 |
squee
the amen break
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4720 |
Ethics question
If a body of individuals does something, any action, does that mean that they cannot criticize another body of individuals for doing the same thing?
Does it mean that they CANNOT or SHOULD NOT?
And why?
---
For myself, honestly, while I think it might speak of conflicting internal principles, if, say, Larry Flynt accused someone of obscenity, then just because Larry Flynt is a porn peddler, that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.
Likewise, hypothetically speaking, if the USA has a shite foreign policy that involved bombing the shit out of brown people that happen to be between us and "our" oil, that wouldn't necessarily make them wrong for criticizing terrorist violence.
But in any case like this it makes you wonder just what principle they are applying that appears to exempt them from the rule they are claiming to enforce.
Thoughts?
__________________
What does polite society know of the secret hearts of men?
What shows the shuttered window but all the evil you can imagine?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
12-08-2004 12:55 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Jeitarium
Fluffy Bunny
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 682 |
The answer is neither: it doesn't mean they cannot or should not, one group's actions have nothing to do with their opinions of another group.
If they do criticize the other group for doing a similar action, then perhaps they should look at changing their own action.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 12:59 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Thimbles worth of opinion
Symetrically challenged
Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7973 |
quote:
If a body of individuals does something, any action, does that mean that they cannot criticize another body of individuals for doing the same thing?
Does it mean that they CANNOT or SHOULD NOT?
And why?
If the action is worthy of critique then they should critique it. It was a wrong thing to do, in that it violated an ethical principle.
However, if that body does critique it then it should answer for it's own transgression by either supplying a justifiable defence or an admission of the wrong doing and a commitment to non-repetition.
However, if the principle is worth defending then the the defence should not be begrudged even if the devil is your critic. Therefore, even if the US is sponsoring Death squads in Haiti I will still nod my head when they criticize China's treatment of Tibetans, and vice versa. The principle is greater than the participants.
__________________
My nipples are asymetrical... and that's a feature not a bug.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 02:51 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26444 |
Re: Ethics question
quote:
Originally posted by squee
Likewise, hypothetically speaking, if the USA has a shite foreign policy that involved bombing the shit out of brown people that happen to be between us and "our" oil, that wouldn't necessarily make them wrong for criticizing terrorist violence.
Thoughts?
Reverse that and see how you feel.
Welcome to having some ideological balls.
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 02:54 AM |
|
|
| |
|
euphorbia
caustic milk - hybrid
Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16751 |
Re: Ethics question
quote:
Originally posted by squee
Likewise, hypothetically speaking, if the USA has a shite foreign policy that involved bombing the shit out of brown people that happen to be between us and "our" oil, that wouldn't necessarily make them wrong for criticizing terrorist violence.
this is an abortion on its face. the two scenarios aren’t even compatible. if we had that policy the middle east would be ours the fucking end, but we fucking don’t have that policy. Killing people and calling people names are two very different things. Hypothetically, because i guess we have nothing better to do than play pretend and act as if this question is some profound fucking intellectual task  yeah we would be wrong if we had the policy of bombing people for nothing but oil then had a problem with them trying to kill us. That is not what we are doing and that is not why there is terrorism. The US isnt the only place struck by terrorism, people who don’t own cars or even have electricity in their homes have been murdered at the hands of zealots and many were killed because of dissent or not bending to the will of zealots.
tying it up under the cute precious question of ethics is adorable, logic and reason, considering that one of your scenarios goes to the root of all primal instincts aka survival is what is at question for that one.
whether or not a smut peddler is allowed and still be seen as anything but a shameless hypocrite for calling anyone else a smut peddler (god bless em) is a question of degree perhaps. If the person he accuses merely does the same as he, then he is a shameless hypocrite. If smut peddler 1 doesnt want to be called a shameless hypocrite then he is acting in a counter productive manner to his personal goal and perhaps the shared goal of the people around him unless shameless hypocrite suddenly becomes something desirable in you neighbor. if he calls a pedo porn peddler out, well i think the two are different acts due to the degree and various considerations.
__________________
taste the fucking rainbow
Last edited by euphorbia on 12-08-2004 at 04:09 AM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 03:06 AM |
|
|
| |
|
squee
the amen break
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4720 |
Re: Re: Ethics question
quote:
Originally posted by euphorbia
Hypothetically, because i guess we have nothing better to do than play pretend and act as if this question is some profound fucking intellectual task
It was just a question.
quote:
Reverse that and see how you feel.
Welcome to having some ideological balls.
Reverse it how, exactly?
I read, "If we do NOT have a shite foreign policy, then would we be in the right for not criticizing terrorists?"
I mean, huh?
__________________
What does polite society know of the secret hearts of men?
What shows the shuttered window but all the evil you can imagine?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 04:23 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me
Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26444 |
If terrorists criticize the US for having a shite foreign policy that involved bombing the shit out of brown people that happen to be between America and "their" oil (or whatever else their qualm is), that wouldn't neccessarily make them wrong just because they're terrorists.
