Question For John ...
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net...
> Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is innocent,
> but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the deed'.
>
> You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing him
> by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
> a prison guard.
>
> What do you do ?
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
to release the innocent Coleman.
John Rennie
> Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:01:08 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> >> Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is innocent,
> >> but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the deed'.
> >>
> >> You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing him
> >> by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
> >> a prison guard.
> >>
> >> What do you do ?
>
> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
In the circumstances laid down by you, yes.
Now answer my question.
Jürgen
Desmond Coughlan schrieb in Nachricht ...
>Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:59:53 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
>>> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
>>> You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
>> Now answer my question.
>
>
Bon appétit.
John Rennie
> Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:59:53 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
> >> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
> >> You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
> > Now answer my question.
>
>
> Desmond Coughlan
Dear me, how long does it take you to type yes or no?
William Robert
>Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:59:53 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
>>> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
>>> You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
>> In the circumstances laid down by you, yes.
>> Now answer my question.
>
>I shall answer it this evening: I'm making dinner.
Desi, I would think your 'wife' would be making dinner. LOL!!!
Anyway, I look forward to your response. I know it is the weekend, but please
stay away from the bottle and don't abuse the cat!
William Robert
--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
-----------
God bless America!
-----------
John Rennie
> Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:31:52 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> >> >> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
> >> >> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
> >> >> You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
> >> > In the circumstances laid down by you, yes.
> >> > Now answer my question.
>
> >> I shall answer it this evening: I'm making dinner.
>
>
> of meaning, then count yourself lucky that you get an answer at all.
> 'Power to release him, but not to commute him', indeed. Why not just
> ask Tinkerbell what she'd do, as the question is no more relevent to
> Peter Pan than to me.
>
> However, I shall now respond ...
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
It was no more or less devoid of meaning than my original question which you
were ready enough to answer. It is the type of question that exposes your
values and what you consider important or not important. Your question to me
did no such thing; it merely asked me if I would kill an innocent person in
order to free an innocent man.
John Rennie
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:mWKi9.5623$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Last sentence should read . . kill an iinnocent person to save the life of
an innocent person.
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
the circumstances described if the innocent was simply in
prison - and not under order of execution. Under no circumstances
can an individual murder to prevent a legal act, regardless of that
act, because of his personal beliefs or even factual knowledge. One
cannot bomb an abortion clinic, to prevent abortions. One cannot
murder a governor of a State to prevent an execution. And one
cannot murder a prison guard to free an innocent person.
The question posed by FDP is nowhere near the similarity to the
question posed in respect to 'freeing' Frank. Since here we are
speaking of committing an illegal act, while in the case of Frank,
we are not. We are committing a LEGAL act which would
NECESSARILY result in another murder. John's question was
NOT posed in the form of 'you can successfully accomplish his
escape from prison.' Which would be an illegal act. It was 'you
can free him.' Implied under legal conditions.
PV
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:20:08 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:21:08 +0200, Jürgen <K.J.H...@t-online.de> a écrit
>:
>
>{ snip }
>
>>>I shall answer it this evening: I'm making dinner.
>
>> Bon appétit.
>
>Merci. :-)
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!mang
o.news.easynet.net!easynet.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berli
n.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.no
>os.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:20:08 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 15
>Message-ID: <slrnaompmo.1jp3....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomjj6.1jjr....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
><amfkr8$18j$07$1...@news.t-online.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032546323 5772144 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:35:50 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:01:08 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>>> Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is innocent,
>>> but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the deed'.
>>>
>>> You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing him
>>> by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
>>> a prison guard.
>>>
>>> What do you do ?
>
>> Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
>> to release the innocent Coleman.
>
>You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.
de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:35:50 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <slrnaomjj6.1jjr....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032539820 5780115 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:37:51 +0000
>
>Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is innocent,
>but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the deed'.
>
>You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing him
>by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
>a prison guard.
>
>What do you do ?
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.stealth.net!news.ste
alth.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berli
n.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:37:51 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032511100 5572108 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: Yes
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:22:27 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:31:52 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>>> >> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
>>> >> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
>>> >> You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
>>> > In the circumstances laid down by you, yes.
>>> > Now answer my question.
>
>>> I shall answer it this evening: I'm making dinner.
>
>> Dear me, how long does it take you to type yes or no?
>
>When you ask a question that is totally and completely devoid
>of meaning, then count yourself lucky that you get an answer at all.
>'Power to release him, but not to commute him', indeed. Why not just
>ask Tinkerbell what she'd do, as the question is no more relevent to
>Peter Pan than to me.
>
>However, I shall now respond ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com
!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!
newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news-feed1.de1.concert.net!fu-berl
in.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dh
>cp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:22:27 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 27
>Message-ID: <slrnaompr2.1jp3....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomjj6.1jjr....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
><9YIi9.5350$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032546324 5772144 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:03:17 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:59:53 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
>>> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
>>> You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
>> In the circumstances laid down by you, yes.
>> Now answer my question.
>
>I shall answer it this evening: I'm making dinner.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cide
ra!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!
small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198
-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:03:17 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 19
>Message-ID: <slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomjj6.1jjr....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032541531 5750434 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
<pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:57:29 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:46:30 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> When you ask a question that is totally and completely devoid
>>> of meaning, then count yourself lucky that you get an answer at all.
>>> 'Power to release him, but not to commute him', indeed. Why not just
>>> ask Tinkerbell what she'd do, as the question is no more relevent to
>>> Peter Pan than to me.
>>>
>>> However, I shall now respond ...
>
>> It was no more or less devoid of meaning than my original question which
>you
>> were ready enough to answer.
>
>What rubbish ! Christ, you really have been sucking up to LDB for too
>long. You've lost whatever sense of proportion that you might have had.
>
>1. Theodore Frank is to be executed, and if he is released, there
> is a possibility that he will kill again, do you release him ?
>
>2. Theodore Frank is to be executed, and if he is released, you _know_
> that he will kill again, do you release him ?
>
>Open your fucking eyes, read the two questions above, and ask me if to
>you, they are both as 'meaningful'.
>
>The first is a serious, pertinent, and wholly logical question. The
>second is fucking cloud-cuckoo land. We cannot 'know' if someone is
>going to kill again. It is simply impossible. My answer to the first
>was based on my studies of the death penalty over the past ten years,
>which have shown _beyond a shadow of a doubt_ that the overwhelming
>majority of murderers _never_ kill again. Even if released. Even if
>found 'not guilty'. Even if never arrested. Some do. Most do not.
>
>Killing every fucking murderer because he 'might' kill again (and that
>is the _only_ degree of certainty that we can attain), is worse than
>murder.
>
>> It is the type of question that exposes your
>> values and what you consider important or not important. Your question to
>me
>> did no such thing; it merely asked me if I would kill an innocent person in
>> order to free an innocent man.
>
>If the person to be executed is innocent, then those carrying out the
>execution are committing murder.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 19:57:29 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 52
>Message-ID: <slrnaomvd8.fs.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomjj6.1jjr....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
><9YIi9.5350$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaompr2.1jp3....@lievre.voute.net>
><mWKi9.5623$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032551968 5917585 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:46:30 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> When you ask a question that is totally and completely devoid
> >> of meaning, then count yourself lucky that you get an answer at all.
> >> 'Power to release him, but not to commute him', indeed. Why not just
> >> ask Tinkerbell what she'd do, as the question is no more relevent to
> >> Peter Pan than to me.
> >>
> >> However, I shall now respond ...
>
> > were ready enough to answer.
>
> long. You've lost whatever sense of proportion that you might have had.
>
> 1. Theodore Frank is to be executed, and if he is released, there
> is a possibility that he will kill again, do you release him ?
>
> 2. Theodore Frank is to be executed, and if he is released, you _know_
> that he will kill again, do you release him ?
>
> you, they are both as 'meaningful'.
>
rising again... the throbbing vein in his head... the bulging eyes, the
flushed and twitching cheeks, the trembling chin, the drool forming at the
side of his lips, the quivering hand raised over the keyboard. Furtively
searching for the bottle of gin he keeps hidden from the view of his wife --
she'll pay for this tonight!!! The poor woman always pays the price when
FDP is outwitted here (not a difficult thing to do -- unfortunately for her)!!!
> The first is a serious, pertinent, and wholly logical question. The
> second is ****ing cloud-cuckoo land. We cannot 'know' if someone is
> going to kill again. It is simply impossible. My answer to the first
> was based on my studies of the death penalty over the past ten years,
> which have shown _beyond a shadow of a doubt_ that the overwhelming
> majority of murderers _never_ kill again. Even if released. Even if
> found 'not guilty'. Even if never arrested. Some do. Most do not.
>
FDP... Who cares what your 'studies' provided? The question was not
and is not asked in such terms. The question addresses your view
regarding a murder committed by an individual and an execution of that
murderer conducted by the State. You can ramble along all you
wish... but you have AVOIDED this direct question. And everyone
can see it... that's why you've again been reduced to silly posturing,
and the pathological behavior I've noted above --- instead of addressing
your 'philosophical' (sic) argument. Let's see if we can find your
'philosophical' (sic) limits. Finf the position of your 'moral compass,'
so to speak: Assume we have 100 of Theodore Frank, who have
ALL met the criteria of John's question. Would you free ALL 100
of them, to save executing ONE of them? No question of freeing a
lesser number or not executing that one. Suppose you could ONLY
free all 100 OR incarcerate 99 and execute 1? How about 1000 of him?
How about 10,000? What is your 'philosophical' (sic) limit of how
MANY Theodore Franks you would 'free' (presuming all of the
conditions associated with what we know of Theodore Frank)
before doing whatever you wish with all EXCEPT executing JUST
ONE of him?
> Killing every ****ing murderer because he 'might' kill again (and that
> is the _only_ degree of certainty that we can attain), is worse than
> murder.
>
potty-mouth is getting hysterical. We are not speaking of killing
EVERY murderer. In fact, the U.S. only execute 5% of ALL those
convicted of being a murderer. That's one out of 20. Not every one
of them. You always manage somehow to step on your dick in
your 'arguments' (sic). desi's SODS (step-on-dick-specials) I call
them. We are, in fact speaking of killing ONE SPECIFIC
murderer, with the certainty that if we do not he will murder again.
There is no 'every' or 'might' in the argument posed. There is only
'one' and 'will' Your comment, thus should read --- 'Killing one
****ing murderer because he 'will' kill again (inapplicable comment),
is worse than murder. Is THAT what your 'philosophy' (sic) is???
> > It is the type of question that exposes your
> > values and what you consider important or not important. Your question to me
> > did no such thing; it merely asked me if I would kill an innocent person in
> > order to free an innocent man.
>
> If the person to be executed is innocent, then those carrying out the
> execution are committing murder.
>
Oh, yeah... Theodore Frank was 'innocent.' Can you possibly see
how you have twisted this entire question? You may be blind, but
hopefully, the 'eye of the beholder' is not so blind to be misled by
your devious methods here, and elsewhere.
Time for the butt-balm, FDP... spank... spank... spank. Your poor
wife will catch hell tonight... won't she?
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |THE BITCH DROPPED THE BIKE ON MY TOE
|SO I DUMPED HER SORRY ASS
|AND MY 5 KIDS AS WELL
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 18:31:52 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a écrit :
>
> >> >> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
> >> >> > to release the innocent Coleman.
>
> >> >> You would allow the execution of an innocent, then.
>
> >> > In the circumstances laid down by you, yes.
> >> > Now answer my question.
>
> >> I shall answer it this evening: I'm making dinner.
>
>
> of meaning, then count yourself lucky that you get an answer at all.
> 'Power to release him, but not to commute him', indeed. Why not just
> ask Tinkerbell what she'd do, as the question is no more relevent to
> Peter Pan than to me.
>
Quite untrue... the question speaks to a 'philosophy' regarding the
use of the DP. Nothing to do with an ACTUAL situation which is
impossible to develop under a principle which assumes so many
variables. This is not a 2 + 2 = 4 argument. This is a question
which strikes to the heart of a 'philosophy' of the DP. Is the
life taken by a murderer LESS valuable than the life taken by
the State? Considering that the former life taken is an innocent,
while the latter life taken is assumed as a TRUE guilty. The
question asks 'will you TRADE the life of the victim of a murderer,
for the life of that murderer taken by society?' You see, you
can't use your usual wiggle in THIS argument. Since we are
speaking of a FUTURE LIVING victim. You cannot presume
'the dead cannot be honored.' Because we are no longer speaking
of the dead, but of a living victim. But one realizes that your
only 'escape' will be with a claim that 'What??? Theodore Frank
murder again? Why that's just not going to happen.' Thereby,
admitting that you would PERMIT it to happen.
