|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 06/07/2010 : 13:32:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Only one thing I would question in this otherwise brilliant response (no sarcasm intended). You are talking about someone's "responsiblity" for something. Are you saying that the victims of these murders have some responsiblity for their murder?
[edited for clarification]
|
Yes and no.
They are responsible for setting out to breach a blockade that they knew would be reacted against. That is what they are responsible for. If people attacked the commandos when they boarded, they are responsible for provoking a reaction, they are responsible for that.
But in the end, the Israeli commandos who pulled the trigger are ultimately responsible for using lethal force.
If I taunt the schoolyard bully, am I responsible for getting beat up? In a certain way, I knew it was coming, right? I could have just ignored him and nothing would have happened. But in the end, the bully is responsible for punching me in the face. He could have ignored me as well. We have to take responsibility for our own actions. We cannot absolve ourselves from responsibility of the consequences of our own actions. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 13:39:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
If I taunt the schoolyard bully, am I responsible for getting beat up? In a certain way, I knew it was coming, right? I could have just ignored him and nothing would have happened. But in the end, the bully is responsible for punching me in the face. He could have ignored me as well. We have to take responsibility for our own actions. We cannot absolve ourselves from responsibility of the consequences of our own actions.
|
There is a legitimate reason to taunt the schoolyard bully in this case though. The schoolyard bully is coming to my house, intercepting my guests, taking their stuff, and maybe letting them through with some of their possessions. My guests are not only justified in continuing to try to come to my house, but may well be justified punching him. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 06/07/2010 13:43:07 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 13:42:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
There is a legitimate reason to taunt the schoolyard bully in this case though. The schoolyard bully is coming to my house, intercepting my guests, taking their stuff, and maybe letting them through with some of their possessions. |
And it isn't taunting the bully to expect to walk to school with all your lunch money. It isn't provoking the bully to expect to walk to school with all your lunch money. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/07/2010 13:58:34 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 14:59:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
There is a legitimate reason to taunt the schoolyard bully in this case though. |
And the bully feels he has a legitimate reason to stand in front of my door. I'm not saying that the bully is correct, but he feels that way nevertheless.
And regardless of whether my actions are justified, I'm still taunting him. No matter how justified my actions, I am responsible for the actions I take. That I feel that taunting the bully is justified does not absolve me of the consequences of my actions.
The schoolyard bully is coming to my house, intercepting my guests, taking their stuff, and maybe letting them through with some of their possessions. My guests are not only justified in continuing to try to come to my house, but may well be justified punching him.
|
Sure. The bully may be a blackbelt and your visitor a tiny, skinny, weak little man. A very brave, little man who tells himself that he will not be daunted by the bully standing in front of your house. A very brave little man who is absolutely correct in his assessment. And who knows in advance he will probably be punched in the nose. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 15:06:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
And it isn't taunting the bully to expect to walk to school with all your lunch money. It isn't provoking the bully to expect to walk to school with all your lunch money.
|
If the bully says: "this is my lawn, pass this way and I'll punch you" and you choose to walk that way anyway, you are provoking a reaction.
You may be entirely correct and he entirely wrong, you are still performing an action that you know will elicit a counter reaction. Kind of the dictionary definition of provoke, is it not? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 06/07/2010 15:07:52 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 15:12:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Gorgo
And it isn't taunting the bully to expect to walk to school with all your lunch money. It isn't provoking the bully to expect to walk to school with all your lunch money.
|
If the bully says: "this is my lawn, pass this way and I'll punch you" and you choose to walk that way anyway, you are provoking a reaction.
You may be entirely correct and he entirely wrong, you are still performing an action that you know will elicit a counter reaction. Kind of the dictionary definition of provoke, is it not?
|
No. I have nothing to do with his crime. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 15:26:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
No. I have nothing to do with his crime. |
Except you have everything to do with your total disregard for your own safety. Do you really bear no responsibility at all when you do things that you know include a great deal of risk to yourself?