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 04:26 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Large Filipino
Fuck me hard in my arse.
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: in colorado somewhere!
Posts: 26304 |
OMFG! Squee,I actually understand what you are trying to say!
But there are examples of this kind of thinking(I don't know if that's a good word to use).
Like say your against slauthering animals cause it's wrong yet your fat cause you're a die hard meat eater.
Or your a christian for christ and a soilder for this war yet your helmet says DIE SCUM!
Or if you hurt when you see all the malnurished children on a tv commercial just before game time and you got your game food and shit on your coffee table.
That's just the human condition. Each human being has their own set of values no matter where they are from and when you look at another set of values people tend to find fault in it and judge it cause they believe their own set of values is the norm.
And that's why we have war.
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 04:27 AM |
|
|
| |
|
philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002 |
Re: Re: Ethics question
quote:
Originally posted by squee
snip
squee, I don't really think that one should try and wrap terrorism up in such ethical dilemmas on the Internet because (a) it becomes rather messy and (b) it will just end in a shouting match.
If this were a forum made up of say philosophy students who wanted to discuss dispassionately the idea being put forward. Which as I read it is essentially for the purpose not of justifying terrorism on ethical grounds, but instead trying to resolve where ethical considerations can sometimes cross paths with distasteful positions. But you know what this place is like dude. Such a question has a place in an intellectual institution where resolution of competing and often contradictory ideas is the ends, but not on an online forum.
I realise that sounds like I am trying to silence your discourse, but seriously, you know full well how the thread will pan out. However much you may try to hedge your bets, sound reasonable, and try to have a sensible honest discussion about an ethical position which produces a contradictory position when placed in context with the current affairs issue of terrorism; you're going to be accused of trying to justify terrorism (even if you state that you do not think it should justify terrorism). You have to remeber that there are quite a few people here who are not interested in thinking about this sort of stuff. They see the world in black and white, and contradictions within their own ethical systems are not of interest because they don't have to be (and incidentally to those very people, I'm not saying you're wrong to think that way).
quote:
Originally posted by euphorbia
if we had that policy the middle east would be ours the fucking end
The Middle East is yours, and it has been since 1945 when Roosevelt told Churchill that it was going to be yours and not ours anymore. I realise that because you don't have formalised colonial authority (Iraq not withstanding of course) you think that makes it somehow "different" and not imperial, but there is much more to imperial power than simply having political control.
Personally, I'm glad the Middle East is yours. I mean, true you appear to be horrendously inept at maintaining order (if Iraq is anything to go by), and you certainly made atrocious decisions in the immediate aftermath of the successful invasion (such as firing every civil servant in the country), but, when all is said and done, you are the best place nation on earth to do the job. You have both the economic capacity, the military means and the political balls to carry out such adventures of enlightened self-interest. I'd rather it was you lot than China, Russia or India, the least bad choice is the best as it were. But I digress.... the Middle East is yours.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 07:35 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Thimbles worth of opinion
Symetrically challenged
Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7973 |
quote:
But I digress.... the Middle East is yours.
In proxy. Those who don't play proxy get kicked out of the game.
(That's part of the problem in the Middle East.)
__________________
My nipples are asymetrical... and that's a feature not a bug.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 07:48 AM |
|
|
| |
|
euphorbia
caustic milk - hybrid
Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16751 |
Re: Re: Re: Ethics question
quote:
Originally posted by philjit
[B]
Personally, I'm glad the Middle East is yours.
[quote] I mean, true you appear to be horrendously inept at maintaining order (if Iraq is anything to go by),
yeah, cause you guys did a much better job when it was under your control, too bad we didnt have 24 hour news coverage back then eh? I believe the French get some credit too, and boy what a shining job you guys did in africa too! I mean good NESS, hey that video of those french soldiers shooting the protesters getting any air play over there? Not over here, but I found the entire video on line. it was special.
quote:
the Middle East is yours.
I will pet it and feed it and cuddle wuddle it call it George.
__________________
taste the fucking rainbow
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 12:38 PM |
|
|
| |
|
philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002 |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics question
quote:
Originally posted by euphorbia
yeah, cause you guys did a much better job when it was under your control
yeah, you're right we did. It's because we're better than you.
quote:
Originally posted by euphorbia
random ignorant ramblings about British Africa
If you have look at the economic and political reality of sub-Saharan Africa you will find that it was after we left that it went to shit, not whilst we were there. They fucked it up themselves. I realise that your view is a "fashionable mantra" (hope you don't mind me stealing your cliche) but it shows more about your ignorance of British Africa than it does about your knowledge.
Now we could talk about Stanley's little adventures of exploitation and slave trading in Africa, but I don't want you to start spitting venom at your own countrymen's moral vaccuousness on the Dark Continent, so I won't.
p.s. I couldn't give a shit about the French, and to be honest I'm at a loss to know why you do.