Clearly, I've ALWAYS felt your 'philosophy' regarding the DP WAS
that the life taken by an INDIVIDUAL in murder was of less value
than the life taken by the State, simply because the State MUST
hold itself to a higher standard that any individual. But, now I see
you beginning to waffle in your posting. I believe that I'm making
a better case for your views, then you are. Because, one may
certainly hold the view I always believed you held... simply that I
feel the view is about as empty as a floating turd. And smells quite
as badly. But at least it is a STAND. I see you unable to take a
stand here, afraid that your words might betray you. I always knew
your 'argument' (sic) always depended on not actually facing the
problem.. unable to face a clear issue (think 'shit in your drawers'
and 'no fear of death' that you've expressed in both directions).
> However, I shall now respond ...
>
Gentle reader -- expect only to hear more waffle from our good ol'
boy, desi... who really no longer knows WHAT his 'philosophy' (sic)
is regarding the DP... except he is not pro-murder, but is pro-let-
murderers-murder-again.
spank...spank...spank. I love this thread.
A Planet Visitor
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:58:50 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip trite _ad homina_ }
>
> > your 'philosophical' (sic) argument. Let's see if we can find your
> > 'philosophical' (sic) limits. Finf the position of your 'moral compass,'
> > so to speak: Assume we have 100 of Theodore Frank, who have
> > ALL met the criteria of John's question.
>
> question, is akin to asking 'if the sun set in the East, would you
> move back to your native Russia ?'
>
I notice that you 'rushed' to google again, to find a post I had removed
from servers, which contained a 'typo.' How typically devious. The
post on the server no longer contains this typo. While I, in my
benevolence, purposely avoided mentioning the presumed 'typo'
you had made, in posting "relevent" (sic), in the above that you've
now clipped from your comment. But that's rather typical
of you. In addition to you now not actually having 'said' anything, but
more 'mindless drivel.'
> It is a nonsensical question, and one which is not worthy of an
> answer, for the simple reason that we _cannot_ (or even 'CANNOT' (sic),
> if you prefer) _ever_ know who is going to murder again.
>
Gentle reader -- A translation of FDP's words is in order -- He's
actually saying ---> You couldn't pay me enough to give that question
a straight answer.--
> { snip }
>
> >> Killing every ****ing murderer because he 'might' kill again (and that
> >> is the _only_ degree of certainty that we can attain), is worse than
> >> murder.
>
> > potty-mouth is getting hysterical.
>
> Moron is mistaking '****' for anger. Does your illiteracy know no
> bounds ?
Actually, my little puppet puts in the first few words -- and then deviously (so
typical -- think 'execreta' (sic)) clipped the rest, obviously unable to address
the actual content. So let me again note --
"We are not speaking of killing EVERY murderer. In fact, the U.S.
only execute 5% of ALL those convicted of being a murderer. That's
one out of 20. Not every one of them. You always manage
somehow to step on your dick in your 'arguments' (sic). desi's
SODS (step-on-dick-specials) I call them. We are, in fact speaking
of killing ONE SPECIFIC murderer, with the certainty that if we do
not, he will murder again. There is no 'every' or 'might' in the argument
posed. There is only 'one' and 'will' Your comment, thus should
read --- 'Killing one ****ing murderer because he 'will' kill again
(inapplicable comment), is worse than murder. Is THAT what your
'philosophy' (sic) is??? Does you inhumanity have no bounds?
>
> { snip more trite _ad homina_ and unilateral declarations of victory }
FDP has apparently fallen in love with the term _ad homina_ ho ho ho.
And again -- FDP has clipped some relevant (see how it's spelled,
FDP?) material. He seemed to feel this argument meant that Frank
was 'innocent.' ho ho ho. His words (apparently believing they formed
an argument in the case of Frank). --
"If the person to be executed is innocent, then those carrying out the
execution are committing murder."
Actually... total nonsense. The execution of an innocent is an
unfortunate accident, which is recognized in the case of all
convictions for crimes in the Justice System. FDP might as well
claim that ALL convictions of innocents is kidnapping. He might
as well claim that all 'vehicle' deaths are murder, because the State
'authorizes' the operation of a motor vehicle through licensing.
A practice which could just as well be abolished, as well as the
DP; and we could begin walking to save those lives. Motor vehicles
are permitted with the clear UNDERSTANDING through statistics
that a huge number of accidental vehicle fatalities will occur every
year. We do not call them murders. Society ALWAYS weighs the
'social benefits' in respect to every act it PERMITS. Building permits
often result in fatalities. We do not call them murders. We place
innocent firepersons in harm's way... purposely... and when they
die in accidents as a result of our doing so, we do not call them
murders. We often authorize the placement of innocent lives in
positions that may create their fatality, and we do not claim that
society has committed murder by so doing. A police officer
is killed in the performance of the job that society gives him,
and we do not claim SOCIETY murdered him. etc...etc...etc.
And I replied --
"Oh, yeah... Theodore Frank was 'innocent.' Can you possibly see
how you have twisted this entire question? You may be blind, but
hopefully, the 'eye of the beholder' is not so blind to be misled by
your devious methods here, and elsewhere."
And again -- Time for the butt-balm, FDP... spank... spank... spank.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:42:54 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> > Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is innocent,
> >> > but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the deed'.
> >> >
> >> > You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing him
> >> > by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
> >> > a prison guard.
> >> >
> >> > What do you do ?
>
> >> to release the innocent Coleman.
>
> > One might as well ask -- would one murder a prison guard under
> > the circumstances described if the innocent was simply in
> > prison - and not under order of execution.
>
> else. Coming from you, it incites only a sad shake of the head, and
> the confirmation that you really are an idiot. I should not be surprised
> to learn that you are one of these morons who believe that life imprisonment
> is 'a death sentence', as the person is going to die in prison.
>
Clearly, L wop is a worse penalty than the DP, IMHO. You may hold
your own 'opinion.' Certainly there is the truth that prison is to a
large extent - torture. So - the central issue is, do we torture those
who murder for 10 years, while we sort out ALL of the circumstances
that lead to our decision to execute... or do we torture them for
the rest of their lives?
Thus if you presume to murder a guard to save an innocent from the DP,
it seems to me, that 'saving' an innocent from a 'life sentence' would
be just as 'meaningful' to the presumed argument. An argument which
itself suffers from a lapse in personal morality.
What do you think of someone spending 40-50 years in prison? Being
someone's 'bitch' one day, and being befriended by a guard in pity the
next? How would you like a lifetime of that? Have you ever seen a
dog who was alternately beaten and petted by his master? Certainly
the most pitiful sight you'll ever see. And that's what you'd expect we do
to a HUMAN? As an alternative to execution. How humane of you.
> > Under no circumstances
> > can an individual murder to prevent a legal act, regardless of that
> > act, because of his personal beliefs or even factual knowledge.
>
> If a law is patently unjust, then we not only have the right to oppose
> it. We have a duty to do so. I don't recall the 'quote' (sic) concerning
> this, but it was quoted regularly in the UK at the time of the Poll Tax.
> John Rennie will probably remember whose 'quote' (sic) it was.
>
Let me get this straight.. In your God-like omnipotence YOU
will determine for EVERYONE what constitutes a 'just' or 'unjust'
LAW? Pardon me if I feel I have the right to determine that for
myself. There is no such thing as 'patently unjust.' There is
only 'subjectively unjust.' We do not have a duty to 'kill a guard,'
'bomb an abortion clinic,' 'kill an abortion doctor,' or commit any
other act of anarchy or vigilantism, which would murder others
in our protest. We have the right only to commit non-violent
protest in the manner of MLK and Gandhi, or to quit society
itself, by sailing off to a deserted island. Because THOSE
alternate choices are available to us. One may even immolate
himself in front of Parliament (oh what a happy thought should
you consider it). But one may not take another's life in PROTEST
against a law of a democratic institution.
> { snip }
>
> > The question posed by FDP is nowhere near the similarity to the
> > question posed in respect to 'freeing' Frank. Since here we are
> > speaking of committing an illegal act, while in the case of Frank,
> > we are not.
>
> Thus implying, in your own 'dumb, toothless grin' way, that no law
> can be unjust, as long as its provisions are 'legal'. Then you
> wonder why everyone with any integrity on this newsgroup, 'tugs your
> pigtails', and loves watching you squeal ?
>
I've never said that... the concept of an 'unjust' law isn't defined
in an objective sense. It is only that we SEE a law as just or
unjust in OUR view. I see the DP as just... you see it as unjust.
Clearly the rest of your comment ranges somewhat below a clown,
but above a trained seal.. you seem to be improving.
> What is 'illegal' and what is 'legal' are decided by those in power.
> Thus the French Resistance fighters who killed Nazis were acting
> 'illegaly', whilst the Nazis who shot those Resistance fighters, were
> acting 'legally'. Even without delving into the Pandora's Box of
> morality, 'legal' and 'illegal' are terms which serve as references for
> our acts, nothing more.
>
Hello.. Now you are confusing 'legal' and 'illegal' with 'just' and 'unjust.'
And democratic institutions with dictatorships. There is no question
of when a law is LEGAL. That is when it is WRITTEN into the laws
of the society one is a member of. Whether it is 'just' or not, has no
objective meaning.
> > We are committing a LEGAL act which would NECESSARILY result in
> > another murder.
>
> I'm feeling charitable. That was a 'misprint', right ?
No.. actually, you're feeling 'stupid.' My words were quite correct.
They were -- "... while in the case of Frank, we are not. We are
committing a LEGAL act which would NECESSARILY result in
another murder." That LEGAL act, in the method posed by John
assumed that 'FREEING' Frank was LEGAL. You would not be
committing an illegal act in freeing him. The argument that YOU
presented, in respect to COLEMAN WOULD be an illegal act.
'Free' Frank --> Legal. Murder guard to free Coleman --> Illegal.
PV
>
> { snip }
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 21 Sep 2002 02:58:49 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> When you ask a question that is totally and completely devoid
> >> of meaning, then count yourself lucky that you get an answer at all.
> >> 'Power to release him, but not to commute him', indeed. Why not just
> >> ask Tinkerbell what she'd do, as the question is no more relevent to
> >> Peter Pan than to me.
>
> > Quite untrue... the question speaks to a 'philosophy' regarding the
> > use of the DP.
>
> 'philosophy' until he read it in one of my posts.
>
Ah... what brilliance. Unfortunately, it is only seen as a deceptive
ploy to AVOID the question. To paraphrase what you once said to
a grieving mother -- In respect to your 'choice' with Theodore Frank --
"Please find another lie to support your rather perverse taste for murderers"
> > Nothing to do with an ACTUAL situation which is
> > impossible to develop under a principle which assumes so many
> > variables.
>
> Here it comes ... the meaningless verbiage. LDB can't just 'stay out'
> of arguments that fly over his head. Then again ... if he did that,
> we'd never hear from him.
>
TRANSLATION -- I'd better clip this quick... otherwise, people might actually
expect me to answer the question.
> { snip even more verbiage, more puerile _ad homina_, more claims to
> have spanked me, when everyone can see that the 'spanking' is the
> other way around ... }
>
You've really fallen in love with _ad homina_, haven't you? How many
times today? Can we expect you to use 'Big Crunch' more frequently
as well?
> > spank...spank...spank. I love this thread.
>
> Masochist, as well as stupid ? Why am I not surprised ..?
>
Oh... dear...I spank you... and you claim that I'm the masochist.
Time for you to grab your tube of butt-balm, FDP. No... no... don't
put it in your ear... it goes on your rear.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:07:05 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:53:12 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> A _non sequitur_ like this would have shocked me, coming from anyone
>>> else. Coming from you, it incites only a sad shake of the head, and
>>> the confirmation that you really are an idiot. I should not be surprised
>>> to learn that you are one of these morons who believe that life
>imprisonment
>>> is 'a death sentence', as the person is going to die in prison.
>
>> Clearly, L wop is a worse penalty than the DP, IMHO.
>
>That's your opinion, and whilst it's certainly the opinion of a halfwitted
>dolt, you're entitled to hold it.
>
>> You may hold
>> your own 'opinion.' Certainly there is the truth that prison is to a
>> large extent - torture. So - the central issue is, do we torture those
>> who murder for 10 years, while we sort out ALL of the circumstances
>> that lead to our decision to execute... or do we torture them for
>> the rest of their lives?
>
>Gaol is certainly 'torture' in the sense that that most precious of
>rights, liberty, is denied to the prisoner. However, you are in error
>if you think that the savage and inhumane treatment meted out to
>inmates in American prisons, is the 'norm' in other countries. We
>have already seen the savagery for which the United States is renowned
>both at home and abroad. It should come as no surprise to read of the
>'electric shock belts', 'cattle prods', 'simulated drownings', and
>other examples of 'punishments' inflicted by the world's largest
>rogue state.
>
>> Thus if you presume to murder a guard to save an innocent from the DP,
>> it seems to me, that 'saving' an innocent from a 'life sentence' would
>> be just as 'meaningful' to the presumed argument. An argument which
>> itself suffers from a lapse in personal morality.
>
>No, you halfwitted spastic, it would not, and does not. A prisoner
>serving a life sentence is not in danger of death. Or at least, no
>more so than the rest of us, as we shall all die one day. Perhaps you'd
>care to equate ageing with execution, too ? 'Boy-oh-boy', you really
>do like to drop those 'pants' (sic) and beg to hear the 'whump' of a
>boot hitting your ... sorry, 'you're' arse, don't you ..?
