Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:20 In article <epl2mm$6ev$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <epktga$8qk_005(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <epg0g5$pn5$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <45BB5BCC.CA4B3110(a)hotmail.com>, >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>>>> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>>>> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? >>>> >>>>The relevant law of the land in question. >>> >>>Also, I believe they violated German law too. Even when they did not act >>>in Germany. >> >>But they didn't violate their own. So, are you really that >>arrogant that you insist your country's criminal laws apply >>everywhere across the globe? > >No, you weren't asking my opinion. You asked a question of facts and I >answered it with facts you didn't happen to like because it destroyed your >argument. > > >>If so, why are there such things as extradition treaties? > >I can't believe you actually need to ask that question! I can't believe it either. But it has become a necessary question since you peopel here don't seem to know why they exist. > >Extradition treaties allow the arrest and deportation of criminals who >have traveled to a different country. They exist because most countries >don't want to be a safe haven for criminals. They have to exist because one country's law cannot apply to another country's law. Criminal law is locally defined. Extradition treaties define a few acts of commission that both countries agree to call illegal. /BAH
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 08:28 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:95acf$45bfdb5d$49ecf73$4921(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:e2d22$45bfb9bc$49ecf90$4084(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:5900c$45bf48db$4fe71bb$1240(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>As I see it, the only problem with the example is there is more >>>>>>information needed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Actually no. >>>>> >>>>>When these questions are properly posed, as this one was, >>>>>they provide the reader with the minimal information >>>>>necessary to make an informed judgment call. >>> >>>>I disagree. >>> >>>>>In real life, when the call to action, in a scenario not >>>>>nearly so extreme as the example, comes, there's usually >>>>>not a whole lot of time available for research and soul >>>>>searching. The answer has to come out of a process that >>>>>"cuts to the chase" rapidly and accurately. >>> >>>>Which is why more information is required. Everyone has a lifetimes >>>>experience and understanding which is immediately available when they >>>>make that rapid decision. Simple things like was I elected to that post, >>>>was I sent there to save people or represent people (etc) would be known >>>>without complex soul searching. >>> >>>>I am some one who has been pulled of the street and put in that position >>>>without any one else knowing? >>> >>>>All this is required (IMHO) for a judgement call to be made. These are >>>>things which, each time you make a judgement call which effects others, >>>>you know. >>> >>>The point is that none of this needs to be known. >> >> >> It does if I am making the decision. >> >> >>>You're given >>>a very simple choice with the *only* difference being which >>>of the two groups dies. The only reasonable choice is to save >>>those lives that you can be assured of you can save, and that's >>>your group. >> >> >> No. You can be just a sure to save the lives of the other group. > > Wrong. When you blow up the other side, that includes > the other guy with the button. Your side is saved when > you blow up the others. If I dont press the button the lives of the other group are saved, surely? Nothing in the scenario you set implied that my not pressing the button would not save the other side. >>>They're also the group depending on you to save >>>them, while the other group has their investment in their own >>>button pusher guy, not in you. >> >> >> See, this wasn't really mentioned in the example scenario. When you say >> depending it creates the impression the people know their lives are in my >> hands - which wasn't mentioned. > > This is one of the conclusions you're supposed to reach, > not a given. As I said, if you were really in the situation there are things (and conclusions) you would probably automatically come to. As it is a contrived scenario there are some conclusions which need to be stated. For example, I assumed the scenario was set up by space aliens who had randomly abducted one person from each side. Nothing in the scenario differed from that conclusion. >>>>>In this button pushing exercise it was clear from the outset >>>>>that there are two sides and that the reader's responsibilities, >>>>>as the button pusher candidate, are to himself and his group. >>> >>>>Far