Exactly my motto. I still take an infantile, malicious joy in encouraging others to explicitly spell out their justifications for what I find to be undesirable behavior, then damaging them in the exact same way whilst spouting their own crap back at them when they inevitably call me on it. I don't actually think it is ethical, but it is immensely satisfying. Even if I never have actually seen anyone acknowledge their hypocrisy - the ethical implications of behavior seem to be entirely reliant on whether they are giving or receiving for these people.
The reality is that the US prison system is formed around the principle of punishment.
And profit. Prisons are sub-contracted to private interests, that are paid in part on a per convict basis. There are documented instances of judges being convicted of taking kickbacks to supply more "product" to the prison industry, i.e. prisoners. There are simply some functions in a civilized society that must be stripped of profit motivation in order to insure justice.
Erich Fromm addresses some of these ideas in "The Sane Society" and "On being Human"; I forget which ideas are explored in which specific books. One of his specific criticisms of modern psychiatry is that "sanity" is typically valued as being within some distance of a societal norm. He explores the idea of an "sane" person in an "insane" society and how that person would be viewed by the psychiatric field.
we do dangerous work, with gun in hand, so if we shoot a family dog or a kid now and then we shouldn't be accountable.
The funny thing about this (which I hear a lot as a justification) is that police don't have terribly dangerous jobs. At least not your typical, non SWAT, non deep cover agent types. You can easily find these statistics; just a few years ago, more fast food workers were killed on the job than anything else (in USA). And yet no one has ever suggested fast food workers deserve special privileges for their dangerous work place....
For me "porn" only applies if there's sex (either with a partner or self). It either is porn or isn't porn.
While I agree that fashion isn't really porn, there is a bit of gray area. What is sex? Penetration? Licking another person's genitals? Licking another person's face? Kissing? Petting? Where does "not sex" become "sex", and thus depicting it become porn?
You're right, that's pretty bizarre. Of course, it isn't just religions, but all 501(c)s. Which is a pretty long list, including Chambers of Commerce and Cemetery Companies. I have no idea what the rationale is behind prohibiting such organizations from actively campaigning, but obviously it isn't all due to "separation of church and state".
To leap from a simple idea that maybe Obama wasn't born in the US to some grand "gigantic secret plot" is just, well, typical of the kind of thinking you represent so well.
Dude, the "simple" idea that an elected President didn't meet such a basic requirement as natural citizenship, which was then covered up by an unspecified number of people (including some in the Hawaii dept of records or whatever they call it) pretty much IS a gigantic secret plot. There is no other way it could happen.
Is calling those who disagree with you 'enemies' reaching across the aisle?
The Republicans don't just "disagree" with Obama. They have stated in words and proven in action that their main goal is to obstruct him in anything that might reflect well on his presidency. They haven't flat out said it (the Congress members haven't said it - media figures have), but it is obvious that the Republicans would prefer to see our country spiral further downward if that could be blamed on Obama than see us do well if that would be attributed to Obama.
So, yeah, I think "enemies" is a pretty accurate term. As an aside, I find it amusing (in a sad sad way) that bipartisanship is apparently a one way street to Obama critics. When have the Republicans worked towards compromise? Expecting one side to capitulate to the demands of the other isn't compromise.
I think the fact that anyone is abusing the system demonstrates that the system is fundamentally flawed.
Name a single system created by human beings that is impervious to being abused. Just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't good. You would rather see a few innocent men hanged than a single guilty man walk free?
You make one completely unjustified assumption - complete knowledge. Very few people will suggest that when the decision is between an atrocity and a greater atrocity, one should forgo being the perpetrator of the lesser atrocity in order to have "clean hands". That is seldom the decision, however. It is most often a decision between committing what you know to be an atrocity in order to maybe prevent a possible future atrocity. A line must be drawn. Most would condone shooting your hypothetical suicide bomber when it becomes extremely likely he is going to murder thousands, minutes before he does so. Those exact same people would NOT condone murdering him as a 6 year old child, when the possibility that he will murder thousands is extremely tiny.
