarily offensive to all societies, past, present, and future. However, I am stating that there *are* acts of "evil" that are not tolerated by any society currently in existence. Such boundaries on what actions are permissible is necessary for the existence of society. This is not to imply a fixed condition. -MW-
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Thanks, but I'd go a bit further. The percentage of humans who would be capable of such evil has to be vanishingly small. Unfortunately, that percentage is not zero so this sort of thing continues to happen.
My point precisely.
However, if you assume lack of conscience and moral indifference, this does become a cost/benefit situation.
We have to assume it because it demonstrably exists. The trick then is, to make the costs greater or the benefits less. Easier said then done, but those are our only alternatives.
Have there ever been any large-scale terroristic attacks where profit was the only motive? Bin Laden's organization has religious reasons. McVeigh had his own moral justifications. I'm not sure we've ever seen such an action for a pure profit motive. Can anyone think of examples?
I think a much strong argument can be made that those who do not believe in an afterlife would be more deterred than those who do.
Heh. Perhaps the suggestion that such terrorism could be stopped if everyone were to be converted to Christianity wasn't such a crazy idea. Nah. We'd have followers of Jerry Falwell attempting to smite San Francisco.
And so far, unsupported by the facts. Time will tell. In the mean time, Meyer, I'll bet you, or anyone on this list, a C-note that this is the work of Bin Laden. Any takers?
That's a fool's wager. We will never know with total certainty whose work this was. I'm certain that our investigators will link these actions to bin Laden, however. And I suspect they'll most likely be correct. -MW-
participants (3)
-
Jim Choate -
Meyer Wolfsheim -
Sandy Sandfort