Noam Chomsky is just plain wrong.
Here's Chomsky's article on the death of Bin Laden:
http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/
Folks, I am an admirer of Noam Chomsky. He has revolutionized the fields of linguistics, cognitive science and even neuroscience. He is an atheist extraordinare and often knows how to stick it to rightwing conservatives. However, his article about the death of Bin Laden only furthers my opinion that he is an apologetic for Islamic fundamentalism.
Osama Bin Laden is the antithesis of atheism. He above all else symbolized everything atheism stands against. He was a ruthless, genocidal, totalitarian theist and his death is a large victory for atheists everywhere. And yet there are atheists like Chomsky who not only question his guilt but make idiotic moral equivalences between Bin Laden and the crimes of the western world. Chomsky totally misses the point. Anyone on the left should understand this loud and clear. Bin Laden and his Islamofascists hate your fucking guts and would make sure that in their realm that you are first in line to be shot. Chomsky should be glad that the world is rid of such 21st century Nazis.
- Login to post comments
The CIA/Intelligence groups of the past was most certainly run by incompetent assholes. I'd like to think we've presently moved beyond empowering our future enemies and fucking things up for South America, but I'm not going to hold my breath entirely. The creation of the Taliban was done fairly recently.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I really don't care much about Bin Laden. He was a fool from the get-go, and it has always been my position that the greatest mistake made in the aftermath of 9/11 was giving him super-villain status. I knew when he was inevitably killed that the U.S. would stall, wondering where to go from there, and sure enough it happened. It's like giving Manson a platform to speak from. The man is a lunatic who doesn't deserve to have his name known. Let alone known by a significant portion of the world. He should have made #1 on America's most wanted list, and that's it. Thinking he was special in some way merely increased his power and spread more fear. There are millions of lunatics in the world. I'm sure some make Bin Laden look like a puppy.
I'm not even sure that it matters that he's dead. The dumb fucker sat in a cubicle for six years with no net or phone. During those six years he was the least dangerous of the entire group, doing little more than most men would do locked in a cubicle for six years.
*Shrug*
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Come on, don't be so apathetic. It's always important to report what happened in history, and to know the truth.
I'm not saying that history should ignore anything. I'm saying history shouldn't make boogeymen out of idiots and lunatics who have never really been a threat. The U.S. did a million times more damage to the U.S. in the last decade than al qaida could have dreamed of doing. Drunk drivers are more dangerous than terrorists on this continent.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
About human lives, yes, but life in a capitalist society is intrisic to money (unfortunately), so what about them? The 'war on terrorism' changed a lot in this perspective.
There should never have been a war. It was a criminal act, upon most of the developed world, and it should have been treated as such. CIA and Interpol and the secret services of whatever countries were willing to participate should have been hunting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not the US or any other nations military. Troops are exceptionally well trained for war, and exceptionally poorly trained for dealing with criminals.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Don't be such a party-pooper, Vastet. Corporate mass media whores and overpaid politicians have to justify their egregious salaries somehow. Anytime buildings go down in flames, there is Nielsen's ratings to be had in it, depending on the nature of the buildings and the manner in which they were destroyed. And, of course, there's passions and prejudices of an angry, unwashed mob of nation to be gobbled up wholesale by inevitably parasitic pencil pushers who pretend to actually care about their choice cashcow: the Public.
"The public sucks!" -Carlin
Alas, I rant a little too much...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
And a person is more likely to die of a tornado than a terrorist in the regions where "The war on terror" got most of its support 2001-2006. But of course, we live in a glass bubble of safety and well-being compared to much of the rest of the world, and we have a political status quo that believes it's in everyone's best interest to babysit the entire world, so if someone bruises our ego, we have to do something about it.
Had we not have given weapons and resources to these oriental barbarians to begin with -which our intelligence bureaus have been doing nonstop since the fall of the Shah of Persia- we wouldn't have had a 9/11 to begin with, and all the associated assjackery that followed.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
But.... I wanted that reward.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It would be kinda hard to make that call without a few assault guns at your side*, and a president willing to send you in and offer no apologies for what you do afterwards, don't ya think?
*yeah, OBL didn't put up much of a fight, but you don't know that before hand.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Pff. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he could only have hidden that long by not having an army with him.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So we should do nothing, kick back and see what these people do. Their quran says the world will be saved or whatever when it's in great conflict and they seek this in much the way our fundie christians seek the "rapture" being more than happy to watch as 97% of the world goes to hell "literally" as their little 3% ascend to heaven, lovely folks.