from clear. >>> >>>Don't ever try to be a leader. >> >> >> OK. >> >> >>>>>How that leadership position came to be is of no consequence, >>>>>only the fact that that relationship exists is important. >>> >>>>I disagree. If people willingly put me in that position, when they had >>>>the choice to choose others, then my own values can take the lead. >>> >>>No, you have a fuducuiary relationship with them regardless >>>how the relationship came about. >> >> >> I really do disagree. My understanding of a fiduciary duty is that it is >> a legal relationship which implies a duty of care and I have a duty to >> not put myself in that position where personal standards will conflic >> with the interests of the people I represent. > > That's correct up to a point. But remember that you placed your > desire to do no evil and thus not to push the button, which > placed your personal interests before those who, whether they > wanted to rely on you or not, were in fact relying on you to > save their lives. Yes. If I placed my self in that position then my duty would be to place the interests of those who relied on me before my own. I had assumed that I hadn't placed myself in that position and had been placed there by others. It was not clear in the scenario. > "A person in a position of great trust and confidence, as > the relationship between principal and broker." > > www.hawaiimlshomefinder.com/realestateglossaryf.asp > >> This is why, remember, I asked what the circumsances which brought me >> there were. > > They don't matter. The relationship exists whether you wanted > or not, whether they wanted it or not. This is one of the issues > that the original problem is designed to get the person to sort > out. You see, to me they do matter. >> As I said, and I am sorry if it upsets the neatness of your scenario, the >> information provided is artificial and arbritary. It is enough for *you* >> to view a decision possible, but you have pre-assumed information which >> is not stated. > > More exposure to these sorts of problems/issues will doubtless > change your views. That's the reason such puzzles exist in the > first place. It may well do. This is not the first of this sort of problem I have been exposed to though. >>>>>The demographics of the population are also unimportant. At >>>>>this level all humans are equal. Interestingly enough part >>>>>of this entire jihad thing is justified by assigning right >>>>>to live values based on criteria other than complete equality. >>>>>Equally interesting is that on "our side", in "the enlightened >>>>>culture" are people who also judge the same issue on some basis >>>>>other than complete equality. Don't take this personally, Wake, >>>>>you're not alone. >>> >>>>I have never pretended there is complete equality. I suspect any one who >>>>says there is, is lying, and for complete equality to exist the choice >>>>in your example would have to be taken on the throw of a coin. >>> >>>Simply false. > >> Really? I think you need to re-examine what you see "compete equality" as >> meaning. >> As soon as you ascribe a different value to one set of people living you >> have removed the complete equality - saying your people are more valuable >> than theirs. > >>>>The example is reasonable within a given set of limitations, but it does >>>>nothing other than identify that most people will kill others to survive >>>>(which is rarely surprising). >>> >>>The answer remains the same even if you, as button pusher, expect >>>to die of cancer the very next day. > >> No it doesnt. There is no "correct" answer so at best you can only say >> "your answer" would remain the same. > > Best solution = right answer. The best solution is entirely dependant on your own values and judgement though. Any answer you give is the "best answer" because it is the best answer you can come up with. Because you feel that pushing the button is the best solution, doesn't mean it is. >>>>>To put the purpose of the exercise into modern day business >>>>>and political context, the decisions that a leader makes >>>>>usually don't carry quite so extreme a set of consequences, >>>>>but the mere act of buying or selling a company, or signing >>>>>a proxy for a friend, can mean the loss of many a job, closing >>>>>of a large business or factory, and the exchange of many millions >>>>>of dollars. >>> >>>>>Leaders have to have a very good grounding in precisely the >>>>>sort of problem this button pushing exercise has at its core. >>>>>They have to do it quickly and accurately while considering >>>>>the consequences on the people whose jobs, money, and in some >>>>>cases lives, are in their care. >>>>> >>>>>How many lives have been lost because a certain government >>>>>decided it was inconvenient to admit that HIV leads to AIDS? >>>>>It seems like a simple question to us, but the life/death >>>>>ramifications in a particular political setting made for >>>>>a decision affecting the lives