>
>> What do you think of someone spending 40-50 years in prison? Being
>> someone's 'bitch' one day, and being befriended by a guard in pity the
>> next? How would you like a lifetime of that? Have you ever seen a
>> dog who was alternately beaten and petted by his master? Certainly
>> the most pitiful sight you'll ever see. And that's what you'd expect we do
>> to a HUMAN? As an alternative to execution. How humane of you.
>
>Oh yes, so in fact your rather perverse taste for execution, is
>because you don't want to be cruel to prisoners, by keeping them locked
>up for too long, right ?
>
>ROT-F-FLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>{ snip off-topic waffle about 'bombing abortion clinic's [sic] ... }
>
>
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!news
feed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!
fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:07:05 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 66
>Message-ID: <slrnaorn4o.8sl.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaoong1.4rm.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><co9j9.11321$yB5.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032707356 7013469 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:20:19 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:53:13 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> > your 'philosophical' (sic) argument. Let's see if we can find your
>>> > 'philosophical' (sic) limits. Finf the position of your 'moral
>compass,'
>>> > so to speak: Assume we have 100 of Theodore Frank, who have
>>> > ALL met the criteria of John's question.
>
>>> Asking whether they 'ALL' (sic) met the 'criteria' (sic) of John's
>>> question, is akin to asking 'if the sun set in the East, would you
>>> move back to your native Russia ?'
>
>> I notice that you 'rushed' to google again, to find a post I had removed
>> from servers, which contained a 'typo.'
>
>Ho, ho, ho ... there goes the paranoia again. Which post are you
>referring to ? Which typo ? 'Finf' ? I only just noticed that one
>a few seconds ago, scanning the above paragraph to find what 'typo'
>you were talking about. 'criteria' ? That isn't a typo, you cretin:
>I was correcting your use of the plural 'criteria', when the singular
>'criterion' should have been used. Ho, ho, ho, again ... another .38
>slug goes tearing into your foot. Your paranoia is now so deep, your
>sense of persecution each time dirt and I tear you a new 'asshole' (sic),
>that you just make things worse for yourself, when you're already an
>object of ridicule for each and every poster on here, bar one. LOL ...
>LDB is the whipped cur who flinches each and every time I post ... that
>spanking is almost painful to watch. Now we know where the 'butt[sic]-balm'
>site came from ... it's in your 'favorites' (sic) list.
>
>> How typically devious. The
>> post on the server no longer contains this typo.
>
>LOL ... boo !!
>
><fx: leaps under the table, his tail between his legs, ears flattened
> back ...>
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Actually... total nonsense. The execution of an innocent is an
>> unfortunate accident, which is recognized in the case of all
>> convictions for crimes in the Justice System. FDP might as well
>> claim that ALL convictions of innocents is kidnapping.
>
>Oh no, I am laughing so much at this utterly trite _non sequitur_ (go on,
>LDB ... remind us all of how you 'studied Latin' for eight years at
>school ... just remember to tell us how you managed to fit that into
>the 'curriculum' at Kozolec Secondary School) !
>
>> He might
>> as well claim that all 'vehicle' deaths are murder, because the State
>> 'authorizes' the operation of a motor vehicle through licensing.
>
>Bwaaaahahahahahahahaa !!!!!!
>
>{ snip rest ... I can barely see to type, I'm laughing so hard ... }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.stealth.net!news.ste
alth.net!news.uni-stuttgart.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198
-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:20:19 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 61
>Message-ID: <slrnaornth.8sl.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomjj6.1jjr....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
><9YIi9.5350$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaompr2.1jp3....@lievre.voute.net>
><mWKi9.5623$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomvd8.fs.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><KfRi9.6192$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaootsv.5c7.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><do9j9.11322$yB5.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032708182 7026452 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:53:13 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> > your 'philosophical' (sic) argument. Let's see if we can find your
> >> > 'philosophical' (sic) limits. Finf the position of your 'moral compass,'
> >> > so to speak: Assume we have 100 of Theodore Frank, who have
> >> > ALL met the criteria of John's question.
>
> >> Asking whether they 'ALL' (sic) met the 'criteria' (sic) of John's
> >> question, is akin to asking 'if the sun set in the East, would you
> >> move back to your native Russia ?'
>
> > I notice that you 'rushed' to google again, to find a post I had removed
> > from servers, which contained a 'typo.'
>
> referring to ? Which typo ? 'Finf' ? I only just noticed that one
> a few seconds ago, scanning the above paragraph to find what 'typo'
> you were talking about.
Why would you lie here, FDP? You think that anyone believe
that drivel? What drives a person to be so deceitful? You're
a nut-case-study for a PhD in 'pathetic behavior.'
The post with 'finf' was removed shortly after I sent it. I just
noticed it in reading it after posting it. This took place at 5 in
the morning your time. I then retrieved it from my 'sent' posts,
corrected that one typo and sent it out again. It certainly doesn't
exist on servers that I can see. Only in google. Your reply to
the deleted post was at 13:43:59 GMT, more than 8 hours
after I deleted the post in question, and it showed up as deleted
on my server. I believe if I did not archive my posts you would
have never seen it.
> 'criteria' ? That isn't a typo, you cretin:
> I was correcting your use of the plural 'criteria', when the singular
> 'criterion' should have been used.
You stupid shit. Not 'criteria'!! Why would I claim you had
mis-spelled a word, even if it WAS mis-spelled, it you placed
a 'sic' after it? Check your previous post... the word was
'relevent' (sic). It is of course, spelled 'relevant.' And I had
purposely overlooked it, to avoid appearing pedantic, until
you deceptively avoided the follow-on post of mine which did
not contain 'finf' (sic). My post was very clear on that point --
Again -- "I notice that you 'rushed' to google again, to find a post I
had removed from servers, which contained a 'typo.' How typically
devious. The post on the server no longer contains this typo.
While I, in my benevolence, purposely avoided mentioning the
presumed 'typo' you had made, in posting "relevent" (sic), in
the above that you've now clipped from your comment."
You left in the first few words... shot yourself in the foot, and
neglected to read the rest of the paragraph. Jesus... but you're
stupid, and clumsily so.
> Ho, ho, ho, again ... another .38
> slug goes tearing into your foot. Your paranoia is now so deep, your
> sense of persecution each time dirt and I tear you a new 'asshole' (sic),
> that you just make things worse for yourself, when you're already an
> object of ridicule for each and every poster on here, bar one. LOL ...
> LDB is the whipped cur who flinches each and every time I post ... that
> spanking is almost painful to watch. Now we know where the 'butt[sic]-balm'
> site came from ... it's in your 'favorites' (sic) list.
>
Speaking of 'shooting yourself in the foot.' Apparently you have
a reading disorder, since within the same paragraph that I referred
to 'finf,' I referred to 'relevent,' yet you didn't even bother to read it,
before making a fool of yourself.
> > How typically devious. The
> > post on the server no longer contains this typo.
>
<clip FDP beating his forehead on his desk>
> { snip }
>
> > Actually... total nonsense. The execution of an innocent is an
> > unfortunate accident, which is recognized in the case of all
> > convictions for crimes in the Justice System. FDP might as well
> > claim that ALL convictions of innocents is kidnapping.
>
> Oh no, I am laughing so much at this utterly trite _non sequitur_ (go on,
> LDB ... remind us all of how you 'studied Latin' for eight years at
> school ... just remember to tell us how you managed to fit that into
> the 'curriculum' at Kozolec Secondary School) !
>
Actually a comment which provides nothing in the way of a
counter-argument. Why??? Because you have none, sport.
> > He might
> > as well claim that all 'vehicle' deaths are murder, because the State
> > 'authorizes' the operation of a motor vehicle through licensing.
>
> Bwaaaahahahahahahahaa !!!!!!
>
Ah.. yes... the rutting call for your wife. Ask her to bring a new
bottle of gin for you also.
> { snip rest ... I can barely see to type, I'm laughing so hard ... }
>
spank...spank...spank... Now you're crying. Because you have no
reasonable counter-argument except that 'mindless drivel' we've
become so accustomed to.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:53:12 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> A _non sequitur_ like this would have shocked me, coming from anyone
> >> else. Coming from you, it incites only a sad shake of the head, and
> >> the confirmation that you really are an idiot. I should not be surprised
> >> to learn that you are one of these morons who believe that life imprisonment
> >> is 'a death sentence', as the person is going to die in prison.
>
> > Clearly, L wop is a worse penalty than the DP, IMHO.
>
> dolt, you're entitled to hold it.
>
'trotting them out' every few years as well... so you can bray about
your 'morality' that keeps them caged like animals. Maybe roll
them down the street in a bamboo laced cage so people can
throw feces and other products at them, and scream and rage in
their hysterical 'fun-days for the L wop' holiday. Back to the 13th
Century, that France is so famous for. Maybe France can make
it a holiday... Shit... they've made everything else a holiday. How
very humane and 'moral' of you.
> > You may hold
> > your own 'opinion.' Certainly there is the truth that prison is to a
> > large extent - torture. So - the central issue is, do we torture those
> > who murder for 10 years, while we sort out ALL of the circumstances
> > that lead to our decision to execute... or do we torture them for
> > the rest of their lives?
>
> Gaol is certainly 'torture' in the sense that that most precious of
> rights, liberty, is denied to the prisoner. However, you are in error
> if you think that the savage and inhumane treatment meted out to
> inmates in American prisons, is the 'norm' in other countries.
I think I'm going to bust a gut laughing over that one.
> We
> have already seen the savagery for which the United States is renowned
> both at home and abroad. It should come as no surprise to read of the
> 'electric shock belts', 'cattle prods', 'simulated drownings', and
> other examples of 'punishments' inflicted by the world's largest
> rogue state.
>
You taught us all we know.
> > Thus if you presume to murder a guard to save an innocent from the DP,
> > it seems to me, that 'saving' an innocent from a 'life sentence' would
> > be just as 'meaningful' to the presumed argument. An argument which
> > itself suffers from a lapse in personal morality.
>
> No, you halfwitted spastic, it would not, and does not.
Yes, you mindless imbecile it would, and does..
> A prisoner
> serving a life sentence is not in danger of death.
Ummm... that's not the argument. 'Save' is 'save.' 'Life' is 'Life.'
Everybody is in 'danger of death.' Of course we know that YOU'D
be shitting in your drawers.
> Or at least, no
> more so than the rest of us, as we shall all die one day. Perhaps you'd
> care to equate ageing with execution, too ? 'Boy-oh-boy', you really
> do like to drop those 'pants' (sic) and beg to hear the 'whump' of a
> boot hitting your ... sorry, 'you're' arse, don't you ..?
>
'Aging in prison' for 30-40 years, can well be worse than execution.
Speaking of 'dropping your pants.' Let's hope they provide you a
diaper if you're ever faced with death.
> > What do you think of someone spending 40-50 years in prison? Being
> > someone's 'bitch' one day, and being befriended by a guard in pity the
> > next? How would you like a lifetime of that? Have you ever seen a
> > dog who was alternately beaten and petted by his master? Certainly
> > the most pitiful sight you'll ever see. And that's what you'd expect we do
> > to a HUMAN? As an alternative to execution. How humane of you.
>
> Oh yes, so in fact your rather perverse taste for execution, is
> because you don't want to be cruel to prisoners, by keeping them locked
> up for too long, right ?
>
Your rather perverse taste for a life of torture would seem to be
your preference. Different strokes for different folks. I've never
claimed it was perverse to choose L wop over the DP as a
personal preference . You've now implied that I am perverse for feeling
otherwise. I see THAT as perverse. YOU expecting that YOU may
decide for others. I simply gave my opinion. As you can see from
the beginning. And explained my rationale for that opinion. Suddenly,
from you comes this great outcry that I MUST BE PERVERSE.
But that only shows that you are perverse, if you would expect to
enforce your opinion on me. Do you see above where I clearly said
"You may hold your own 'opinion"? Suddenly that caused you to
fly into an uncontrollable rage. That SOMEONE might have an 'opinion'
that differed from yours. This has been your problem throughout
your presence here, desi. You need help... and you won't find it
at the bottom of that bottle of gin. Because a rational argument
is beyond your capabilities. It must always descend into meaningless
insult. Your 'choice' of freeing Theodore Frank is obviously an
admission that you view the life of any future victim to be LESS
than the life of Theodore Frank himself. Accept it... admit it...
and understand it.
<snip 'mindless drivel'>
PV
Just passing by
> This is not a 2 + 2 = 4 argument.
Which is just as well, or you would no doubt be there shouting: "No,
it's FIVE!"
But seriously,
> Is the life taken by a murderer LESS valuable than the life taken by
> the State? Considering that the former life taken is an innocent,
> while the latter life taken is assumed as a TRUE guilty.