The problem is that we seem to be pushing that line back. Things we would not have condoned 40 years ago when the threat was objectively much greater are suddenly acceptable. The threat from modern terrorism is less than the threat from the Cold War, yet we as a people seem much more wiling to compromise our own ideals (i.e. humanity). It's interesting you mention the word cowards - my personal suspicion is that the terrorists have been quite successful in terrorizing us, and our own fears are what are fueling the direction we are going in.
and be defeated by an enemy which is evil to the core
Yes, that is the first step in justifying any action against the enemy - dehumanizing them. When they aren't human beings, but rather evil incarnate, of course you are justified in any means necessary to defeat them! Odd how the opposition takes the exact same stance...
I've always been amused by the idea that the upside down cross is a Satanic symbol; I assume this was a meme begun by Protestants. Pretty good trick, really.
Raping a small kitten to death in front of a kindergarten class while screaming "Santa Claus isn't real?" Then yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and agree, that is unethical.
Your point about the collective nature of bees and ants is a good one; that sort of organization doesn't really apply to human societies. However, the idea that territoriality or resource competition in nature forms some sort of justification for the societal construct of private property rights doesn't strike me as a valid connection. I don't believe animals base these sorts of behaviors on anything more sophisticated than "might makes right", it's mine b/c I want it and can take it/keep it from you (if there are counter examples, I would be interested to hear them). Human society has mostly rejected this philosophy.
I think my use of the term "natural rights" has led us a bit astray. My point is simply that people often refer to private property rights as an inalienable right. I have never heard a compelling argument as to the fundamental nature of these rights as compared to let's say the right to life. I can easily imagine a valid moral system that does not recognize private property, especially as defined in today's society. I can not imagine at all a valid moral system that does not recognize the right to life or the right to freedom of association.
No,it isn't. "No true scotsman" is when you keep changing your definitions to exclude stated counter-examples that invalidate your previous definition. GP provided a very clear example of why the commonly accepted definition of free market doesn't apply and has not applied to any existing markets for a very long time (if ever). He did not change the prevailing definition of free market to fit his theories. You may disagree with his assertion that government protection of trade via the military does not constitute government interference in trade (and thus a non-free market); however, you now have to explain YOUR definition of free market that incorporates this protection and support why your definition should be preferred. Or, I guess, you could deny that governments protect trade via the military.
Lots of things happen in nature. Some animals exhibit individual property behaviors, many don't. Fish, ants, bees, I could go on and on. Collective property, yes, but not individual property. What makes individual property behavior so special that is should be considered every humans' right to own individual property? As a practical matter, it is convenient. As some sort of ideal, I see no particular argument in it's favor.
Why would the physical therapist need to know calculus in order to apply force? Sure, calculus describes what she is doing, but she doesn't have any need to understand the underlying mathematical model. She just does it, based on her physical experience of the situation. Same with the physics. I'm sure she has a basic grasp of the concept of mechanical advantage; why would she need to be able to identify the formulas that describe why leverage increases applied force?
And your argument is like saying we shouldn't punish assassins, only those that hire them. Sure, the family are the biggest assholes, but the lawyer that took this absurd case has some responsibility b/c he agreed to take the case.
As an aside, after watching The Rally to Restore Sanity, I did a quick comparison Sunday. Fox online article gave the definite impression it was a pro legalizing marijuana/anti-tea party rally. MS NBC gave the impression that it was a pro Dem/Liberal rally. NY Times gave the same impression (and was the only place that didn't have a front page article on the rally). All three of them portrayed it in a somewhat negative light (Fox actually was the mildest article as far as it's language, despite the bizarre focus on legalizing marijuana as a goal of the rally). CNN was the only organization that mentioned the anti-media theme of the rally, and mostly concerned itself with describing what happened, listing the participants and brief descriptions of each act. They gave little to no interpretation of whether the rally was either liberal or conservative.
Slashdot Mirror
punchline
Do unto others as they do unto others.
Exactly my motto. I still take an infantile, malicious joy in encouraging others to explicitly spell out their justifications for what I find to be undesirable behavior, then damaging them in the exact same way whilst spouting their own crap back at them when they inevitably call me on it. I don't actually think it is ethical, but it is immensely satisfying. Even if I never have actually seen anyone acknowledge their hypocrisy - the ethical implications of behavior seem to be entirely reliant on whether they are giving or receiving for these people.