and premature deaths of many. >>>>> >>>>>Once that sort of decision has been made it becomes difficult, >>>>>if not impossible, to reverse short of a major upheaval or >>>>>revolution. >>>>> >>>>>Getting it right the first time is important. Awakening people >>>>>in future leadership positions to the sorts of dilemmas they >>>>>must eventually face isn't a waste and isn't simply a study >>>>>of morality and ethics. >>> >>>>I never said it was. >>> >>>We're in a public discussion, so not everything is >>>directed *at* you. > >> OK. I was simply highlighting this was not something I agreed with and >> not necessarily directing the response to you. > >>>>>It is designed to provide skills to >>>>>make the best possible decision in circumstances where none of >>>>>the alternatives look very good, and to make good decisions >>>>>in a timely manner. > >>>>Every day, people make decisions which impact others and dont always >>>>have a "good answer." > >>>As I said, "the best possible decision". > >>>>In your example, if you have complete equality, then there is no correct >>>>(or incorrect answer) and if you dont have complete equality then the >>>>correct and inccorrect answers are totally dependant on how you view >>>>that inequality. >>> >>>Sure there's equality in the value of lives across the board. >>>You've already indicated that there's a sort of inequality in >>>saving one's own life in the process, and that's a difficult >>>argument to overcome. However, the responsibility to those >>>on whose behalf you're acting is the trump card. > >> It depends on how you view that responsibility. Even so, this is saying >> the lives of your people are more important to save than the lives of the >> other side because you have assumed responsibility for them. > > No. The loss of lives in both possible outcomes is identical. Only in terms of numbers. > The fact is you have a responsibility to the people who depend > on you, so you protect them. Which is why the lives of the people you feel a responsibility for are more "valuable" to you. The equality is not based on numbers or demographics alone. The balance is unequal because you have an implied emotional relationship with your side. If there was, as you claim, complete equality in outcomes then there is no answer which is better or worse than another so a coin toss would suffice. >>>><snip> >>> >>>>>>Maybe so. There are many variations of ethical dilemmas and they are >>>>>>all things that every one's ideas are equally valid for. One which was >>>>>>common during my youth was along the lines of: your city is under >>>>>>siege by a vastly superior force, the walls are about to be breached >>>>>>and resistance is crumbling. You are given the choice - torture and >>>>>>kill 1 in 20 and you will all be spared, if you don't 75% of your >>>>>>population will be tortured and killed. >>> >>>I'd have no difficulty at all with that decision. All lives >>>have equal value, maximum life savings would have to be the >>>deciding factor. I might make myself the last of the 1 in 20, >>>can't say for sure, I'm not faced with it. That would help >>>minimize any guilt feelings I might have, so it is a >>>possible choice. > >> While this is, again, a question with no right or wrong answers there is >> a moral value dimension. There will be some "heroes" who will give up >> their lives to save others, but what about the ones who are kicking and >> screaming, demanding to be allowed to live? How would you select the 1 in >> 20 to die a painful death? > > Since all lives have equal value, so does all suffering. There > is no "selection". You simply do what is easiest. Some will > sacrifice themselves, perhaps enough. If not, then whoever > is closest or easiest. Very Machiavellian, but as you say, > sometimes there are no "good choices" and it is a leadership > exercise. As another example, if I take five people hostage and threaten to kill them unless you release one prisoner you have and are about to execute. How would you act? >>>>>>Another example which may be more relevant how many innocent people >>>>>>are you prepared to punish to ensure a guilty person is also punished? > >>>None. Guilty people get away with stuff all the time. No >>>sense wasting good lives to go after bad. If the guilty >>>one never offends again then what's the purpose in killing >>>anyone. If he offends again the circumstances are bound to >>>be different and chances are I'll catch him for punishment. > >> So then, punishing people before their guilt can be properly proven would >> be a no-no? > > Not the same question or issue. When you pick up an idiot with a > rifle or grenades or explosives or an RPG or a SCUD in a combat > zone it is fair to incarcerate him. Yes. You have properly proven his guilt. I made no mention of court rooms or legally accessible evidence. > The mere fact he is in > possession of such is enough to subject him to interrogation > and punishment. Yes. His