But it should not always be so assumed. No system of justice is
perfect and so, almost inevitably, sooner or later every nation using
capital punishment will execute an innocent - regardless of that now
very tired old line about how no conclusive proof about wrongful US
executions exists, that automatically gets posted in this forum
(usually by Rev. Kool) whenever anyone questions the safety of a death
row conviction.
So the question can be turned around and put thus: Is the life of an
innocent, wrongfully convicted and executed by the state, less
valuable than that of a murder victim?
And isn't there a good case for arguing that even the above question
is invalid because it distinguishes between the two victims? In other
words, aren't they BOTH murder victims?
Jürgen
Just passing by schrieb in Nachricht
<21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>...
Well, at this point we'll get to know again that any execution is per
definitionem a lawful act, while murder were unlawful; as this is the
standard-PV-argumentation. However, any consideration which would drop
purely formal reasoning by concerning with whether an execution can happen
for similarly low motives than murder, or how were to evaluate an execution
of an innocent by the system instated to protect the citizens, we will not
be provided with. Most unfortunately :-((
Jürgen
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:05:44 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:36:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip an almost bestial beating delivered to LDB's rosy cheeks }
>
>>> No, you halfwitted spastic, it would not, and does not.
>
>> Yes, you mindless imbecile it would, and does..
>
>How original. Steal that off a website, or is it 'all your own work' ?
>
>LOL ... that will sail ... sorry, 'sale' (sic) over the top of his
>'woulden' (sic) head ...
>
>{ snip the sound of 'whump-squeal' resounding around AADP's 'hollowed
>[sic] halls' ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!peernews
2.colt.net!news0.de.colt.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e
117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!
>not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:05:44 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <slrnaoulvo.do9.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaoong1.4rm.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><co9j9.11321$yB5.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaorn4o.8sl.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><bEyj9.20409$R8.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032804757 7639202 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<JfRi9.6190$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>
> > This is not a 2 + 2 = 4 argument.
>
> Which is just as well, or you would no doubt be there shouting: "No,
> it's FIVE!"
>
> But seriously,
>
> > Is the life taken by a murderer LESS valuable than the life taken by
> > the State? Considering that the former life taken is an innocent,
> > while the latter life taken is assumed as a TRUE guilty.
>
> But it should not always be so assumed.
But it MUST be. The very concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
DOES assume that those found guilty are IN FACT guilty.
> No system of justice is
> perfect and so, almost inevitably, sooner or later every nation using
> capital punishment will execute an innocent - regardless of that now
> very tired old line about how no conclusive proof about wrongful US
> executions exists, that automatically gets posted in this forum
> (usually by Rev. Kool) whenever anyone questions the safety of a death
> row conviction.
No reasonable retentionist presumes that the laws of mathematics,
and the very fact of our imperfections will not create the POSSIBILITY
of executing an innocent. It is no different in respect to finding an
innocent guilty of any crime.
> So the question can be turned around and put thus: Is the life of an
> innocent, wrongfully convicted and executed by the state, less
> valuable than that of a murder victim?
>
No. It is not. But it is certainly less valuable than TWO innocent
victims of murder. This is not to say that our Justice System treats
it thusly. That concept is 10 to 1. But it is to say that EVERY
innocent life has EQUAL value. And 2 > 1. Thus, if we PRESUME
in a GROUP of those murderers we execute one innocent, and the
REST who were TRUE murderers we PRESUME would have murdered
two new innocents in total, we have certainly THEORETICAL (in our
presumption), saved an innocent from murder. I can certainly assign
little or no value to any TRUE murderer. Not that they should all be
executed. Just that they have forfeited every right to have any value.
And society must determine how many rights to restore to them in
the way of an expression of its mercy.
> And isn't there a good case for arguing that even the above question
> is invalid because it distinguishes between the two victims? In other
> words, aren't they BOTH murder victims?
>
Not at all. We recognize a certain mortality rate with EVERY act
that we LICENSE in permission. Those acts which are not RIGHTS,
but permissions. Driving, building building, fighting fires, protecting
the public. All have greater, much greater, mortality rates than any
presumption of an executed innocent. It is hardly conceivable,
given the elevated due process post-Furman, that any innocent
has been executed since then... but giving one or at absolute most
two, that pales in comparison to the number of innocents killed on
our highways, by those given our PERMISSION to operate motor
vehicles. Whether you like it or not... society places a 'social value,'
on ALL human life. Not a 'monetary value' but a 'heightened standard
of living' and a 'progress of our species' value. One can well
connect that to the DP if one wishes to do so. We fully recognize
that by licensing drivers to operate motor vehicles we PERMIT
the deaths of more INNOCENT humans each HOUR, than we
could possibly have executed INNOCENTS in 25 years. Yet, we
PERMIT driving. Society DEMANDS such a privilege, just as
it demands the DP, when the legislature enacts such a penalty.
Society both ACCEPTS and PERMITS the consequences of driving.
Those consequences are most certainly KNOWN, RECOGNIZED
and ACCEPTED as the cost of progress. Just as society accepts
the consequences of flaws within our justice system, because we
realize we are NOT perfect, and never will be. And we usually call
those who die from motor vehicles -- ACCIDENTS. And society
KNOWS it WILL happen, 40,000 times a YEAR... yet we permit it,
and it is NOT a 'right' but a privilege extended by society. That's why
they issue you a LICENSE. Without it, you have no LEGAL right
to drive. Are you willing to call ALL motor vehicle fatalities
MURDER? I would believe, obviously not. Those fatalities
of INNOCENTS that we PERMIT through licensing we call
'accidents.' And they are no different from the acceptance of
society to a much lesser possibility of accidents occurring in
both the finding of guilty in the Justice System, and the possible
execution of an innocent when we enact such a penalty.
We could, of course, abolish pleasure driving, just as we could
abolish the DP. And save a vastly greater number of innocent
lives. It would never happen, of course. Because society would
RATHER have 'social progress' at the EXPENSE of those innocent
lives. And it is the same with the DP. Now someone may argue
that the DP is NOT 'social progress.' And they are welcome to
that opinion. But just as easily someone could say pleasure
driving is NOT 'social progress' considering the number of innocent
lives lost. And the fact is, one holds a miniscule possibility of
the death of an innocent, while the other has a huge responsibility
to that loss of innocent life. I am not SUGGESTING we abolish
pleasure driving. I am only putting the execution of an innocent
into a social context, where we ALWAYS recognize that our
permissions (such as permission to execute certain of those
found guilty of murder), have consequences. Consequences
which can cost innocent lives.
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:36:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip an almost bestial beating delivered to LDB's rosy cheeks }
>
>
> > Yes, you mindless imbecile it would, and does..
>
>
> LOL ... that will sail ... sorry, 'sale' (sic) over the top of his
> 'woulden' (sic) head ...
>
> { snip the sound of 'whump-squeal' resounding around AADP's 'hollowed
> [sic] halls' ...
>
but the 'mindless drivel' I speak of so often that comes from the
pen of the ultimate purveyor of such 'mindless drivel.' The man
LIVES for it. All sense of meaning has been stripped.. sucked
completely dry. All content vacuumed into his black hole of
ignorance. Leaving only that 'mindless drivel' he is so proud of,
and we have become so accustomed to. Not a whisper of
sense.. not a remnant of humor... not a suggestion of
meaning ... not a trace of irony... not a vestige of wit... not a
tinge of invention. Only the void of 'mindless drivel.' FDP
applies his famous 'Big Crunch' to any expectation that there
might be a hint of intellect forthcoming... The reader goes
away -- empty handed, and shaking his head in pity for him.
And another empty day passes in the life of FDP.
Just passing by
> >
> > > Is the life taken by a murderer LESS valuable than the life taken by
> > > the State? Considering that the former life taken is an innocent,
> > > while the latter life taken is assumed as a TRUE guilty.
> >
> > But it should not always be so assumed.
>
> But it MUST be. The very concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
> DOES assume that those found guilty are IN FACT guilty.
"Fact"? But their guilt is not always a fact. If you always assume
that, then how do you deal with cases such as the guy who was recently
released from jail after fourteen years because DNA evidence proved
his innocence? Was it a "fact" just for those fourteen years, that he
did the murder? And was that "fact" then replaced with a different
fact after the fourteen years? So he was, "in fact", guilty, but no
longer is? There is no such thing as a temporary fact.
That kind of slavish, unquestioning faith in the system is reminiscent
of those religious fanatics who believe that the bible cannot possibly
be wrong. Ask them where Noah's daughter-in-law came from and they say
"I don't know but it must be right," and no amount of reasoned
argument can penetrate that barrier their faith has erected to simple
realities and common sense.
> No reasonable retentionist presumes that the laws of mathematics,
> and the very fact of our imperfections will not create the POSSIBILITY
> of executing an innocent. It is no different in respect to finding an
> innocent guilty of any crime.
So you do agree with me that, in such cases, it was never a "fact"
that the convicted people were guilty.
> Thus, if we PRESUME
> in a GROUP of those murderers we execute one innocent, and the
> REST who were TRUE murderers we PRESUME would have murdered
> two new innocents in total, we have certainly THEORETICAL (in our
> presumption), saved an innocent from murder.
Unless you are assuming those two new murder victims would be either
prison warders or other prisoners, I can't see the logic there. The
argument against the death penalty is not that convicted murderers
should be released to murder again, but that they should be locked
away rather than executed.
> It is hardly conceivable,
> given the elevated due process post-Furman, that any innocent
> has been executed since then... but giving one or at absolute most
> two, that pales in comparison to the number of innocents killed on
> our highways, by those given our PERMISSION to operate motor
> vehicles. Whether you like it or not... society places a 'social value,'
> on ALL human life. Not a 'monetary value' but a 'heightened standard
> of living' and a 'progress of our species' value. One can well
> connect that to the DP if one wishes to do so. We fully recognize
> that by licensing drivers to operate motor vehicles we PERMIT
> the deaths of more INNOCENT humans each HOUR, than we
> could possibly have executed INNOCENTS in 25 years. Yet, we
> PERMIT driving. Society DEMANDS such a privilege, just as
> it demands the DP, when the legislature enacts such a penalty.
> Society both ACCEPTS and PERMITS the consequences of driving.
> Those consequences are most certainly KNOWN, RECOGNIZED
> and ACCEPTED as the cost of progress. Just as society accepts
> the consequences of flaws within our justice system, because we
> realize we are NOT perfect, and never will be. And we usually call
> those who die from motor vehicles -- ACCIDENTS.
Exactly! And that is one of the two factors rendering your comparisons
invalid. You are likening accidental deaths to deliberate killing. The
other factor is that modern societies could not realistically function
without allowing people to drive motor vehicles. But no society
"needs" the death penalty.
> Are you willing to call ALL motor vehicle fatalities
> MURDER? I would believe, obviously not. Those fatalities
> of INNOCENTS that we PERMIT through licensing we call
> 'accidents.' And they are no different from the acceptance of
> society to a much lesser possibility of accidents occurring in
> both the finding of guilty in the Justice System, and the possible
> execution of an innocent when we enact such a penalty.
Only half of that is correct. The wrongful conviction is accidental,
but the subsequent execution is deliberate. You cannot lead someone to
an execution chair, strap them to it, put a bag over their head and
finally electrocute them, by accident. There is no element of motor
vehicle accidents that has any parallel with that process.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:36:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
<pathetic 'mindless drivel' clipped>
> >> Oh no, I am laughing so much at this utterly trite _non sequitur_ (go on,
> >> LDB ... remind us all of how you 'studied Latin' for eight years at
> >> school ... just remember to tell us how you managed to fit that into
> >> the 'curriculum' at Kozolec Secondary School) !
>
> > Actually a comment which provides nothing in the way of a
> > counter-argument. Why??? Because you have none, sport.
>
> Provide me with an argument, then. So far, all we see are your
> claims to have 'won', and your utter rage at having been spanked
> so hard that once more, Central Florida is covered with a huge black
> cloud of 'bum smoke' ...
>
That would be -- Your exact words --
1) "Personally, the guards would have a job holding me down, as
the litres of excreta that would be covering my legs,
would make it difficult for them to grab a hold of me"
2) "I have personally never felt the terror of imminent death, yet I do not fear
death."
3) And when confronted with the very obvious hypocrisy ( a common
occurrence from you)... you replied "Hmm, strange ... I didn't write
that, either ...
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=execreta&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=alt.activism.death-penalty&as_uauthors=Desmond
%20Coughlan&lr=&hl=fr
Hoping to provide 'proof' (your word for lie), that you had not said the
quote in 1). And deviously lying by inserting an 'e' in 'excreta' to
insure a search would result in an empty find. One needs only
remove that 'e' --
url:http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=excreta&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=alt.activism.death-penalty&as_uauthors=Desmond%
20Coughlan&lr=&hl=fr
To see that you certainly did say 1). Yet, you will still not admit
it. That's the basic difference between you and me. I'm not in
the serious denial that you are in.
> { snip some more claims to have won ... }
>
Actually, unlike you, I try to rely on accurate quotes, instead of
providing the 'mindless drivel' so easily recognized from your posts.
Ummm... oh, yeah.. spank...spank...spank...