If you wave your hand in front of a tiger's nose, are you utterly blameless if you pull back a stump? Is that entirely the tiger's fault? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 15:28:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
No. I have nothing to do with his crime.
|
You knew the consequences of walking over the lawn in advance and got punched because of it. To state that you had nothing to do with his crime is therefore nonsense. You took a calculated risk to call his bluff. And got punched in the face.
Where in the word provoke does it say that his actions had to be correct and your actions had to be wrong? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 17:12:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Gorgo
No. I have nothing to do with his crime.
|
You knew the consequences of walking over the lawn in advance and got punched because of it. To state that you had nothing to do with his crime is therefore nonsense. You took a calculated risk to call his bluff. And got punched in the face.
Where in the word provoke does it say that his actions had to be correct and your actions had to be wrong?
|
If I walk past the bully with the intention of going to school with all my lunch money, I may arm myself, I may bring 7 friends, but my intention is to go to school with all my lunch money, not to provoke him into taking my lunch money. I do not cause his crime by defying him. He can choose not to commit the crime. All sorts of things can happen. Including my death. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 18:08:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Except you have everything to do with your total disregard for your own safety. Do you really bear no responsibility at all when you do things that you know include a great deal of risk to yourself? |
I don't think you do when the other party has an option to not do the harm and the ability to act on that option (no tiger).
Consider a slave, he has someone actively practicing aggression toward him by keeping him captive. Suppose he has a "decent" slaveowner, who doesn't harm the slaves if they work hard and obey him. So, in this case, the slave would be safe if he just did what the owner says. Suppose he wants to escape even though there is a very high probability he would get caught and be maimed or killed. So, one day, he escapes, runs a few days, but unfortunately is caught and they hang him.
I hold this guy at absolutely zero personal responsibility for being killed, although he knowingly gave up safety (paired with subjugation) for the high risk path of escape. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 06/07/2010 18:09:24 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 19:28:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by dglas
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by dglas
I see two peoples determined to kill each other, and other interests that are helping them do just that.
Nothing more. I do not take sides.
|
Yeah. I read it right. Taking Israel's side.
|
Fuck off, you arrogant, sub-moronic jack-ass!
You do NOT ever dare to try to tell me what I am thinking! Is THAT fucking clear enough so that EVEN you understand it?
Your "with us or against us" mentality is NOT something I share and it is precisely what I am opposed to, so ram your mindless dichotomous views straight up your flabby saddlebags. If you had a hint of sniff of a reasonable hand drawn facsimile of a fucking clue you might have caught that, but you are so lost in your mindless polarizing game that you don't have two brain cells that can cooperate anymore.
If you are stupid enough to be taken in by superficial cards tricks that is your error, not mine. You do not ever try to tell me what my position is, especially when you openly display not having the basic tools to even comprehend it.
|
I know I'm late to the party on this, but dglas, don't hold back. Please, tell us how you really feel.
|
Heh. I thought it was clear, but I guess it wasn't clear enough so that EVEN Gorgo could understand it. It really is rather hard to dumb it down any further for him.
It seems it is difficult for those caught up in the noise and the fury to take a step back and look at the situation from a broader perspective. You can usually tell this is happening when people start proclaiming "us or them," dichotomous, polarizing, false alternative positions. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 21:16:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't think you do when the other party has an option to not do the harm and the ability to act on that option (no tiger). |
But that was my point in an earlier post. The President of the IHH characterized Israel's activities as unreasonable and irrational, which is why I've been saying that Israel isn't analogous to a guy with a gun, but to a crazy guy with a gun. In other words, we need to treat Israel as a very wild and very dangerous animal, and not as a rational actor, given the statements of the leader of the victims.
If a guy tries to stare down a rabid dog and gets mauled for his efforts, we'd generally call for euthanizing the dog while at the same time we'd tell the guy he's a dumbass. However, according to Gorgo, suggesting that the victim is in any way or amount responsible for his own injuries somehow lends support to the dog.Consider a slave, he has someone actively practicing aggression toward him by keeping him captive. Suppose he has a "decent" slaveowner, who doesn't harm the slaves if they work hard and obey him. So, in this case, the slave would be safe if he just did what the owner says. Suppose he wants to escape even though there is a very high probability he would get caught and be maimed or killed. So, one day, he escapes, runs a few days, but unfortunately is caught and they hang him.