I'm glad the fucker is dead. He was the figurehead for a terrorist organization bent on world domination at the expense of ..anything and in the name of their mad religion.
If it makes you feel any better I will be glad when america wakes up (if it ever does) and does something about the rat fink politicians they have put in power here who also seem hell bent on world domination and a fat ass wallet.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I'd rather people be tried in courts with lawyers and judges than assassinated. He has some valid criticism, whatever standard is being applied here it is not one that american lawmakers want to be held to. There was a more lengthy follow-up article he wrote about it here:
Chomsky: When Did America Completely Jettison the Rule of Law?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
You mean like OJ
The glove did not fit.
Putting mr Laden on trial would probably result in him going to some military prison or some such stirring up even more shit. Nah they did good with the dumping of the dead ass in the ocean. As long as he was alive he was a beacon of sickly light.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
What do you propose, the reverse Blackstone ratio? It would be more respectable in my mind to stand behind such unprincipaled actions unapologetically than to mask them in concern for others. Only a fool or person without integrity would abandon their principles whenever someone screamed boo.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
No principles were abandoned, he was obviously guilty and there was no question. The only question was the how and they took care of that. No chance for a foul up by putting a bullet in his head.
I'll ask, what would you gain personally by him being put on trial and what would society overall gain.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I don't know what your principles are so obviously I can't accuse you of abandoning them. I was talking about myself.
I would never say that someone shouldn't have a fair trial just because you claim something bad might happen and definitely not because they were "obviously guilty."
The danger posed by individuals or small groups is nothing compared to a system without due process. It's as ridiculously insincere a concern as suggesting I cure my headache with decapitation.
To answer your question though, I and everyone else have the same thing to gain from a right to fair trial for all and that's protection from unlawful and arbitrary curtailment of basic human rights and liberty. If the worst people don't have it then you don't either.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I think he abandoned any rights he might have had or garnered and there is no telling what might be going on if we had chanced such a thing as a "trial" for it would have been a mock thing anyway. How would we even try him? We had to "sneak" in and kill him for a reason.
In this case we will just have to agree to disagree and move on most likely, I don't really feel like getting into a pissing match over varying opinions on this particular subject.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I have to side with Gauche. Justice ignored once is justice ignored a million times. Farce of a trial or not, without due process, people in power in society can kill anyone they want to, no questions asked.
That said, it's just as well it went down this way when looking at what happened with Saddam. That wasn't good for anyone.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I would agree if there were even a remote possibilty of his innocence. Can anyone say he was not guilty? Our system in nowhere near as perfect as it should be as has been demostrated repeatedly. In mr Ladens case wether he did it or not he wanted to take credit for it and that's good enough for me especially when we consider the further harm this assholes name alone could cause by being incarcerated.
This was just a special case and it doesnt happen very often. If we were out assasinating people just because we didn't like them I would say there is a problem but this guy made a video claiming credit for the deaths of 3000 people and was overjoyed about it and wanted to kill some more, why would he deserve to be treated as a human at all?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
That's just it though. I certainly believe he was the "mastermind" so-to-speak, and have no real problem with his death or how it happened (he decided to be on the lam, and dangerous criminals on the lam get shot to death all the time).
But it's not like he was the only one happy about those deaths. Half the middle east was on their feet. Should we kill them all for being rightfully furious at their treatment at America's hands?
I'm just wary of treating people like unintelligent beasts, regardless of what they did or say. There's too much of that in history, and I don't want to be the guy having to try and defend such treatment. The christians can't and won't ever get over the crusades or the dark ages or Africa or North America. I think we're morally superior to them.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
This is completely wrong. What should we do then to american ufficials who decreeted the death of other people? We should klll them, resurrect them and kill them a thousand time? No, bin laden was human like the military that killed him.
And why they dodged the process, something to hide? Maybe not (sure?) but how can we know at this point?
This idea that every human deserves a chance no matter what they have done and plan to do seems an extremist absolute position. I haven't even mentioned the fact that not only was mr Laden not a citizen of this country but he hated our way of life and had no respect for our law. Why would he deserve to be brutalized by being forced to be judged by a system he despised.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
If only we could all be as utterly convinced of the ease with which the absolute truth of guilt can be divined as you are.