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net...
> > > Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is innocent,
> > > but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the deed'.
> > >
> > > You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing him
> > > by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
> > > a prison guard.
> > >
> > > What do you do ?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Desmond Coughlan
> >
> >
> > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
> > to release the innocent Coleman.
> >
> One might as well ask -- would one murder a prison guard under
> the circumstances described if the innocent was simply in
> prison - and not under order of execution. Under no circumstances
> can an individual murder to prevent a legal act, regardless of that
> act, because of his personal beliefs or even factual knowledge. One
> cannot bomb an abortion clinic, to prevent abortions. One cannot
> murder a governor of a State to prevent an execution. And one
> cannot murder a prison guard to free an innocent person.
Fair enough, I agree with that statement, and in fact I have said
similar on many occasions. But it seems to be a reversal of what
YOU have always said. So lets vary the queston just a little. What
if, by killing an innocent prison guard, you could prevent the executions
of TWO wrongfully accused innocents? Or what about six? or 600?
"At what point does it become moral" to kill, if you have calculated that
some greater good will be served?
Personally, I say that it NEVER becomes moral. I have always said so.
What say you?
And if you agree that it's never moral to murder a prison guard to save
a larger number of innocent lives, why should it be moral to murder
an innocent engineer working on a railroad?
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:15:39 +0000
>
>Le Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:26:17 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> { snip an almost bestial beating delivered to LDB's rosy cheeks }
>
>>> >> No, you halfwitted spastic, it would not, and does not.
>
>>> > Yes, you mindless imbecile it would, and does..
>
>>> How original. Steal that off a website, or is it 'all your own work' ?
>
>>> LOL ... that will sail ... sorry, 'sale' (sic) over the top of his
>>> 'woulden' (sic) head ...
>>>
>>> { snip the sound of 'whump-squeal' resounding around AADP's 'hollowed
>>> [sic] halls' ...
>
>> Now here is one clever post.
>
>I once more have to confess to a great feeling of satisfaction, ladies
>and gentlemen, upon noting that the very same bestial beating administered
>to LDB's now almost 'jigaboo' buttocks, has resulted in his posting and
>reposting his 'spam' to the newsgroup. Twice in one day.
>
>As British English speakers would say, 'result !'
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!fr.clara.net!heighliner.f
r.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-b
erlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:15:39 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 30
>Message-ID: <slrnap1sgp.jj3.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaoong1.4rm.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><co9j9.11321$yB5.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaorn4o.8sl.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><bEyj9.20409$R8.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaoulvo.do9.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><tsUj9.26298$R8.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032909423 8863782 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:06:58 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 23 Sep 2002 06:36:55 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Ho, ho, ho ... there goes the paranoia again. Which post are you
>>> referring to ? Which typo ? 'Finf' ? I only just noticed that one
>>> a few seconds ago, scanning the above paragraph to find what 'typo'
>>> you were talking about.
>
>> Why would you lie here, FDP? You think that anyone believe
>> that drivel? What drives a person to be so deceitful? You're
>> a nut-case-study for a PhD in 'pathetic behavior.'
>>
>> The post with 'finf' was removed shortly after I sent it. I just
>> noticed it in reading it after posting it. This took place at 5 in
>> the morning your time. I then retrieved it from my 'sent' posts,
>> corrected that one typo and sent it out again. It certainly doesn't
>> exist on servers that I can see. Only in google. Your reply to
>> the deleted post was at 13:43:59 GMT, more than 8 hours
>> after I deleted the post in question, and it showed up as deleted
>> on my server. I believe if I did not archive my posts you would
>> have never seen it.
>
>I'm going to pee myself laughing !!! What paranoia !!! This from
>the man who was 'surfing [sic] Autodin, Milnet, ARPANET and he Defense
>[sic] Data Network', yet who is still so wholly ignorant of 'IT', that
>he thinks that we 'send' posts to one another. Ho, ho, ho ... and a
>fucking hearty ROTFLMAO !!!
>
>Much as it pains me to 'put down' your paranoia, as it's so funny to
>watch, LDB, rest assured that I didn't go out of my way to see your
>post. I run my own NNTP server here, and it 'catches' new posts in
>real time. It would thus have picked up your post when you 'sent' (sic)
>it, and will have disregarded the 'cancel' request (I have configured it
>not to obey such requests). So I didn't see the 'corrected' post, and
>as I've pointed out to you, hadn't noticed 'finf' until you pointed it
>out to me. However, as it obviously pisses you off to the extent that
>you dishonestly tried to hide yet another cock-up from the eyes of
>AADP, I have noted it in the 'LDB's cock-ups' file ...
>
> des...@lievre.voute.net % ls -l usenet/ldb_cock-up
> -rw-r--r-- 1 desmond voute 8398087 Sep 23 16:57 usenet/ldb_cock-up
>
>Oh dear ... that _is_ a big one ... if I keep 'whump-squeal'ing your
>worthless arse, I'm going to need to buy a bigger hard disk ...
>
>>> 'criteria' ? That isn't a typo, you cretin:
>>> I was correcting your use of the plural 'criteria', when the singular
>>> 'criterion' should have been used.
>
>> You stupid shit. Not 'criteria'!!
>
>And there it is !! The rage !! The fury !!! One can hear the
>screaming across the Atlantic !! LDB points his finger at the
>monitor, and bellows, 'He's got me again !!'
>
>> Why would I claim you had
>> mis-spelled a word, even if it WAS mis-spelled, it you placed
>> a 'sic' after it?
>
>Oh dear ... a most definite 'duh' emanating from your trailer at the
>moment, Little Dancing Boy ...
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > Actually... total nonsense. The execution of an innocent is an
>>> > unfortunate accident, which is recognized in the case of all
>>> > convictions for crimes in the Justice System. FDP might as well
>>> > claim that ALL convictions of innocents is kidnapping.
>
>>> Oh no, I am laughing so much at this utterly trite _non sequitur_ (go on,
>>> LDB ... remind us all of how you 'studied Latin' for eight years at
>>> school ... just remember to tell us how you managed to fit that into
>>> the 'curriculum' at Kozolec Secondary School) !
>
>> Actually a comment which provides nothing in the way of a
>> counter-argument. Why??? Because you have none, sport.
>
>Provide me with an argument, then. So far, all we see are your
>claims to have 'won', and your utter rage at having been spanked
>so hard that once more, Central Florida is covered with a huge black
>cloud of 'bum smoke' ...
>
>{ snip some more claims to have won ... }
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news-feed1.de1.concer
t.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:06:58 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 90
>Message-ID: <slrnap0apg.erk.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomjj6.1jjr....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
><9YIi9.5350$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaompr2.1jp3....@lievre.voute.net>
><mWKi9.5623$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaomvd8.fs.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><KfRi9.6192$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaootsv.5c7.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><do9j9.11322$yB5.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnaornth.8sl.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><bEyj9.20411$R8.8...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032858510 8099462 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:amqo98$d4d$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
the execution of ANY number of innocents? Society would simply
replace the guard, punish you, and still execute those innocents.
The point is preventing the guard... does NOT prevent the execution.
There is no conceivable way that could be realized. Guards can
be found in practically unlimited number.
You see... the problem with your analogy (argument?) is you presume
it is the GUARD who threatens the innocent(s). But it is society, and
its laws which 'permit' the POSSIBILITY of the execution of an
innocent. What you are REALLY trying to do, is presume killing
the guard 'kills' the law. That will not happen. And even if it is
presumed it would happen, it then has a much larger implication to
the guilty NOT being executed as well, which could ALSO result
in further killing of OTHER innocents. Further it has obvious implications
in respect to the law itself.. the greater body of the law. In a moral
context it has no meaning since it cannot achieve any saving of
innocent life. Aside from any legality argument of the trolley problem,
I think we would agree that the argument of the murder of a guard
has no legal standing whatsoever.
IF you were to claim that killing the guard ABSOLUTELY SAVES the
lives of five innocents, that would be another matter. Since it is no longer
SOCIETY that would be threatening those innocents, but the guard
himself. Such is the case of an INDIVIDUAL threatening some
innocents... no longer as a representative of society. Clearly, killing
that INDIVIDUAL threat is justifiable. Because saving innocent lives
WILL result. Society sanctions it all the time, in a law enforcement
setting involving hostage taking. So if killing the guard ACTUALLY
SAVED those innocents, I would certainly agree with doing so. But it
does not. It just kills ANOTHER innocent. One cannot kill an
individual to bring society down. Because society will continue to
function. Just as bombing an abortion clinic will not save ONE
SINGLE life. Society will continue to sanction abortion.
Now, putting that into the context of the trolley problem. We assume
in that problem there is ONLY ONE out-of-control trolley, and switching
will ACTUALLY save those five lives. In effect the existence of
that one innocent represents an INDIVIDUAL threat to those other
innocents. It then becomes a totally moral problem. Weighing five
(or however many) innocents against one. Where the outcome is
conclusive. Those five (or however many) WILL be saved. There
are no further trolleys to threaten the five (or however many)
innocents that have ACTUALLY been saved.
Your argument in respect to killing the guard, put into the context
of the trolley problem, simply provides a short delay (probably none
at all in real life) in the killing of those other five innocents. It is as
if there is an ENDLESS supply of trolleys. You switch to kill
the guard. The switch changes back, and another trolley is
sent down the tracks, with the innocents still in the path. You
are again presented the choice of killing ANOTHER guard... and
ANOTHER... and ANOTHER. Because you cannot stop the
TROLLEYS. You can only switch each one of them, killing
another innocent EACH TIME you do. In the case of an individual
representing a threat to other innocents that will DISAPPEAR
with his death... there is only one trolley. It is not the trolley of
the laws of society, but simply one out-of-control trolley that you
have the power to bring into control, with a known result.
> Personally, I say that it NEVER becomes moral. I have always said so.
> What say you?
>
In the context of killing a guard, I find that it has no meaning in a moral
context for me. Other than it is immoral to kill a human, which will result in
no benefit whatsoever. It certainly cannot be presumed to achieve a
moral result, because no lives are ACTUALLY saved. Those innocents
will most certainly STILL be executed.
.
> And if you agree that it's never moral to murder a prison guard to save
> a larger number of innocent lives, why should it be moral to murder
> an innocent engineer working on a railroad?
>
Prior to this post, in this thread, I've only used the word 'morality' in
considering L wop as holding immorality compared to the DP. Nothing
in respect to the killing of a guard. We do not kill a guard given the
task which society has assigned him, because he has nothing to do
with the law of society that placed those innocents where they are.
He is no more responsible for the killing of those innocents than any other
INDIVIDUAL. And you would certainly not claim we should kill all
those who have a hand in the LAW (Anyway, I would hope not). You
may call 'the law' immoral, but that's simply your opinion. The killing
of the guard is viewed by me subjectively as immoral, simply because it
serves no other purpose than to 'kill a guard.' It will certainly not
'save' any innocents. If it TRULY did, it could be (IMHO) viewed
in a morality framework, which one might find justifies such a
killing. I find the killing of ANY individual tasked with the implementation
of the LAW, in a democratic society, totally reprehensible, and
meaningless... since it ACHIEVES nothing, except another
killing. Nothing is saved... nothing is changed. Just as bombing
an abortion clinic CHANGES nothing in the end (actually, one might
presume it HARDENS the resolve to KEEP the law - which might
well be the result in the killing of a guard, in an attempt to
circumvent the law... which will, in any case, continue as is).
In the original trolley problem... something IS changed. Five
innocents will now LIVE, and one innocent will die IF we switch.
If not... the contrary will result.
Now... perhaps you would answer the question that I posed, back
in August. in the thread "Re:Texas August Execution #1"
At that time the U.S. had executed 787 convicted murderers.
And I remarked that even with a presumed one innocent, those
786 (787-1) TRUE murderers would have certainly murdered
MORE than one new innocent victim had they not been executed.
And you remarked "You are willing to kill 786 people to save
the life of 1 person.." First, it was 786 to save the live of AT
LEAST two people... 'more than one new innocent victim,' were
my words. Second -- It was a conclusion which was based on
the elimination of a 'theoretical' innocent... thus the remainder
examined were TRUE murderers. Not innocents. Third -- you
concluded with "killing 786 people to save 1 is an obvious
absurdity." But that is the CRUX of your trolley problem.
In that problem you concluded that it was NOT a obvious
absurdity to kill 786 (who are those TRUE MURDERERS
placed on the unswitch track by the laws of society), if
it required taking an act that would kill one. In THAT problem
you considered killing one to save a greater number of
people to NOT be a moral or legal option. Thus I can
presume you now hold the contrary view.. that killing one to
save 786 is a reasonable assumption...if they are 786 TRUE
murderers, having been placed on the unswitch track by the
laws of society. You would now select the killing of a new
innocent by one of those 786, to SAVE those 786.
So... the 'problem' I then posed was -- "Well... just a minute..
either one or the other is GOING to die. You can't piously
say that 'one is worse than the other, but I wash my hands
of the RESULT.' I see it quite clearly that you feel 786
MURDERERS DESERVE to live, if the result is ONLY 1
innocent dies. Try putting that into your 'trolley problem.'