I hold this guy at absolutely zero personal responsibility for being killed, although he knowingly gave up safety (paired with subjugation) for the high risk path of escape. |
Okay, I've been thinking about this for a couple hours. And no matter from which angle I approach this scenario, I can't get away from the fact that the slave accepted the risk, and thus accepted at least partial responsibility for any potential consequences for his actions.
We all make that choice, whether to live under the limited freedoms available under the yoke of "the Man," or to break out from under it to try to get more freedom at risk of being punished for it. Slavery is an extreme and personal example of what everyone faces in day-to-day life. At the other end of the spectrum are minor things like spitting in public. How we got into the situation in which we find ourselves may or may not have been fair, but that's irrelevant to the fact that we choose to accept the risks that go along with breaking out of that situation.
That acceptance is what creates responsibility. If you think about it, it's generally the case that none of us "opts in" to the situations in which we might find ourselves when these sorts of decisions come up. The slave didn't choose to be a slave, and I didn't choose to be born to a non-royal family. But once we wind up however we find ourselves, we have a choice to either make the best of the cards we've been dealt, or to cheat and accept the risks (and responsibility) for being caught. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 21:31:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Because the blatant violations of international law and violations against the people of Gaza compounds. We're getting one straw closer to the last. The more violations Israel force themselves to make in order to maintain their unhuman policy against Gaza and the Palestinian people, the sooner and harsher will the International community react to the humanitarian crisis there. |
If the blockade is illegal, then it doesn't matter where the attack took place, it would still be a "blatant violation of international law." |
Of course, you're right about this. But the violations still keep adding up. If they had boarded within Israel's own territorial waters, then at least Israels boarding could have been debateable, a safety inspection or some other nonsense, and they would have been in their right to do it. If they had done it within Gaza's territorial waters, they could at least have claimed the territory was in dispute.
But they didn't even put up any pretence about their intentions and goals about this: Piracy, plain and simple.
| Trying to get them to react enough to get world-wide media attention. Was the Israeli response criminal? You bet it was. But that doesn't justify the provocation. |
(Emphasis mine) I disagree. At least until I hear a convincing argument why it doesn't justify the provocation. |
Because the provocation was stupid. |
That would depend on your point of view.
I don't think the Hamas-supporting contingent of activists on the boat thought so. Some of them obviously made the calculation that some eggs have to be broken to make the omelette.
| Remember, there were several ships sailing together, and the main assault and weaponsfire happened (as far as I know) on one ship. |
Yes, and the guy leading that one ship described Israel as being insane. If one decides to provoke the insane, then one should be prepared to reap the consequences. |
You are correct. But to use your earlier metaphor: If the Insane Guy with the Gun, keeps shooting at the feet of people trying to cross the lawn and the police stands on the sidelines letting him do it with the justification that "he hasn't killed or seriously injured anyone yet", and then someone steps up and challenge the Insane Guy in the hopes that creating an incident serious enough will make the police step in.
Volunteering as a lightning rod isn't my idea of rationality, but I understand the underlying motiv for doing it, and realise that for some people the equation of risk-vs-gain adds up.
| There are also common-sense reason for doing exactly what the protesters did. |
But that doesn't excuse them from all blame. In fact, protesters who choose confrontation are usually quite willing to take responsibility for the results. Gorgo thinks they should be held utterly blameless. |
I disagree with Gorgo on that.