I understand why you'd say that though. Most people believe not only that the guilty deserve no defense but that defending them is a crime in itself. This view however is deeply flawed for several reasons.
Your faith in the precognitive abilities of others aside, guilt by intuition is not at all reliable. I certainly wouldn't stake anyone's life on it.
More importantly it's the defense of those whom everyone is convinced is guilty that provides the system with the truest demonstration of justice, keeps it honest, and is the best method of protecting the innocent.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I hate Americas way of life and have no respect for its law too. I dare say a majority of the Earth feels the same. I love what America says about its way of life, but actions speak louder than words. As for the law, that's just a mess of bullshit.
And yet the irony in your final sentence speaks volumes. Why wouldn't he deserve to be brutalized by the very law that he challenged so violently?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Intuitive? This dude made freakin video's. He wanted you to know he did this or at least hand in it. This is madness! Now you are supposed to kick me off into a pit or something.
I agree with you all on the fact that everyone deserves fair treatment, it's just that more people would have suffered if this particular individual had the chance to live as a martyr, abuse our legal system and remain a beacon of hope for the jihadi bomb loving 72 virgin claimants etc. Pakistan and the entire muslim world would at this moment be demanding his release and killing whomever they could get their hands on. A guy burned some qurans and they killed people for it, now you want to hold one of their people whom they hold in the highest esteem captive? This is a common sense thing. In war people usually have to die, it's the way it is and the way it will always be.
There is no perfect way to deal with a human with this kind of influence both in the very negative impact he has on world society as a whole and his own personal influence on his followers. I think we did the best we could and I imagine the prez and his staff mulled this whole thing over before they took action looking for the best possible results.
No law is perfect and absolute and in order to help it move along properly we sometimes have to make concessions.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I think our way of life in general is fine, the only problem here really is the way people are sheepified by the govt and media but only a bit more so than in say England, a place where there is still a cute little monarchy and a state run church.
He wouldn't deserve to be brutalized by our system because he does not respect it and I wouldn't force anyone to do so, I'm just a nice guy like that. Made his end quick and from what we gather, fairly painless on top of that.
This could go on all day, it's just opinion and there is no absolute on this subject, why I didn't really want to keep it rolling.
It is probably good that we have varying opinions though.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
That's amusing. I see two posters in this thread tossing out philosophical absolutes left and right while presenting them as objective moral truths.
Tell me, what does the gov't have to hide about OBL that isn't already public knowledge? Yes, they (CIA) put Osama into world importance giving him weapons and social connections he should have never had to begin with, during a peak of (irrational) Cold War anxiety. That isn't exactly a closely guarded secret anymore. Maybe back in the 80s, when it happened, but not now.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
25% of people exonerated by DNA evidence either made incriminating statements, confessed or pled guilty. It doesn't mean nearly as much as you seem to think it does.
www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
Guilt by intuition is bad enough but you've added further insult by granting yourself an extrordinary degree of confidence with the least justification. You said that you'd abandon your position at even the remotest possibility of innocence, with absolutely no vetting of evidence to this point whatsoever.
I already gave you several reason why I disagree with your argument that a fair trial is worse that you chose to simply ignore. You're just repeating the same thing.
The irony is that your same reasoning could be and was used to argue that OJ should not be convicted because a guilty verdict might have caused riots. In light of that I should be asking you about OJ. I am not though.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
You reject mine I reject yours, where do we go from here?
OJ was brought up initially to demonstrate our fucked up legal system, another fine example imo was Dahmer. It took the other criminals to give him what he deserved.
An incriminating statement was probably not exactly what I would call mr Ladens example.
I don't think there was even a remote possibility that he was innocent, any trial would have either been a mock up pretend thing or perhaps his supporters could rally up an insane OJ lawyer who knows? I suppose we will never have to know.
From my pov he is dead and taken care of, from yours he could still be causing problems. Our government did help to criminalize him I realize this but he wanted to be this great killer of the west so he got what he wanted IMO.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I clearly state that my opinion is just that. If you disagree then talk to people who agree with yours and carry on. But someone else obviously agreed with my opinion on mr Laden, we have results that back it. I think Obama did the right thing and saved us all a bunch of bullshit.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Out of this little argument can one of you "we should have put bin laden on trial" folks tell me if there is ever a time when someone should just be snuffed out rather than be put on trial in a court of "law"? Is there ever a time to make an exception?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
As they say, "don't attack me, attack what I say".