The switch has been set by society, and those 786 murderers
are on the unswitch track. You had nothing to do with putting
them there. And you are a passerby who can switch to kill
that one innocent and 'save' those 786 murderers who are on
the unswitch track because society has determined that's
where they belong. Would you switch? "
And the problem remains unanswered by you to this day... since
you clipped the heart of the question and left in these few words --
"Well... just a minute.. either one or the other is GOING to
die. You can't piously say that 'one is worse than the other,
but I wash my hands of the RESULT.'"
Ignored the question itself and began that diatribe which caused a
pedantic furor by remarking ONLY on that part with your words --
"See, this is an example of PV lies. he claims I said those exact
words. He puts them in quote marks, as if it is an exact quote from
me. Of course, it only sounds bad after he adds some words that
I never said. I never ever said anything remotely approaching 'but
I wash my hands of the result'"
And thus began the petty argument regarding single-quotation marks
and double-quotation marks -- while the QUESTION asked of you,
remains unanswered... to this day.
A Planet Visitor
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02092...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<a0Uj9.26217$R8.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> > >
> > > > Is the life taken by a murderer LESS valuable than the life taken by
> > > > the State? Considering that the former life taken is an innocent,
> > > > while the latter life taken is assumed as a TRUE guilty.
> > >
> > > But it should not always be so assumed.
> >
> > But it MUST be. The very concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
> > DOES assume that those found guilty are IN FACT guilty.
>
> "Fact"? But their guilt is not always a fact. If you always assume
> that, then how do you deal with cases such as the guy who was recently
> released from jail after fourteen years because DNA evidence proved
> his innocence? Was it a "fact" just for those fourteen years, that he
> did the murder? And was that "fact" then replaced with a different
> fact after the fourteen years? So he was, "in fact", guilty, but no
> longer is? There is no such thing as a temporary fact.
>
A jury finds guilt based on 'fact' -- consisting of how they 'see' the
evidence - eyewitness testimony, etc. That's not cast in the stone
of ACTUAL. We have no way of KNOWING 'actual.' But we
convict on 'factual' proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' And
certainly the 'facts' can be seen as different in the appeals process.
What can never change is what we do not know... Actual guilt
or innocence. 'Factual' guilt or innocence is that which exists
at a particular moment in time. Those 'facts' can be reexamined
if one wishes to do so. That's why some jurisdictions are so
reluctant to reexamine the 'facts' after due process is complete,
or even when a 'factual' murderer is executed. Because those
'facts' might not actually BE THE FACTS.
Anyway... this has been hashed out many times before here... with
Sharp, and many others. And that's simply my view on 'facts.' Others
are welcome to theirs. In fact, hardly anyone agrees with me on
this point... which bothers me not in the slightest... because it is
how I see it.
<Clip rest of pathetic groveling>
Let me put this right on the table, sport. I don't like you. You're pathetically
obsessive. And would keep a thread going forever, even if you've been
spanked so often that I begin to believe you are a masochist.
PV
Just passing by
>
> Let me put this right on the table, sport. I don't like you.
But of course you don't. How could you possibly like me after the way
I have exposed your blatant dishonesty; your almost non-existent
debating skills; your laziness, which you try to conceal behind very
long but very meaningless posts which, to a casual observer, could be
mistaken for the work of a someone who takes the trouble to research a
subject properly; your emotional insecurity which is the only possible
explanation for why you, having no real interest in a certain topic of
debate, nevertheless went trawling through usenet archives hoping (in
vain) to find material that might in some way discredit the person
(me) who had offered you a challenge you could not meet, rather than
simply admit that was so; and of course your ultimate frustration at
all the above, and more, being laid bare, which can now be seen in
your multiple posting of spam in response to every post that threatens
to embarrass you even further?
I don't think I would like someone who had done all that to me.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Fuck me, JPB! Even by my _own_ high standards that sentence is a
sodding _monster_!
I'm not even going to _attempt_ to parse the bugger.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:32:21 +0000
>
>Le 26 Sep 2002 10:57:55 -0700, Just passing by <unimpre...@yahoo.com> a
>écrit :
>
>>> Let me put this right on the table, sport. I don't like you.
>
>> But of course you don't. How could you possibly like me after the way
>> I have exposed your blatant dishonesty; your almost non-existent
>> debating skills; your laziness, which you try to conceal behind very
>> long but very meaningless posts which, to a casual observer, could be
>> mistaken for the work of a someone who takes the trouble to research a
>> subject properly; your emotional insecurity which is the only possible
>> explanation for why you, having no real interest in a certain topic of
>> debate, nevertheless went trawling through usenet archives hoping (in
>> vain) to find material that might in some way discredit the person
>> (me) who had offered you a challenge you could not meet, rather than
>> simply admit that was so; and of course your ultimate frustration at
>> all the above, and more, being laid bare, which can now be seen in
>> your multiple posting of spam in response to every post that threatens
>> to embarrass you even further?
>>
>> I don't think I would like someone who had done all that to me.
>
>You forgot 'posting URL's [sic] that he claims to have read, but
>which he hasn't ...'
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-b
erlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:32:21 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 29
>Message-ID: <slrnap6v75.qjp.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
><9YIi9.5350$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaompr2.1jp3....@lievre.voute.net>
><JfRi9.6190$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><a0Uj9.26217$R8.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02092...@posting.google.com>
><dUxk9.4181$O8.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02092...@posting.google.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1033076026 10196235 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
lets get back to the original question.
<QUOTE>
Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is innocent,
but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the deed'.
You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing him
by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
a prison guard.
<UNQUOTE>
So you see, PV, that killing an innocent prison guard DOES save an
innocent life. Or it might save 6 innocent lives, or 6,000,000 innocent
lives.
Your claim that "there is no conceivable way in which it could be
realized"
is simply absurd. It is built into the original
Answer the question. Would you kill an innocent guard to save the life
of an innocent wrongly accused prisonner? If not, would you kill him to
save 6 lives, or 6 million lives? Name the exact number at which it
becomes moral to murder an innocent individual.
[rest of PV's excessively long and extemely feeble excuse for being
unable to answer the question snipped]
A Planet Visitor
There is no doubt who is the poor, pathetic, sad figure here,
JPB. Your obsession is destroying your life. I would put a
stop to it, only to save your sanity. You really need to get
a grip on reality. The 'Great White Whale' was guilty, is
guilty, and will forever be guilty. You can trot out your
'evidence' (sic) all you wish. But it all comes back to your core
argument that --everyone was out to get poor Louise --. They
were crooks, it was a conspiracy, it was a frame-up. The
sum total. And make no mistake.. you may try to claim
it wasn't what you 'meant,' but saying that Zobel knows that
certainly she didn't do it.. is a total condemnation of his
actions. Since he had the power to rule otherwise. And a
clear implication that he was part of any vast conspiracy at
work. And every juror (any one of whom could have held
out for a mistrial), and every judge in the appeal process
agreed with her guilt. It is impossible to assume that all
of them were 'hoodwinked' by a State riddled with corruption
(except those you now would hope to exclude from that corruption
after realizing you have stumbled on your own words).
They ALL found her guilty, and some in the appeal process
even more so, along with all the jury. The FACTS are, she
dropped the kid or shook him so violently that his brain turned to
scrambled eggs. That's the TRUE evidence. You should learn
to live with it, and get on with your empty life. I'll simply not
contribute to your delusions any further.
You can expect me to provide this same commentary
again in every further post you might pathetically offer to me, in
your obsessive need to find someone... anyone... who will
allow you to spread your poison. It's consuming your
life. And I'll not play a part in permitting you to spread that
poison any longer. I remember how you gloated about
GeneralZod responding to you in one post...and you will see
that he recognized immediately that you were a hopeless
case. And he dropped you like a hot potato after one post,
immediately recognizing the depths of your obsession. It
appears that without me... you'll have no one to talk to... except
your 'mutual friends' who act as a pack of jackals looking for
a warm zebra carcass to hunch over with you. But hardly
concerned with the 'evidence' (sic).
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:21b1da28.02092...@posting.google.com...
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<dUxk9.4181$O8.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>
> >
> > Let me put this right on the table, sport. I don't like you.
>
>
<demonstration that 'I don't like you either' clipped>
As if I 'actually' care! Someone who implies that a U.S. District
Court judge knows a person is guilty, but still convicts that person,
when he didn't have to, and someone who claims an entire U.S.
State is riddled with corruption, is not necessarily someone to 'like'
as far as I'm concerned.
And I get the impression that JPB doesn't 'like' me, is that I won't
'play games with him.' Since his 'argument' (sic) rests on nothing
other than a 'game' of non-evidence.
But we've see a lot of 'hate America and Americans' in this group
It's become the national pastime from some of the posters here.
PV
A Planet Visitor
<'I don't like you either' mumbling clipped>
>
> You forgot 'posting URL's [sic] that he claims to have read, but
> which he hasn't ...'
>
Let me ask you a straightforward question.
A judge KNOWS Roger Coleman is not guilty.
Roger Coleman is found guilty by a jury.
The judge has the POWER to change that verdict to not guilty.
He allows the guilty verdict to stand.
Q -- In your opinion... is that judge a 'crook' in your eyes?
Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do. As with Thedore Frank.
PV
You see, FDP... I don't have to 'like' those who claim our legal
system has crooked judges. Nor do I have to like those who
claim a U.S. State is riddled with corruption. Nor do I have to
like those who would suggest that a 'star' (perhaps 'the Star
of David') be planted on the Banner of the U.S. Nor do I have
to hold a dialog with them... since it often presumes that doing
so lends some validity to their words. Now you, however;
you're just too sweet and lovable and easy for me to ever stop
posting to your comments.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:an0e90$mum$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
in saving an innocent life. Clearly you would only 'save a life' by
'taking a life,' only if you presumed that you would ACTUALLY 'save
the life.' Because most certainly both you and him would probably
be tracked down. So the 'percentage' of that life 'saved' would be
how likely he would NEVER be recaptured. Or you caught.
It would be necessary for you to say 'kill the guard' to save TWO
innocents... a very unlikely scenario. The original question was
posed in the sense of Coleman. Nor is the guard the THREAT
to Coleman... Society IS. And you do not 'kill' society through the
killing of that guard.
> Answer the question. Would you kill an innocent guard to save the life
> of an innocent wrongly accused prisonner? If not, would you kill him to
> save 6 lives, or 6 million lives? Name the exact number at which it
> becomes moral to murder an innocent individual.
>
I am not as devious as you, Peter. Given the conditions that killing
ONE innocent person, to SAVE two innocent people under any
conditions that presume I am ACTUALLY saving them by killing that
one innocent person -- there is no question that I would kill that one
innocent person. It doesn't need to be a prison guard or any
CONTRIVED scenario. It is simply that I would kill one innnocent
person to save the lives of two or more innocent people. I would, of course,
NOT 'kill one to save one.' There must be a subjective moral belief
on my part that my killing will serve a GREATER purpose than my
not killing.
Your contrived example just left too many loopholes. So I hope I
am clear here.
> [rest of PV's excessively long and extemely feeble excuse for being
> unable to answer the question snipped]
>
Actually, my son -- What you clipped is the question that I believe
you find yourself unable to answer. So again --
Society has placed 786 proven murderers on a track, having
convicted them of murder and sentenced them to execution.
And there is one innocent victim on another track.
The execution of those convicted murderers will be done by a
trolley riding toward them on that track. YOU can switch that
trolley to the track that will kill the one innocent. Thus
preventing the execution of those 786 proven murderers.
In effect, 'abolishing' the DP for them.
Or you can do nothing, and the 786 proven murderers will
be executed by the trolley. And the one innocent will not
be killed. Would you switch?
This question arose from your words that "killing 786 people
to save one is an obvious absurdity" Thus, seeming to
say 'you would switch.'
And the presumption that not killing all those 786 PROVEN
MURDERERS would result in at least one of them committing
a new murder of an innocent (an almost absurdly low
recidivist rate that we KNOW is much greater).
Now, for some time prior to this, I believe you have said you
would 'never switch.' So I'm unsure what you WOULD do.
Can you confirm if you would switch or not?
1) Switch -- Save 786 - kill 1.
2) Do not switch - allow society in the form of the trolley to execute 786
proven murderers.
I do believe this might test your theory.
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
I think you should answer Peter's amended question.
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>
>
> Answer the question. Would you kill an innocent guard to save the life
> of an innocent wrongly accused prisonner? If not, would you kill him to
> save 6 lives, or 6 million lives? Name the exact number at which it
> becomes moral to murder an innocent individual.
No, I wouldn't kill an innocent person to save 6,000,000 if
he refused death. A truly innocent person would kill himself.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
You are the single most devious twisted dishonbest person I have ever
encountered, and I mean that literally.
> Given the conditions that killing
> ONE innocent person, to SAVE two innocent people under any
> conditions that presume I am ACTUALLY saving them by killing that
> one innocent person -- there is no question that I would kill that one
> innocent person.
