BS: taboo philosophical questions

Subject: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:22 PM

A philosophical question is as simple and complex as "What is justice?"

I asked a philosophical question of my activist Republican Jewish neighbor. He worked hard for Micheal Steele and George Bush.
I asked, "Does a person who spends time money and physical effort to promote an ill advised invasion that skirts US constitutional guarantees, guilty of murder and torture in the second degree?

My neighbor said that he has fortunatly never killed a man and that I should not go there. In short shut up.

I don't blame him for not wanting to go there and that I do not hold it against him since it is possible that people can be misled.
He continues his efforts regarding a drum beat for more war.

I know from experience that the Germans who staffed the concentration camps by in large had no remorse for their war crimes.
.

I realize such questions do not unify people and I hope Obama never poses such a question. Still I find it difficult to forgive the unremorseful but I felt a duty to least pose the taboo question.

right or wrong

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 04:00 PM

*grin*..well, Don....for us philosophers, no question is exactly taboo--but some answers sure are politically incorrect! The problem, of course, is not in deciding that 'X' behaviour implies guilt, but in finding a way to get at the guilty party and someone willing to do the prosecuting. Sometimes the trial and verdict can be worse than the original offense.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 04:37 PM

Pretty hard to have a discussion, philosophical or otherwise, when your opening line contains the condemnation and guilt you've already assumed of another.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:15 PM

Are only great philosophers executed for their questions regarding the state?

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:35 PM

Philosophy demands accuracy of expression, and without a main verb in your question, Donuel, I think it is unanswerable

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:43 PM

Donuel, you must be some bloody neighbour.

Why did you mention he was jewish?

You are assuming the invasion was illegal, on what grounds.

The question implied guilt.

You assume he was misled, god you know it all, perhaps he believed in what he was doing.

Then compare to nazi camp guards.

Forget philosophy, stick to checkers.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:44 PM

He meant "is" instead of "does" at the start.

I think that's pretty clear.

(in the unlikely event that you are being a grumpy old pedant)

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:01 PM

"Is a person who spends time money and physical effort to promote an ill advised invasion that skirts US constitutional guarantees, guilty of murder and torture in the second degree?"

It is a rhetorical question yes, but it does make a good point.

Philosophically speaking, it helps to highlight the ideological contradictions inherent in "the land of the free" going to war and mistreating it's prisoners in the way described.

It also touches on freedom of speech - "don't go there"

And it ultimately seems to provoke a response that I often see from people when, in different contexts, they do their best to avoid responsibility - they avoid the question rather than discuss it, or if they do respond they attack the person asking it instead.

I don't see the point of the mentioning that the neighbour was "jewish", but aside from that I find that it is a valid question with an embarrassing answer.

Donuel may not have a degree in philosophy, but presumably the philosophers here will be that well practiced, skilled and talented that they will be able to engage with him despite his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of the game.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: gnu
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:05 PM

Wanna fuck?

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:06 PM

a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

So the people have to bear their share of responsibility for the atrocities ... hmmm ... for the atrocity.

Especially those supporting and encouraging it.

There is a great line in the film "American Beauty"

"never underestimate the power of denial"

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: greg stephens
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:09 PM

I thought Americans were friendly to their neighbours? Scary thread.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:11 PM

Tell that to mexico ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:17 PM

Lox,it is interesting as to how much a citizen is culpable for his/her governments actions but as far as this thread is concerned I think it tells us far more about the questioner than the neighbour.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:33 PM

I don't think it really tells us that much about either.

It could be any number of permutations.

Ultimately, yes, if it tells us about anyone it is Donuel as he is the one who wrote the post, so the post is subjective to him.
But the rest comes down to speculation.

I read good intent, expressed in a hamfisted way.

But regardless of that, I will always encourage any attempt to engage in meaningful discourse (unless I'm thinking about sex or music). Not least because I might learn something real about the person engaging me and not just content myself with a first impression based on a few short ill expressed lines.