But I think that any blame that could be placed on the victim must not be held in defence of the perpetrator.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 22:29:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Of course, you're right about this. But the violations still keep adding up. |
We have a lot of "real life" police shows over here, and one thing that I find funny about normal police operations is that even after the cops have plenty of evidence that a suspect is trying to evade the police for cocaine possession or domestic abuse via a high-speed chase, the cops keep calling out "ran a red light" or "he's doing 80 in a 65 zone" just to rack up the violations. Compared to a felony criminal charge, traffic offenses are pretty minor.If they had boarded within Israel's own territorial waters, then at least Israels boarding could have been debateable, a safety inspection or some other nonsense, and they would have been in their right to do it. If they had done it within Gaza's territorial waters, they could at least have claimed the territory was in dispute.
But they didn't even put up any pretence about their intentions and goals about this: Piracy, plain and simple. |
The one thing I haven't yet seen is a map of whose waters are whose. But I have yet to see a convincing argument that it really matters. If you want to add piracy to the list of offenses, that's fine by me. I just think the list is already quite large and adding to it just makes more points to argue about instead of getting to the important bits (the plight of the Gazans) that the protesters were trying to emphasize.| Because the provocation was stupid. |
That would depend on your point of view.
I don't think the Hamas-supporting contingent of activists on the boat thought so. Some of them obviously made the calculation that some eggs have to be broken to make the omelette. |
If we're willing to grant that the IHH was coldly calculating and rational about breaking some eggs, then we have to assume that either they're being completely honest about Israel acting without reason (in which case, the IHH knowingly badgered an insane country, which is stupid), or they're lying about Israel being unreasonable, and the IHH knowingly challenged blockade that Israel rationally thinks to be legal. Either way, the only way to get the IHH out of "stupid" and into "misguided" is to assume that they aren't as reasonable as they make themselves out to be.
For the record, I'm not willing to take Israel's word that the IHH supports Hamas. The only relevant part about that is that Israel has been saying since at least January that the IHH is a terrorist organization. In other words, regardless of whether Israel is right or wrong about the IHH and Hamas, they have made their position completely clear, and the IHH must have been aware of it for a long time before the flotilla sailed.You are correct. But to use your earlier metaphor: If the Insane Guy with the Gun, keeps shooting at the feet of people trying to cross the lawn and the police stands on the sidelines letting him do it with the justification that "he hasn't killed or seriously injured anyone yet", and then someone steps up and challenge the Insane Guy in the hopes that creating an incident serious enough will make the police step in.
Volunteering as a lightning rod isn't my idea of rationality, but I understand the underlying motiv for doing it, and realise that for some people the equation of risk-vs-gain adds up. |
My only point has been that volunteering as a lightning rod doesn't eliminate the responsibility of the consequences when lightning strikes. According to Gorgo, I'm somehow "smearing" the volunteers by pointing out that they were volunteers.| But that doesn't excuse them from all blame. In fact, protesters who choose confrontation are usually quite willing to take responsibility for the results. Gorgo thinks they should be held utterly blameless. |
I disagree with Gorgo on that. |
Well, that's good.| But I think that any blame that could be placed on the victim must not be held in defence of the perpetrator. |
Nobody here in this thread is trying to defend Israel in any way by saying that the IHH provoked Israel's criminal response. As I said before, there's plenty of blame to go around. This isn't a black-or-white situation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 22:55:38 [Permalink]
|
There are a lot of terms being thrown around here. Talking about someone bringing on (provoke) someone's own murder, or being to blame for one's own murder, is smearing that person, and taking responsibility from the perpetrator. My impression of what Kil was saying was that the protestor's intent was to "provoke a reaction."
My intent on defying the bully is not to provoke the bully into beating me, but to get home with my lunch money. Why would I want a reaction like getting hit with a billy club or getting murdered? The only reaction I want is no action, that is, I want to go home with my lunch money.
Some people actually delivered goods to Gaza in the past. People defied the sanctions against Iraq by bringing toys and food. They didn't ask to be beaten. Yes, they understood there were penalties, under U.S. law, that they were willing to endure, but they didn't "provoke" the U.S. into applying those penalties. That was the decision of the U.S. government. The protestors weren't to "blame" for the penalties, they were the fault of the U.S. government. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/07/2010 22:58:29 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Israeli blockade incident