guilt is proven. > Consider "what is a trial" and "what is a tribunal" under those > circumstances. They aren't the same as civilian trials in your > country or mine. I wasnt talking about the nature of the trial or tribunal. All I said was properly proven. I made no references to the nature of the actions the person was carrying out nor the punishment. You have made many assumptions about the questions. If you feel no innocent people should ever be punished, then surely guilt has to be proven before any punishment (regardless of the crime)? > See how justice is dealt out in places like Spain and Italy. And see how it is dealt out in Darfur, the Sudan, Somalia etc. So what? >>>>I would be interested to see how you answer the above. > >>>Done. > >> Thank you. >
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:22 In article <9O-dnccev9rnqyPYRVnyhAA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epktga$8qk_005(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <epg0g5$pn5$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <45BB5BCC.CA4B3110(a)hotmail.com>, >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>>>> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>>>> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? >>>> >>>>The relevant law of the land in question. >>> >>>Also, I believe they violated German law too. Even when they did not act >>>in Germany. >> >> But they didn't violate their own. > >So what. If a German comes to the UK and drives at 80MPH on the motorway he >has broken the law and the police can take action. Only in specified cases can police take action. At the moment I'm thinking about diplomatic immunity. <snip> /BAH
From: unsettled on 31 Jan 2007 08:31 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <c9250$45bf73b5$4fe7196$2143(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <970b3$45bcdaba$49ecfa9$6154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >>>>>>making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >>>>>>each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >>>>>>a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of >>>>>>any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >>>>>>a country's criminal law to each individual. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, >>>>>haven't they? >>>> >>>>You have to read her comment *very* carefully. >>> >>> >>>Damn! And I really worked on that post. >> >>Sorry. >> >>The difficulty lies in the distance between the "mistaken >>assumption" bit and what it is that's mistaken. >> >>See if this rewrite suits your idea as I think it does. >> >>[rewrite of BAH theme] >>In a historical context, war has been defined as two highly >>organized groups, each funded and supplied by recognized >>governments, meet on a field somewhere and shoot at each >>other. More recent wars carry forward the same concept >>with the adoption of WMD's and other distance killing. >> >>I'm trying to address the mistaken assumption that conflicts >>of any other nature have to be treated as criminal and apply >>a country's criminal law to each individual. Formal warfare >>has progressed far beyond our earlier definitions and must >>grow to include the new realities. >>[end rewrite of BAH theme] > > > Yes. That will do. I was never allowed to make a writeup > personal. Thank you. > > Now, for your opinion. Is this lack of recognition of a new > kind of conflict not the crux of the matter? I'm not just > talking about these guys in this thread, but the so-called > politically correct attitude that is pervasive. I think it is a symptom, not the cause of anything. IMO it represents one of a number of imaginary Maginot lines. It might be fun to try to identify and list as many as possible.
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:25
In article <608db$45be021d$4fe728d$14736(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <epg0dh$pn5$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <epfj3s$8qk_006(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[.....] >>> >>>>You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>>>civilization are criminals. Under whose law? >>> >>>Those who acted in the US broke many US laws before 9/11. The ones in the >>>UK broke many law of the UK. The ones in Spain broke spanish law. >> >> >> Using your logic, when the Germans invaded France, they broke French law. >> The Germans didn't care about French law. They intended to enforce >> their German law onto all French citizens. And then the plans were >> to enforce German law on the rest of Europe; then the rest of the >> world. >> >> We are in a war no matter how mealy mouths try to pretend it's not >> there. > >We are in a war which is called a police action. The shooters >and the casualties don't care about the nuance, nor does >the outcome. There are at least 13 phases, geographically, that need to be dealt with. That's just the geographic aspect of this problem. /BAH |