Having said all that, I may end up getting bored of all this very soon as I am struggling with a bit of music theory that has hit me with a double whammy 1. it is fascinating and addictive 2. It is incomprehensible.

Bloody music!

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:41 PM

"Justice" is many things to many people. For most of them it is the ecapsulation of their desire to take revenge, to somehow "get even".

As such, I think it is a very flawed concept.

I regard mercy as considerably preferable to "justice". I regard forgiveness as vastly preferable to "getting even".

But then, I believe in karma....and I know that karma usually takes some time coming around. It's not my job to push the clock of karma.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:46 PM

I think central to Justice is the idea of Fair play.

Double standards would constitute injustice by that criteria alone.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:47 PM

Premeditated assault with a blunt instrument resulting in death of the assaultee qualifies as murder on an individual scale. In practical terms this guilt does not scale to national leaders who use armies and air-forces as their exceeding blunt instruments.   If they had to be personally responsible for the deaths incurred, Presidents would never dare declare or initiate warfare. Where, I ask you, would THAT leave us? (:>))

The question of what justice is, especially in questions of international affairs, is a prickly and complex one. My comfortable but probably incomplete is that people who are relatively undamaged and not in terror recognize justice intuitively when it occurs. If this were not the case, the Reader's Digest wouldn't get so much mileage out of "Outrageous" stories about criminals suing their victims and such like.

A

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 11:39 PM

"Reader's Digest wouldn't get so much mileage out of "Outrageous" stories about "

I thought you meant "National Enquirer"...

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 02:20 AM

crazyhorse
Being raised in a Jewish household I am troubled by Jews who lived through WWII actively supporting the torture and murder sponsored by the Bush administration.

Amos
I do not think for a moment that any good will be served by calling war supportors, war criminals. I do think it is enough for people to ask themselves how certain lives and families would be different had they opposed this ill advised invasion of Iraq.

lox
Yes of course all posts are subjective to the author.
Here are the unabashed undercurrents of my question;

I have also found that political cartooning was cathartic in dealing with the outrageous misfortunes of this administration.
Without that editorial release, the frustration has seemingly ulcerated my soul with a hatred for war mongers, war criminals and the hopelessly inept.

The loss of 10 years of my illustrated poems on a whim of the Lycos internet provider corporation falls on the heals of the lifework of both my father and mother being lost. They were both writers and all their books and manuscripts were destroyed by my fathers caretaker when she mistakenly thought his house and estate was hers.




I neither need nor want to be loathsome of my pro war fellow Americans.

____________________________________________________________

SO I LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE OF THE BUSH AND IRAQ SITUATION.
_____________________________________________________________

there are at least half a dozen good things.

#1 !!! The Iraqi that remain in Iraq if polled today would still support the US invasion if it was done all over again by a huge 70%
(as said by a NYT reporter interviewed by Rose)

#2 !!! The Bush administration, its radical christian fundamentalist base and its powerful grip on radio and TV media could have done far more damage to America.

They could have begun a cultural cleansing campaign that could have resembled the 3rd Reich or Mao's Red Guard.

When the great media purge began we lost people on MSNBC like Phil Donahue who was replaced by John Savage. John Savage called for the arrest of all anti war demonstrators on sedition charges. Bill Mahre was fired from ABC. It seems Roger Moore is still in hiding. We lost Dan Rather. We lost 2 Bush biographers to suicide. Journalists have been stripped of the convention of keeping sources confidential but at least they are safer than Russian of Chinese journalists.

#3 !!! Katrina may have put the brakes on more insidious plans and opened the eyes of many average Americans. (talk about the darkest cloud having a silver lining)

#4 The enitre world including our last ally Britain are seeking an end to the major hostilities in Iraq.