The reality is that the US prison system is formed around the principle of punishment.
And profit. Prisons are sub-contracted to private interests, that are paid in part on a per convict basis. There are documented instances of judges being convicted of taking kickbacks to supply more "product" to the prison industry, i.e. prisoners. There are simply some functions in a civilized society that must be stripped of profit motivation in order to insure justice.
Erich Fromm addresses some of these ideas in "The Sane Society" and "On being Human"; I forget which ideas are explored in which specific books. One of his specific criticisms of modern psychiatry is that "sanity" is typically valued as being within some distance of a societal norm. He explores the idea of an "sane" person in an "insane" society and how that person would be viewed by the psychiatric field.
we do dangerous work, with gun in hand, so if we shoot a family dog or a kid now and then we shouldn't be accountable.
The funny thing about this (which I hear a lot as a justification) is that police don't have terribly dangerous jobs. At least not your typical, non SWAT, non deep cover agent types. You can easily find these statistics; just a few years ago, more fast food workers were killed on the job than anything else (in USA). And yet no one has ever suggested fast food workers deserve special privileges for their dangerous work place....
I've considered this, and wonder if you could be successfully prosecuted for sexual harassment of a TSA officer?
For me "porn" only applies if there's sex (either with a partner or self). It either is porn or isn't porn.
While I agree that fashion isn't really porn, there is a bit of gray area. What is sex? Penetration? Licking another person's genitals? Licking another person's face? Kissing? Petting? Where does "not sex" become "sex", and thus depicting it become porn?
You're right, that's pretty bizarre. Of course, it isn't just religions, but all 501(c)s. Which is a pretty long list, including Chambers of Commerce and Cemetery Companies. I have no idea what the rationale is behind prohibiting such organizations from actively campaigning, but obviously it isn't all due to "separation of church and state".
To leap from a simple idea that maybe Obama wasn't born in the US to some grand "gigantic secret plot" is just, well, typical of the kind of thinking you represent so well.
Dude, the "simple" idea that an elected President didn't meet such a basic requirement as natural citizenship, which was then covered up by an unspecified number of people (including some in the Hawaii dept of records or whatever they call it) pretty much IS a gigantic secret plot. There is no other way it could happen.
Out of curiosity, how would you propose implementing a software DRM solution in open source software?
Is calling those who disagree with you 'enemies' reaching across the aisle?
The Republicans don't just "disagree" with Obama. They have stated in words and proven in action that their main goal is to obstruct him in anything that might reflect well on his presidency. They haven't flat out said it (the Congress members haven't said it - media figures have), but it is obvious that the Republicans would prefer to see our country spiral further downward if that could be blamed on Obama than see us do well if that would be attributed to Obama.
So, yeah, I think "enemies" is a pretty accurate term. As an aside, I find it amusing (in a sad sad way) that bipartisanship is apparently a one way street to Obama critics. When have the Republicans worked towards compromise? Expecting one side to capitulate to the demands of the other isn't compromise.
I think the fact that anyone is abusing the system demonstrates that the system is fundamentally flawed.
Name a single system created by human beings that is impervious to being abused. Just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't good. You would rather see a few innocent men hanged than a single guilty man walk free?
I think you would enjoy the ideas in Steven Brust's "To Reign in Hell". And I personally rather like his writing style.
Where is your moral high ground now?
You make one completely unjustified assumption - complete knowledge. Very few people will suggest that when the decision is between an atrocity and a greater atrocity, one should forgo being the perpetrator of the lesser atrocity in order to have "clean hands". That is seldom the decision, however. It is most often a decision between committing what you know to be an atrocity in order to maybe prevent a possible future atrocity. A line must be drawn. Most would condone shooting your hypothetical suicide bomber when it becomes extremely likely he is going to murder thousands, minutes before he does so. Those exact same people would NOT condone murdering him as a 6 year old child, when the possibility that he will murder thousands is extremely tiny.