In the first place, you have once again declared your willingness
to commit murder, and you think that makes you a moral person?
Having done so, would you then volantarily submit to the Death
Penalty yourself?
You have of course flip-flopped, as you often do. Earlier in the thread
you said " Under no circumstances can an individual murder to prevent
a legal act, regardless of that act, because of his personal beliefs or even
factual knowledge" Now you say " there is no question that I would kill
that
one innocent person. "
Its always amusing when you do this. Next you'll start claiming that you
have
"won," which is invariably hilarious.
> It doesn't need to be a prison guard or any
> CONTRIVED scenario. It is simply that I would kill one innnocent
> person to save the lives of two or more innocent people. I would, of
course,
> NOT 'kill one to save one.' There must be a subjective moral belief
> on my part that my killing will serve a GREATER purpose than my
> not killing.
But essentially, if Desmond's original question had been that
you could save the life of TWO wrongly accused innocents by
breaking them out of prison, this involving the death of ONE guard,
then you would have found that acceptable?
> Your contrived example just left too many loopholes. So I hope I
> am clear here.
>
> > [rest of PV's excessively long and extemely feeble excuse for being
> > unable to answer the question snipped]
> >
> Actually, my son -- What you clipped is the question that I believe
> you find yourself unable to answer. So again --
What I clipped was a load of waffle where you first tried to
justify dodging a question you didn't want to answer, then tried
to draw attention away from it by ressurecting a months-old
debate that you had already lost.
> Society has placed 786 proven murderers on a track, having
> convicted them of murder and sentenced them to execution.
> And there is one innocent victim on another track.
>
> The execution of those convicted murderers will be done by a
> trolley riding toward them on that track. YOU can switch that
> trolley to the track that will kill the one innocent. Thus
> preventing the execution of those 786 proven murderers.
> In effect, 'abolishing' the DP for them.
As usual, you change the premises of the trolley problem in your
feeble attempts to argue that the Law has got it wrong. You have
reversed the meaning of 'switch' and 'do not switch.' You claim that
am going for the 'switch' option when plainly I am going for the 'do not
switch' option.
In the trolley problem, as stated in the legal article, 5 people
are in danger of death from an accident. You can prevent that
accident by deliberately murdering one innocent individual.
Do nothing ( do not switch) - 5 people die
Kill someone (switch) - 1 person dies.
The Law says that it is legally wrong to kill that one person.
There are actual historical precedents listed where people
who killed one to save many were put in prison or sentenced
to death. The Law has it right, in my opinion.
According to the Law, the Do nothing option is the only
legally valid choice, and in my opinion the only morally
acceptable one.
In your analogy, which you try to twist to fit the trolley problem,
you forsee the possibility that ONE person might be murdered.
It is possible to prevent that murder, and save one life by killing
786 other human beings.
Do nothing (do not switch) - 1 person dies.
Kill someone (switch) - 786 people die.
Once again, the do nothing option is the only one that makes
sense.
> Or you can do nothing, and the 786 proven murderers will
> be executed by the trolley. And the one innocent will not
> be killed. Would you switch?
>
> This question arose from your words that "killing 786 people
> to save one is an obvious absurdity" Thus, seeming to
> say 'you would switch.'
no, that says that I would NOT switch, as I have said from
the beginning.
> And the presumption that not killing all those 786 PROVEN
> MURDERERS would result in at least one of them committing
> a new murder of an innocent (an almost absurdly low
> recidivist rate that we KNOW is much greater).
>
> Now, for some time prior to this, I believe you have said you
> would 'never switch.' So I'm unsure what you WOULD do.
> Can you confirm if you would switch or not?
I would not switch.
>
> 1) Switch -- Save 786 - kill 1.
> 2) Do not switch - allow society in the form of the trolley to execute 786
> proven murderers.
Wrong. its
1) Switch - Kill 786, save 1
2) Do not switch, allow 1 person to die.
> I do believe this might test your theory.
No. I have always said that I would not kill 1 person to save 5,
neither would I kill 786 people to save 1. This is totally consisent
with what I have said from the beginning, while you flip-flop back and
forth all over the place.
Peter Morris
Me neither. Thank you.
> A truly innocent person would kill himself.
I don't quite follow the logic of that.
yours_most_truly
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> >
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote:
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Desmond Coughlan" wrote:
> > > > > > > > Roger Coleman is about to be executed. You know that he is
> > > innocent,
> > > > > > > > but no one believes you. You saw the real murderer 'do the
> deed'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You have the choice of allowing him to be executed, or freeing
> him
> > > > > > > > by force, the latter option necessarily involving the death of
> > > > > > > > a prison guard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you do ?
> > > > > > > Under no circumstances would I use 'lethal' force
> > > Answer the question. Would you kill an innocent guard to save the life
> > > of an innocent wrongly accused prisonner? If not, would you kill him to
> > > save 6 lives, or 6 million lives? Name the exact number at which it
> > > becomes moral to murder an innocent individual.
> > >
Enough of this. Dirtdog, please provide the facts and procedural
history of Regina v. Dudley & Moore. To the extent that any
philosophy, law, or ethic is disconnected to the human condition, it
is irrelevant. Demons and angels never have moral dilemmas, only
humans do. The Dudley case is a rather famous example of that.
Binary thinkers, run for cover!
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
No, I agree it wasn't a logical follow on from your
question. Its just that a truly innocent person would
be pleased to sacrifice his life for the sake of many
others.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:d0Yk9.2803$sh4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
I do agree, that if 'I' were that innocent, there is no doubt that I
would kill myself instead of allowing that larger number of
innocents to die. But, of course, Peter would hope to insult
me with my answer... by calling me a too much of a 'coward,'
to make such a choice.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
image with which we have become so familiar.
> > Given the conditions that killing
> > ONE innocent person, to SAVE two innocent people under any
> > conditions that presume I am ACTUALLY saving them by killing that
> > one innocent person -- there is no question that I would kill that one
> > innocent person.
>
> In the first place, you have once again declared your willingness
> to commit murder, and you think that makes you a moral person?
> Having done so, would you then volantarily submit to the Death
> Penalty yourself?
>
If I felt it wasn't murder... and I would not, under the hypothetical
conditions of necessarily taking the life of one innocent to SAVE the
lives of two innocents, feel that it was murder...why would I hold
up my hand, and admit to a crime (supposedly murder) I did not
believe I committed --?? Regardless of any 'legal' spin you might
put on it (you did speak of a 'moral person' above), I would plead not
guilty in any case of being tried by society. Why would I 'volatarily' (sic)
submit to the death penalty for myself, if I felt that my action was
morally justified? That would be an ADMISSION that what I did
was immoral, and I do not believe it to be so.
Now, the question, sport... has been asked and answered.
No matter how you'd like to wiggle out of that fact.
In any case, we know what you would do... no matter the
number of innocents that would be killed. Do nothing, if
even one innocent will be lost. REGARDLESS. So, since
we are entering the realm of the unbelievably imaginary,
let us see exactly how far you would take such a 'moral
principle.'
Presume that a terrorist, is holding an innocent hostage in
front of him, a chokehold to her throat with one hand, and the other
hand on a toggle switch which, if he throws it, will remotely
electronically destroy all of London in a nuclear holocaust. But
you, he, and the hostage are not close enough to London to be
harmed by that blast. You have no legal authority to take
any form of law enforcement privileges, you are simply a
'by-stander' caught up in coming across this situation.
He is standing with that hostage 10 feet in front of you.
In 3 seconds he will throw that switch. You have a high-power
weapon now pointing directly at the hostage, which will practically
vaporize both the hostage and the terrorist, and nothing less,
before he can toggle the switch. But you have only those 3
seconds to react. You know that, given a minute or two, you
could easily disable this terrorist, because he is unarmed.
And you are a karate champion. if you had the time to reach
him. But you do not have that much time. Do you kill the
hostage, in order to kill the terrorist? The problem involves the
theoretical taking of an innocent life to save London. Your choice.
My choice -- BANG.
> You have of course flip-flopped, as you often do. Earlier in the thread
> you said " Under no circumstances can an individual murder to prevent
> a legal act, regardless of that act, because of his personal beliefs or even
> factual knowledge" Now you say " there is no question that I would kill
> that one innocent person. "
>
Actually, one has to believe they ARE committing murder. If
ACTUALLY those 2 innocents were threatened by a REAL
PERSON, rather than society, WHICH IS THAT LEGAL ACT,
there is no question of my response. I would kill that REAL
PERSON to keep THAT PERSON from killing two innocents.
Now.. If you ask would I commit murder to prevent a LEGAL ACT,
that is quite different than asking would I kill an innocent
to SAVE the lives of two innocents. The question is posed
in that manner. Because killing a guard, is NOT killing the
entity who will kill the two innocents... which is society, and
the legal act. He is the instrument.. and the instrument is
what would necessarily need to be killed to 'save' the lives
of the two innocents. So, in the case of an innocent guard,
entrusted with enforcing the LEGAL ACT of execution of two
innocents, there is no question that I would not, because he
is NOT the LEGAL ACT. I cannot KILL the legal act which is the
actual entity that will kill the two innocents. In all other cases,
it becomes AN INDIVIDUAL who will kill two innocents. And
we cannot presume that PERSON to be an innocent. They
are about to kill. The guard can ONLY kill the two innocents
if he is NOT performing a legal act. If he is performing a
legal act...it is the ACT that will kill the two innocents, not
the guard. If the guard were going to kill the two innocents,
OUTSIDE of that legal act, then HE would be trying to kill
them, and I would find it moral to kill him to stop HIS act,
rather than the legal act which would not exist in that case.
he is no longer an innocent, and can certainly be killed to
protect the two innocents. The question actually is --
Would you kill an innocent guard to insure that two innocents
escape the legal consequences of an act of society? Answer --
NO.
Next question - Would you kill an innocent guard to SAVE
two innocents who are about to be killed by him -- Answer - YES.
Now - look at the original question -- and how you distorted that
question - and how I've tried to stay 'on-track.' The original
question did not contain the word 'save.' Nor did my original
answer. There is no question we cannot SAVE an innocent
from an act of society. Society grinds on. You then admitted that
you would "vary the queston (sic) just a little." You put that in..
and I then answered YOUR question in THAT respect. We cannot
'SAVE' innocents from being executed by killing an innocent
guard. We can ONLY help them escape, possibly (probably)
to be recaptured and executed. The original question was
'freeing him by force,' implying 'escape,' nothing about SAVE him.
I would not do so, to escape a legal act, which will not actually
SAVE him. You will even see that I capitalized 'SAVE' in my reply
to you, while omitting it completely in my reply to the original
question.
In point of fact, the very moment you posted the original question
again, and changed it to imply SAVE, I called you on it. 'Freeing
him by force,' is NOT SAVING HIM.
> Its always amusing when you do this. Next you'll start claiming that you
> have
> "won," which is invariably hilarious.
>
la de da... Actually, it appears that YOU are the one making a
presumption of 'having won.' In point of fact, the original question
and your 'rewrite' are not the same. And you admit as much.
If you ask two questions, with dissimilar circumstances, it is
obvious that you might not receive the answer you would hope
for, in trying to 'trip up' the person answering.
> > It doesn't need to be a prison guard or any
> > CONTRIVED scenario. It is simply that I would kill one innnocent
> > person to save the lives of two or more innocent people. I would, of
> course,
> > NOT 'kill one to save one.' There must be a subjective moral belief
> > on my part that my killing will serve a GREATER purpose than my
> > not killing.
>
> But essentially, if Desmond's original question had been that
> you could save the life of TWO wrongly accused innocents by
> breaking them out of prison, this involving the death of ONE guard,
> then you would have found that acceptable?
>
Not at all. We CANNOT 'save the life' of someone set under the
law. We can only help them 'escape,' possibly (probably) to
be recaptured. Killing the innocent guard, will certainly not
change the law.
>
> > Your contrived example just left too many loopholes. So I hope I
> > am clear here.
> >
> > > [rest of PV's excessively long and extemely feeble excuse for being
> > > unable to answer the question snipped]
> > >
> > Actually, my son -- What you clipped is the question that I believe
> > you find yourself unable to answer. So again --
>
> What I clipped was a load of waffle where you first tried to
> justify dodging a question you didn't want to answer, then tried
> to draw attention away from it by ressurecting a months-old
> debate that you had already lost.
>
Ah, yes.... your typical build-up to avoid answering the question.
Actually, you NEVER answered that question, except in the
most meaningless of terms. Quite definitely. I suspect you
will simply do so again.
> > Society has placed 786 proven murderers on a track, having
> > convicted them of murder and sentenced them to execution.
> > And there is one innocent victim on another track.
> >
> > The execution of those convicted murderers will be done by a
> > trolley riding toward them on that track. YOU can switch that
> > trolley to the track that will kill the one innocent. Thus
> > preventing the execution of those 786 proven murderers.
> > In effect, 'abolishing' the DP for them.