#5 If another false flag terrorist act should occur in the US there will be more critical eyes and more critical questions than last time. (this idea probably rankels people who believe every word of the 9-11 commission)

#6 Germany is addressing the war crimes by US CIA rendition* agents
(*kidnapping and torture) by bringing charges in a court of law.

#7 Just as our own civil war lasted far beyond reconstruction and to a certain extent to this very day, so will the middle east sectarian violence with or without our "help".

#8 In short, it coulda been a whole lot worse. (I'm keeping my
fingers crossed.)


#9 For healing words we can look back to the Gettysburg address and forward to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 02:29 AM

Bill D

My favorite progression on my autoharp is:

F, Am, Dm, Bflat, Gm, G7, E7, Am

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:36 AM

That explains the inclusion of the word "jewish" satisfactorily to me.

It is certainly much less hamfisted ;-)

So now that we have examined Donuels credentials (a very american prerequisite to every political debate it would seem) and the mudslinging has apparently subsided, what about the question?

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:30 AM

"Germany is addressing the war crimes by US CIA rendition* agents"

And Italy is doing its usual Circus attempt at it - which may eventually lead to nothing - do you really think that he USA will allow CIA agents to be deported - treaty or not?

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:38 AM

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.. pretty soon the whole world will be blind and toothless.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:58 AM

It isn't already? Well, it's not for want of trying then... I'm part way there...


I'm not maaking this up, you know....

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:48 AM

Philosophical question number 2..................

What kind of dipshit loses his lifework to Lycos after seemingly having no backup or hard copy and then blames someone else like Lycos because he fucked up?

Now you'll notice that like the first question on this thread, this one is also phrased badly and with obvious bias already added. Throw in the equally bad grammar and I think this question stands up at least as well as the first to any test you might wish to try.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:32 AM

"Is a person who spends time money and physical effort to prevent the removal of a leader who has been in violation of UN mandates for 12 years, has used WMD to kill hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, is actively working on acquiring WMD and producing prohibited delivery systems, and whose government has tortured and killed indiscriminatly, guilty of murder and torture in the second degree?"


Anyone who objected to the invasion of Iraq, but did not as strongly demand that Saddam comply with the UN mandates can ask themselves this question....

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 07:34 AM

I have been working with computers for about 35 years now. The first thing I learned were the three rules of computer usage:

1. Back it up.
2. Back it up.
3. BACK IT UP!

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:15 AM

Have you quit beating your wife?

nick

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 05:44 PM

Just a detail.

   "An eye for an eye...(etc)" doesn't mean,"If you take my eye out, one of yours must come out too."

   It means that the response to a crime must be appropriate and - er - just.

   NALOPKT






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:05 PM

Yeah. Like, if a guy has no teeth and he takes out one of your eyes, then he can give you a liver or something.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:20 PM

If the re-phrasing of Donuel's question is correct, then the question is not one of philosophy but of law.

I am not that up on US federal criminal law, but surely the relevant inchoate crime would have to be incitement, and surely the incitement would have to be sufficiently specific.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:32 PM

Well, the eye for an eye was easier to understand . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: bobad
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:36 PM

He's a lawyer, we're not supposed to understand it.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: autolycus
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:32 PM

I'm a philosopher. Your not supposed to understand us either.





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 12:52 PM

But Ivor....If a man were to signify, which he were not- if he had the power, which, being denied him, he were to eandeavor anyhow- merely because he don't...would you?







(stolen from a footnote on why Kierkegaard is so hard to read.)

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 04:57 PM

Reading it is absolutely NO problem. However, WHAT?

Bill, it scares me at times that you actually understand that stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 05:00 PM

As to the thread title, I must admit that the only thing I know about taboos is that once you have them done, they are a real SOB to get removed.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 05:55 PM

We would agree the sins of the father are not the sins of the son.
(except in the case of Saddam's sons)

But are the sins of a national despot the sins of his supporters?
I think Bush war mongers are only 3/5's as guilty as the despot. ;<)

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:04 PM

It doesn't follow that because you disagree with a policy of illegal invasion of another country that therefore you endorse the tyranny of the man who rules it.