The problem is that we seem to be pushing that line back. Things we would not have condoned 40 years ago when the threat was objectively much greater are suddenly acceptable. The threat from modern terrorism is less than the threat from the Cold War, yet we as a people seem much more wiling to compromise our own ideals (i.e. humanity). It's interesting you mention the word cowards - my personal suspicion is that the terrorists have been quite successful in terrorizing us, and our own fears are what are fueling the direction we are going in.
and be defeated by an enemy which is evil to the core
Yes, that is the first step in justifying any action against the enemy - dehumanizing them. When they aren't human beings, but rather evil incarnate, of course you are justified in any means necessary to defeat them! Odd how the opposition takes the exact same stance...
nor do I call looking at pr0n raping a wombat.
So, uh, could you recommend a good pron site? I think I like your style....
I've always been amused by the idea that the upside down cross is a Satanic symbol; I assume this was a meme begun by Protestants. Pretty good trick, really.
Guess what's also unethical?
Raping a small kitten to death in front of a kindergarten class while screaming "Santa Claus isn't real?" Then yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and agree, that is unethical.
Your point about the collective nature of bees and ants is a good one; that sort of organization doesn't really apply to human societies. However, the idea that territoriality or resource competition in nature forms some sort of justification for the societal construct of private property rights doesn't strike me as a valid connection. I don't believe animals base these sorts of behaviors on anything more sophisticated than "might makes right", it's mine b/c I want it and can take it/keep it from you (if there are counter examples, I would be interested to hear them). Human society has mostly rejected this philosophy.
I think my use of the term "natural rights" has led us a bit astray. My point is simply that people often refer to private property rights as an inalienable right. I have never heard a compelling argument as to the fundamental nature of these rights as compared to let's say the right to life. I can easily imagine a valid moral system that does not recognize private property, especially as defined in today's society. I can not imagine at all a valid moral system that does not recognize the right to life or the right to freedom of association.
No,it isn't. "No true scotsman" is when you keep changing your definitions to exclude stated counter-examples that invalidate your previous definition. GP provided a very clear example of why the commonly accepted definition of free market doesn't apply and has not applied to any existing markets for a very long time (if ever). He did not change the prevailing definition of free market to fit his theories. You may disagree with his assertion that government protection of trade via the military does not constitute government interference in trade (and thus a non-free market); however, you now have to explain YOUR definition of free market that incorporates this protection and support why your definition should be preferred. Or, I guess, you could deny that governments protect trade via the military.
Lots of things happen in nature. Some animals exhibit individual property behaviors, many don't. Fish, ants, bees, I could go on and on. Collective property, yes, but not individual property. What makes individual property behavior so special that is should be considered every humans' right to own individual property? As a practical matter, it is convenient. As some sort of ideal, I see no particular argument in it's favor.
Why would the physical therapist need to know calculus in order to apply force? Sure, calculus describes what she is doing, but she doesn't have any need to understand the underlying mathematical model. She just does it, based on her physical experience of the situation. Same with the physics. I'm sure she has a basic grasp of the concept of mechanical advantage; why would she need to be able to identify the formulas that describe why leverage increases applied force?
To be a bit clearer, I don't advocate despising all lawyers, only this prick lawyer.
And your argument is like saying we shouldn't punish assassins, only those that hire them. Sure, the family are the biggest assholes, but the lawyer that took this absurd case has some responsibility b/c he agreed to take the case.
As an aside, after watching The Rally to Restore Sanity, I did a quick comparison Sunday. Fox online article gave the definite impression it was a pro legalizing marijuana/anti-tea party rally. MS NBC gave the impression that it was a pro Dem/Liberal rally. NY Times gave the same impression (and was the only place that didn't have a front page article on the rally). All three of them portrayed it in a somewhat negative light (Fox actually was the mildest article as far as it's language, despite the bizarre focus on legalizing marijuana as a goal of the rally). CNN was the only organization that mentioned the anti-media theme of the rally, and mostly concerned itself with describing what happened, listing the participants and brief descriptions of each act. They gave little to no interpretation of whether the rally was either liberal or conservative.