Last edited by philjit on 12-08-2004 at 07:22 PM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 07:19 PM |
|
|
| |
|
buddha's penis
mourning wood
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355 |
i would think it would be more honest to say that colonialism (and the nations involved) fucked africa, but the effects weren't seen until the ravaged cultures were left to their own devices (i mean, for example, the artifical tribal distinctions in rwanda (i may be wrong about this, but what i have seen on the subject has said that the hutu and tutsi were divided by the belgian colonial government by virtue of their differing blackness, the less black being more white and so preferred)).
or, hey, that can apply to the middle east also. and probably asia and south/central america.
ps. though i can't say that i would know who to blame at this point, seeing as the architects of these things are mostly dead.
pps. RIP ronald reagan
Last edited by buddha's penis on 12-08-2004 at 08:16 PM
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 07:33 PM |
|
|
| |
|
philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002 |
quote:
Originally posted by buddha's penis
i would think it would be more honest to say that colonialism (and teh nations involved) fucked africa
In the case of British Africa I don't think it is fair at all. European colonialism and British colonialism have always been completely different things. Britian, unlike Belgium, brought institutions, the rule of law and civil society to Africa. Belgium and France brought chaos.
quote:
but the effects weren't seen until the ravaged cultures were left to their own devices
Again in the case of former British Africa this is patently not the case. We didn't ravage cultures, evidence of the British Empire shows pretty clearly that we ensured that those that we natives in colonial terrirtories were not subjugated, and were involved in the running of civil society, the India Civil Service is a good example.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 07:59 PM |
|
|
| |
|
buddha's penis
mourning wood
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355 |
i don't think it is possible to make the argument that colonialism, even this benign british variety you are describing, did not severely alter the native cultures of their collected territories. i was referring more to that than any willful destruction or subjugation of peoples. the injection of western rule and socio-political philosophy, not to mention the invention of borders. the state of african affairs if colonialism had never occurred is obviously kind of a pointless subject, being hypothetical, but i think it is fair to say that western control didn't help in the long run, and that a lot of the instability was created not only by the occupations, but by the return of these territories to an unprepared populace when the empires were done with them. i will accept that britain may have handled things better, seeing as all the examples i am aware of at least had something of an infrastructure to hand over, but i don't think that africa going to hell only after the british left is any evidence that their presence there was positive overall.
ps. i can't believe i let a "teh" slip past.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 08:16 PM |
|
|
| |
|
squee
the amen break
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 4720 |
So...In light of the direction this conversation has taken, is it acceptable or not acceptable for you-all to criticize ME for derailing a thread or two? 
__________________
What does polite society know of the secret hearts of men?
What shows the shuttered window but all the evil you can imagine?
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 08:42 PM |
|
|
| |
|
buddha's penis
mourning wood
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355 |
i would never do such a thing, as it would be wrong.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 08:55 PM |
|
|
| |
|
zim
-
Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 3063 |
I dont think anyone has criticized you for derailing one or two threads. Its when you reach the triple digits that people start to get pissed.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-08-2004 11:52 PM |
|
|
| |
|
Large Filipino
Fuck me hard in my arse.
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: in colorado somewhere!
Posts: 26304 |
I like finding lint between my toes after a hard day at work. I collect it and put it in a box.Some day I will need another box.
__________________
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-09-2004 02:42 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Mugtoe
Cuddly Puppy
Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251 |
Re: Ethics question
quote:
Originally posted by squee
If a body of individuals does something, any action, does that mean that they cannot criticize another body of individuals for doing the same thing?
Does it mean that they CANNOT or SHOULD NOT?
And why?
---
...Thoughts?
Depends on how you criticize and what you expect to accomplish. If yer critique is a daisy cutter, well you've pretty much poisoned the well for further dialogue with whoever you aim it at. That bein said, by the time one a those is comin down I figger we've already determined the water ain't fit to drink at that locale anyway.
The other thing is what do you expect to accomplish by criticizing if you have no face validity with the people yer tryin to persuade? I'm not sayin the argument won't have merit or that I don't share it. What I'm sayin is why keep tryin to justify it with the same arguments towards folks who only see that repetition as an echo of the "Big Lie" of a coupla generations back? At some point it's a good idea to change the tack and look for a different wind; if, that is, part of the grand strategy is, at some point in the distant future a few generations off, to gain some consensus outside the choir and win a few hearts'n minds on the back benches. From what I can see, the blue-haired ladies are still shakin their heads and spittin under their breath.
__________________
quote:
Originally posted by magnolia
never waste a hardon, trust a fart or pass up a breath mint when offered.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-09-2004 03:59 AM |
|
|
| |
|
Mugtoe
Cuddly Puppy
Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251 |
quote:
Originally posted by Thimbles worth of opinion
In proxy. Those who don't play proxy get kicked out of the game.
(That's part of the problem in the Middle East.)
Whose proxy is Syria with its troops in Lebanon? I'm not baiting you; I'm curious how you view that.
__________________
quote:
Originally posted by magnolia
never waste a hardon, trust a fart or pass up a breath mint when offered.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
|
12-09-2004 04:01 AM |
| |
|
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