This is the first mistake of the warmonger. War is merely one of a multitude of options.

And even if taking saddam out is your intention, why take out the rest of Iraq with him. There must be easier and subtler ways of assassinating an egomaniac.

Yes that would be illegal too.

But there's millions of ways to topple a tyrant that are all bette than destroying a country and murdering hunreds of thousands of its citizens and leaving them deeply in the shit for the long term.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:31 PM

(ummm...Peace...no one really understands THAT quote. And I do NOT understand anymore the more arcane details of some of it. What I have retained is some of the basic concepts of how thinking and approaching questions should be done.....which makes me kinda dangerous at times when I miss a point. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:40 PM

Thanks for the reassurance Bill


Hey peace,

As long as your ex girlfriend isn't in you taboo its not usually a problem is it?

That's why my taboo would be for Mom.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: fumblefingers
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:32 PM

Seems like every one of these bull shit threads ends up being an attack on George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 02:06 AM

Nigel Mumblenutz (Marty Feldman)   and Pat Riot (Mel Brooks):

"Tha is soooo true. You've it the ed on the ammer you ave. But in all over due respect to his reputation, President Bush is 110% correct about the B I G I S S U E S !!!"

Thats true Nigel,
For example when Bush says, "IF we don't defeat THEM over there they will follow us home".

"E gah a point there dun he govna. Its twit for twat I always say, E's BLoody ell right e is."

Nigel, you Brits and that twit donuel will rue the day you pulled out of Iraq. You know they still have oil... The point is George Bush is correct. History part 2 repeats itself. Take Viet Nam for example. We pulled out and they followed us home.
In metro DC alone there are 52 Vietnamese noodle restaurants.
When France pulled out of Algeria, they followed them home.
When Aunt June used an ATM in Dorchester, they followed her home, but you get the point...

"SHit yeah, Its just not safe to surge inside Bush's Iraq, pull out and go home. Ya need to use protection like MI 5 or your Ohmland Security, ADT, FBI, CIA and the special Cheney office of secret fuckin affairs."

Precisely Nigel.
The other really big thing that Bush is right about is that we are in a war for civilization.
Western Civilization is now simply superior. Just because Persia invented, dams, courts, writing and beer 5,500 years ago doesn't mean they are civilized now. We have creation science and mega churches...

"They ad beah 5,000 year ago?"

Thats right, but now its against their religion to drink beer. They are not civilized anymore. Even their hate of our freedom is not civilized.

"NO BEAH? Bloody ell I even drink in church. Ya know hen those rag heads go to church they chant DEATH TO AMERICA over and over and over. Ow civilized is that?"

Nigel, they go to Masks, not church!
But they are clearly uncivilized. They are heathens and have the gall to call us infidels!
We don't chant "death to Iran" in church do we, we have Fox News for that. Be that as it may, some other things that Bush is right about is higher health care and drug costs, less spending on education, higher tuitions, going to Mars and OF COURSE getting rid of social security.

"Iz that like confidence?"

You see Nigel, most of that rainy day money has already been quietly tapped to fill holes in the budget for years.
The best thing to do with what is left is give it to people who know what to do with money like Wall Street Investment bankers.

"Ats right, I don't like ol people anyway, they smell."

Fair enough but the point is that on every single BIG issue, the President has been right and the only things holding him back are the American people and every single country in the Coalition of the Willing.
The only people backing every great thing he does, besides his staff and defense contractors, are the Axis of Evil.

"excuse me govnah, but that does't sound like a good thing!?

The truth seldom is Nigel, the truth seldom is.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 02:32 AM

Well, George Bush has spent so much time attacking others, he's only getting what's due him, dontcha think?

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 02:41 AM

So tell me, what part of the body does one get the taboo on?