I acknowledged (and if I didn't do it I do now) that the history of OBL is tied to CIA, and so my question was: was he so evil? He and his people were hit a lot more than the reverse.
---
is ever a time when someone should just be snuffed out rather than be put on trial in a court of "law"?
well theoretically no, but pragmatically yes, I think it could happen
I mostly directed my response to Luca who claimed "This is completely wrong (fist wring)". Someone speaking as a self-proclaimed expert on right/wrong and global intelligence and is obviously neither. I thought it was cute enough that I half expected this person to stomp their way out of the thread in frustration. Unfortunately, they did not. /sigh
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I did both...
Nearly all of this hails from the realm of opinion and thus falls outside the scope of my post. My original post dealt with "what do we have to hide". I'm going to venture that most of the remarks of your previous post are purely speculative, and without much in the way of substance.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I had hoped you would bite a little harder, why I added the nonsensical idea that you only talk with people who agree with you. I figured this might annoy but you managed to ignore it.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
All of this aside, Chomsky's reasoning for being an atheist is the best put. He described it so simply yet so well.
Other than that I see some personal desire in a lot of what he has to say, typical philosopher claiming something is better for all when it actually seems only better to ease his own mind.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Not true. I clearly stated I want to understand the situation, never I declared myself an expert.
The "philosophical absolutes that I am tossing left and right while presenting them as objective moral truths" were that 1)OBL was still a human life 2)why we shouldn't (had...) process him?
Simply saying "we know everything about him" doesn't answer the questions entirely.
As someone else pointed, you can't boss around killing who you don't like. Expecially in the case of OBL where apparently he was a B-level evil.
This is what I continue to say, like in "This is completely wrong", that if OBL was a sort of pawn then the process could have ufficialized the truth and maybe condemned (or acknowledged the responsibility of) someone in the american high spheres. Or not?
Is it instead and "objective moral truth" to kill who killed you friends (expecially when your friends have ruined his nation (and so you could expect retaliation))?
You're going to have to try a lot harder than that if you want to get under my skin... maybe get a few mods on your side and have them delete random posts without hesitation. That does the trick often.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
If human life actually had some sort of value outside of human rights groups and Christian churches, and if we're simply "killing people we don't like", you might have a point. As it stands, neither is true, and being human hardly makes one somehow above the lives they took or the lives simply deplete needlessly on a daily basis at the hands of another, yet both happen anyways. With nearly 7 billion alive, there is no rational point to objecting to the death of one or two, save for innocence of crimes.
Your assertion that you're here understand is... a dishonest cop-out, to say the least. You're here to dictate morals in areas and locations you have no weight of authority.I don't know what corner of the Earth you originate from but whatever local propaganda you've been fed makes the American slant on the incident pale in comparison. "He might have some embarrassing info on higher-ups in government" "We're killing people simply because we don't like them" "It is completely wrong (to kill a mass murderer)"
It's not often I get fed such inane drivel over here, but... damn.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I usually have two opinions, my own personal want/desire and what I think may be best for society even if it clashes with my aforementioned personal taste.
Thinking of the whole rather than the self seems really hard for some people though as evidenced by this seeming "care" for a mass murderers "rights".
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I have gotten under your skin once or twice before
As far as getting mods on my side ..lol.
We are in the same boat, on occasion I say something people here like but as often as not I am too fukin realistic IMO .
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
@kapkao
what do you mean by saying 'above' in "being human hardly makes one somehow above the lives they took"? (or better, why 'above'?)
Also saying that there could be no rational objection to a death is too simplicistic. If a death caused the beginning of a nuclear war and in the process the end of all life except bugs on this planet surely that death (maybe not an innocent death) would be prevented by many. Certainly the universe would in anyway continue his course imperturbed, but from a human viewpoint...
Human life has a value for every individual, I don't care for anything else. My life or death makes a difference for me like it does for anyone himself, OBL included. If you extend this with a bit of understanding (and altruism, maybe) you'll value every life.
And again I'm not saying that in every situation we should try to save every life at every cost, I said that it could happen that it could be necessary to kill to have not other major problems, but OBL was not the case.
No, why should it be a cop out? I'm here to ask hopinions because I don't know all that there is to know on the OBL matter.