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: autolycus
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 06:13 AM

I think,fumblefingers,it's because G>W>B is so good,never swearing,never bearing false witness,killing no-one,keeping the sabbath holy,only ever doing the right thing,caring all over the place,shaking hands with everybody - why is he human who manages all those things.


   One taboo question might be what exactly are the characteristics of Western Civilization that G.W.B.thinks he is defending?


   incidentally,one difference between most people and philosophers is that for philosophers , there is no such thing as a taboo philosophical question, whereas if ask them of many others,they can get confused,embarrassed,angry,censorious (e.g.'shut up'),twitchy etc.

   But then,a point of education is encourage us to question, and a point of much daily life is to stop people questioning.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:11 AM

"It doesn't follow that because you disagree with a policy of illegal invasion of another country that therefore you endorse the tyranny of the man who rules it."

It DOES follow that demonstrations demanding that the UN NOT enforce 12 years of resolutions, and the Kuwait ceasefire terms, while making no comment as to whether Saddam should bother to comply would be taken by Saddam and his supporters as both encouragement and permission to continue in violation.

Had the world stood behind the US, it is most likely that Saddam would have left Iraq for some safe haven ( which was discussed at the time, but Saddam decided that the US would not invade because of "world opinion". Thus, the "anti-war" rallies did the exact opposite- as could be rxpected by any thinking person.

BTW, I NEVER got any comment about the group in London that wanted ( pre-war) to march in the "anti-war" (HA!) parade but was prohibited- THEY wanted to demand that Saddam step down.




But are the sins of a national despot the sins of his encouragers?
I think the "anti-Bush regardless of what he does" are only 3/5's as guilty as the Saddam of the blood spilled in this conflict. ;<(

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 01:05 PM

Here are some more taboo philosophical questions:

Can having a lot of sex provide happiness?

Can finding Mr/Ms "Right" provide happiness?

Can being "successful" provide happiness?

Can being famous provide happiness?

What IS happiness?

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:36 PM

Happiness is giving GWB a military taboo on his most uncivilised territory!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:39 PM

Yeah. Something like this would be nice for old Bushy Baby.

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:42 PM

I was thinking a bit nearer the bush ...

... but I think you're more or less on the right lines ...

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:48 PM

Well, at least we'd recognize him when he's being hunted for war crimes

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:52 PM

Now there's another good idea ...

... hunting him for war crimes ...

... you can use traps, nooses etc and then torture him on his taboo, or if you can't be bothered with that just carpet bomb him into submission ...

I reckon he's a submissive

BDSM meets "the running man"

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 03:38 AM

Oh! You pull out then they follow you home? That's what I've been doing wrong all these years!!

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:30 AM

oooo, Richard! You Devil!

Subject: RE: BS: taboo philosophical questions
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:08 AM

The unrepentant want the world to forget.
Japan does not want their people to know of the mass produced chemical and germ warfare. Their children were never told about Iwo Jima. They want to forget the mass produced murder and rape and torture.

It is not just being unrepentant but a fear of personal guilt that drives Germans to hide the where abouts of German war criminals.

The fear of guilt will drive many Americans to ignore and hide from the Bush atrocities. They too will remain unrepentant. The flag is a common hiding place. Religion is another sanctuary that forgives and sanctifies killers.

Who among us would willingly enter into self destruction?
The war supporters on every side will always be guilty in the eyes of the victims and the dead.
The war supporters will always want to see themselves as innocent.

To prevent the eternal eye for an eye retribution we are asked to forgive. For those of us who after much soul searching can not forgive, we must never let them forget.

For that reason I believe it is fair and just to ask war supporters if they feel any personal respondisibility for even a single death that resulted from the war they promoted.

If I ask George Bush or John Public, "Have you ever killed a man woman or child by suporting this pre emptive invasion?",

I will never expect an honest answer. I will never expect their repentence.

I just want to plant the seed of the question deep in their minds where it may secretly grow.

Sometimes it takes root, as in the case of Mc Namara.