"It is completely wrong (to kill a mass murderer)"
It was not like that. "It is completely wrong" was on the entire message, which included the question "why would he deserve to be treated as a human at all?". It was simply my impression, so I'm sorry if it came out wrong but now stop it, please.
@robj101
Was he born mass murderer? What do you mean by mass murderer? I always tried to focus on these points, on which noone answered yet:
-was it really his fault? if he was provoked and provoked and provoked and then reacted could you blame him? again (and again (and again)) I'm not posing OBL as a good fellow, but holy crap, what could have he done if he did not have had 'support'?
-wasn't he human? why not process him? if america had this important role in his life, then the process could have made some clarity and processed other criminals.
Oh poor obl he was pushed and shoved and forced into killing people and stirring up more hate now we should coddle him. Poor guy he was a victim of circumstance and blah blah blah, cry me a gentle rain.
That's life, circumstances and things happened in your life to make you the person you are today, do you need to be coddled and felt sorry for? Does anyone derserve ire at all? Is nothing your own fault?
It's just the fukin way it is. His path led him to his end and you seem to prefer to pretend that someone else laid out his entire path and he had no fukin choice in where it led and how he walked it.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
You see? If only if had more love... Group hug! ^_^
Really, I'm not saying "poor obl", I'm not sayin predestination a-la darth vader, please.
Sorry, I was going to reply earlier but I didn't feel like it. I told you that an admission is not a guarantee of guilt and cited sources but you keep repeating that you believe he's guilty which only serves to strengthen the case of guilt by intuition.
It's a little beside the point anyway. I mentioned OJ to illustrate that the validity of your argument is divorced from guilt. The same argument could be used to condemn the innocent or to say that Osama Bin Laden should not even be pursued.
Your argument is a strange union of utilitarian and retributive ideas which are incompatible and competing theories of justice. If you argue that punishment is justified when it is most conducive to the welfare of society then you've already betrayed the idea that a person must be punished if and only if they deserve it.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I guess I'm just that kind of a guy.
But seriously, you can't imagine this mindset? I can imagine yours I just don't agree with it. This idea that everything should be static despite common sense evidence to the contrary seems self depreciating to say the least.
So once again, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree...unless you are not willing to even conceed this much.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
(ouch... I should've editted one of my two previous posts a good bit more)
Yeah, with Chomsky's hustling unpopular stances for publicity aside, I think this thread is indicative of a much harsher problem; that activists and ideologues of the western world have gotten into the habit of advancing their ideology ahead of nearly every other priority, with nothing but loathing for the 'opposition'. I obviously think the problem is a bit bigger than AIGS does. A pretty damned rocky path to walk down... I could draw a comparison or two but I would be breaking Godwin's law. We'll see.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Bring it, bitchcake.
(Oh did you, now? Links plz)
Realism is something our species sucks at... either by mistaking it for some other personal quality, being caught up in the "rights" or "wrongs" of a situation, or lacking it entirely. As usual, reality cares nothing about any of these things.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I meant precisely what I said. Being human doesn't mean being exempt from capital punishment, or just any form of execution, nor does it truly give someone a real reason to be spared death that one's murder victims had no choice but to accept.
Too simplistic for you, not to me.
WTF?! Surely, you must be grasping at straws...
Well I don't care for the life of a murderer, myself.
According to you.
And yet, there are fewer reasons to let him live than to have his body without a beating heart.
Probably because you aren't here to understand anything but repeatedly assert your morality to the rest of RRS and toss out emotional appeals as to why anyone should value your morality.
Oh, you don't? You speculate quite a bit on it with so little (claimed) knowledge.
Yes, it is, and I could indeed. You can't justify a crime of violence from provocation alone. Unlike some select portions of the world, on the west side of the Atlantic, people are usually held accountable for their actions unless they prove themselves insane (highly unlikely), under emotional distress, or under force of blackmail. None of these applied to OBL. His mind was functioning at top efficiency through most of his crimes, and he showed no symptoms of psychological weakness in the decade afterwords.
Without US support or Jihadi support? In the case of the former, not a whole lot. In the case of Jihadis, he could have simply destroyed some local targets instead, in which case retaliation would have been a lot swifter. One was an unwitting accomplic, the other was a purely volunteer accomplice. In either case, having accomplices to a crime does not merit a less severe punishment.
And with that, I'm done here.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)