>
> As usual, you change the premises of the trolley problem in your
> feeble attempts to argue that the Law has got it wrong. You have
> reversed the meaning of 'switch' and 'do not switch.' You claim that
> am going for the 'switch' option when plainly I am going for the 'do not
> switch' option.
>
I'm not 'telling' you which way to go. I am simply setting the
scenario for YOUR choice. So you presume you will not switch,
and will allow the executions of those society has placed on the
execution track. Fine. But that rather flies in the face of your
statement that -- "killing 786 people to save one is an obvious
absurdity" This was, of course, the original argument regarding
not executing 786 proven murderers, even if we accepted that
not doing so would result in one of them murdering a new
innocent. You cannot 'choose' who is on one track and who
is on the other. The problem assumes that society has made
that choice for you. With no action on your part those 786
proven murderers will be executed by that 'trolley of the DP
law.' As an abolitionist..you can only prevent those executions
by 'switching the view' of society to save those 786. But in
that process that one innocent will end up being murdered.
> In the trolley problem, as stated in the legal article, 5 people
> are in danger of death from an accident. You can prevent that
> accident by deliberately murdering one innocent individual.
>
la de da. Trolley problem or no trolley problem. Society decides
to execute 786 proven murderers. You can prevent them from
being executed by 'forcing society' (throwing the switch so to
speak) to abolition of the DP for those 786. In that process
(throwing that switch), one of those 786 will eventually murder
a new innocent. Doing NOTHING is the same as 'not throwing
the switch' because society IS that 'trolley of the DP' that has
begun rolling down that track. You can ONLY do nothing and
those 786 will be executed, or do something and they will not
be executed, but one of them will murder a new innocent.
So, if your conditions are that you would not switch... then
it appears it is not such an absurdity at all in your view that
"killing 786 people to save one is an obvious absurdity"
> Do nothing ( do not switch) - 5 people die
> Kill someone (switch) - 1 person dies.
>
Notice how you've not so subtly changed the wording. Which
should be --
Do nothing (do not switch) 786 proven murderers are executed.
Do something (switch) - 1 person is murdered by those 786.
Not that I disagree with your conclusion to do nothing. It
totally agrees with MY principle in this case. Because
we 'save' no INNOCENT. They are all guilty. That was our
presumption, as we had eliminated a certain number of
those found guilty, presuming we are only left with the
TRUE guilty. It's just that it seems to disagree with your
words that "killing 786 people to save one is an obvious absurdity"
You seem to wish to set who is on what track, to suit your
answer. Consider the problem as it was originally posed,
and don't try to 'switch the tracks' of your argument. We
have 786 TRUE murderers society has placed on a track,
and the 'DP trolley' is coming down that track. If we do not
switch (do nothing) Society will execute them all. If we switch
they will all not be executed (apparently the choice of
abolitionists), but will go on to murder a new innocent.
Switch or not switch.. your choice. I will certainly answer.
We do not switch in this case. Because we are not dealing
with innocents on the unswitch track. Others may come to
different conclusions. But that is the ACTUAL question, as
posed.
> The Law says that it is legally wrong to kill that one person.
> There are actual historical precedents listed where people
> who killed one to save many were put in prison or sentenced
> to death. The Law has it right, in my opinion.
>
la de da. Peter 'The master of obfuscation' Morris... at work again.
> According to the Law, the Do nothing option is the only
> legally valid choice, and in my opinion the only morally
> acceptable one.
>
No question about it. The legally valid choice is what the
DP provides for. And it is the 'do nothing' choice. In this case,
it means doing nothing, and we will legally execute 786 true
murderers under the legally valid DP. Nor are we dealing with
innocents on BOTH tracks, but the true murderers on one track
and the innocent on the other who will be murdered if we do not
execute those 786 true murderers. Understand I'm just trying
to find out where you're coming from, Peter. It's foolish to say
'Do nothing' and expect that different results can be obtained.
It's clearly hiding your head in the sand. If you 'do nothing'
the DP will proceed... because the DP IS 'according to the law,'
in respect to the group we are examining. They are not
786 innocent passersby, but the true murderers who WILL
be executed if you 'do nothing.'
> In your analogy, which you try to twist to fit the trolley problem,
> you forsee the possibility that ONE person might be murdered.
> It is possible to prevent that murder, and save one life by killing
> 786 other human beings.
>
I think we original agreed on that. Since you said that even if
it were the case -- "killing 786 people to save one is an obvious absurdity."
Is it no longer an absurdity to you? Of course, if so, then we are in
agreement with this particular problem.
> Do nothing (do not switch) - 1 person dies.
> Kill someone (switch) - 786 people die.
>
Actually, that's NOT the problem. Do NOTHING and 786 people
are executed. That's very clear... because SOCIETY has placed them
on the track that you must change if that is not to happen.
And you call me, as having provided a "contrived example"???
We are not examining a condition of establishing a DP by
switching. We are examining a condition of the DP ALREADY
established, and the consequences of abolishing that condition.
The group we are examining are those to be executed, and
only an action can prevent that. Because society is determined
to execute them. I mean that IS the 'group' we are looking at.
Those TO BE executed. The 786 that the U.S. DID execute.
The problem, clearly is
Do nothing -- society executes 786 proven murderers.
Do something (thereby preventing those executions) -- 1 innocent
is murdered..
Those were the conditions in your "killing 786 people to save one
is an obvious absurdity."
> Once again, the do nothing option is the only one that makes
> sense.
>
I agree... except you have stated the problem incorrectly. If
you do nothing... it's obvious that society WILL execute those
786 proven murderers. If you do something, one innocent will
be MURDERED.
>
> > Or you can do nothing, and the 786 proven murderers will
> > be executed by the trolley. And the one innocent will not
> > be killed. Would you switch?
> >
> > This question arose from your words that "killing 786 people
> > to save one is an obvious absurdity" Thus, seeming to
> > say 'you would switch.'
>
> no, that says that I would NOT switch, as I have said from
> the beginning.
>
Well, if you DO NOT switch it cannot be seen as such an
'absurdity' to you then. Since 786 true murderers WILL be
executed. Not that I disagree with not switching in this case, since
we are no longer weighing innocents against innocents. It's
just that your comment seems to be hypocritical, since you
call it an 'absurdity,' yet you've chosen it as well. Do nothing.
Society will execute 786 true murderers. Those ARE the
conditions we discussed. Thus the victim they would have
murdered had they not been executed would be spared.
Seems like the trolley problem, with simply different numbers
on the respective tracks, and the change of those on the
unswitch track from innocents to proven guilty murderers.
Look, Peter. Put it this way, for your conclusive answer.
The U.S. will execute 786 TRUE murderers. Only YOU
can change that. You can stop every one of those executions.
With that SWITCH. But the CONSEQUENCES of you doing so,
means that one of them will murder a new innocent. So..
do you switch or not? Is it still "killing 786 people to save one
is an obvious absurdity"? If you still think so, I can only see
you saying -- switch. Otherwise, you have accepted what
you call an absurdity. Apparently your 'trolley problem' has
been reduced to an 'absurdity.'
> > And the presumption that not killing all those 786 PROVEN
> > MURDERERS would result in at least one of them committing
> > a new murder of an innocent (an almost absurdly low
> > recidivist rate that we KNOW is much greater).
> >
> > Now, for some time prior to this, I believe you have said you
> > would 'never switch.' So I'm unsure what you WOULD do.
> > Can you confirm if you would switch or not?
>
> I would not switch.
>
Neither would I. Those 786 were true murderers, and are not worth
the life of one new innocent.
> >
> > 1) Switch -- Save 786 - kill 1.
> > 2) Do not switch - allow society in the form of the trolley to execute 786
> > proven murderers.
>
> Wrong. its
>
> 1) Switch - Kill 786, save 1
> 2) Do not switch, allow 1 person to die.
>
Wrong, Peter. And you know it. Those 786 can only be
SPARED by you. Society has already PLACED them on the
unswitch track, and without your intervention, they WILL be
executed. You cannot presume switching will ''kill them,'
because they are going to be killed if you do NOTHING.
Society has already determined that. Only with your
intervention will they all be spared, but will go on to murder
another innocent, or two or three or how many. Why would
you try to change the parameters of the problem.. unless
you were trying to be 'devious'? Since we are speaking of
those true murderers in a system which has placed them
on that 'track to execution.' You cannot simply dream up
some fantastic voyage to presume we are suddenly talking
about a group that is NOT to be execute, and by switching
you WILL execute them. We are talking about a group
that WILL be executed, and by switching they will not..
> > I do believe this might test your theory.
>
> No. I have always said that I would not kill 1 person to save 5,
> neither would I kill 786 people to save 1. This is totally consisent
> with what I have said from the beginning, while you flip-flop back and
> forth all over the place.
I was right.. At the beginning I said -- "Actually, you NEVER answered
that question, except in the most meaningless of terms. Quite
definitely. I suspect you will simply do so again."
And true to form... you came through for me again. Nice talking
to you.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:11Yk9.2805$sh4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> I think you should answer Peter's amended question.
>
The original question was posed in a form which would have admitted
that killing a guard, would have only killed someone carrying out the
legal act. One cannot 'kill' the legal act. It is an absurd concept
I felt Peter's question was posed more in the form of would I choose
to kill one or have two killed by that one... a much more direct meaning
of an individual act.
Question 1 -- Would you kill an innocent guard to insure that two innocents
escape the legal consequences of an act of society? Answer --NO.
Question 2 - Would you kill an innocent guard to SAVE two innocents
who are about to be killed by him -- Answer - YES.
What would you choose?
PV
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:27:53 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:19:01 +0100, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com> a
>écrit :
>
>> I think you should answer Peter's amended question.
>
>Don't forget to get his thoughts on the India - Kashmir crisis, and
>what he thinks about global warming.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cide
ra!newsfeeder.inwind.it!inwind.it!nntp.infostrada.it!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:27:53 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 12
>Message-ID: <slrnap8n6p.sh3.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><amqo98$d4d$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3opk9.2976$O8.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an0e90$mum$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><11Yk9.2805$sh4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1033133467 9869434 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:51:57 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:48:59 GMT, Mr Q. Z. Diablo
><jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> a écrit :
>
>>> But of course you don't. How could you possibly like me after the way
>>> I have exposed your blatant dishonesty; your almost non-existent
>>> debating skills; your laziness, which you try to conceal behind very
>>> long but very meaningless posts which, to a casual observer, could be
>>> mistaken for the work of a someone who takes the trouble to research a
>>> subject properly; your emotional insecurity which is the only possible
>>> explanation for why you, having no real interest in a certain topic of
>>> debate, nevertheless went trawling through usenet archives hoping (in
>>> vain) to find material that might in some way discredit the person
>>> (me) who had offered you a challenge you could not meet, rather than
>>> simply admit that was so; and of course your ultimate frustration at
>>> all the above, and more, being laid bare, which can now be seen in
>>> your multiple posting of spam in response to every post that threatens
>>> to embarrass you even further?
>
>> Fuck me, JPB! Even by my _own_ high standards that sentence is a
>> sodding _monster_!
>>
>> I'm not even going to _attempt_ to parse the bugger.
>
>The semicolons make it quite acceptable; to my eye, at any rate.
>
>Fucking illiterate colony boy ... ;-)
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:51:57 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 31
>Message-ID: <slrnap8ojt.sh3.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><buIi9.1468$VS3.87476@newsfep2-gui>
><slrnaoml6l.1jmr....@lievre.voute.net>
><9YIi9.5350$405.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>
><slrnaompr2.1jp3....@lievre.voute.net>
><JfRi9.6190$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.0209...@posting.google.com>
><a0Uj9.26217$R8.9...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02092...@posting.google.com>
><dUxk9.4181$O8.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><21b1da28.02092...@posting.google.com>
><jonathan-E28281...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1033134967 8353248 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:50:31 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:41:39 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> But essentially, if Desmond's original question had been that
>> you could save the life of TWO wrongly accused innocents by
>> breaking them out of prison, this involving the death of ONE guard,
>> then you would have found that acceptable?
>
>{ snip }
>
>My original question was (naturally) very interesting, as whilst one
>cannot say that it separates the men from the boys, or even the wheat
>from the chaff, it certainly separates the principled abolitionist
>from the pragmatic (or 'selective', as I termed it in one of my earliest
>and best 'nose tweaks' directed at the Poster Formerly Known as PV)
>'abolitionist'.
>
>The pragmatic 'abolitionist' has it easiest, as he is not opposed to the
>death penalty _per se_, but to its use (mainly) against the innocent.
>Thus he can wash his hands of the killing, sit back and engage in
>'armchair debate' about whether it was right or wrong, contenting
>himself with a simple, 'It's legal'. One can only speculate as to
>whether such 'abolitionists' would have accepted that the world not
>intervene to stop the slaughter of the Jews, as this was 'legal';
>or the gassing of the Kurds, as this too was 'legal'. Plainly, 'legal'
>is not enough.
>
>Things are more difficult for the principled abolitionist, of which I
>am one. I am opposed to any and all executions, wholly irrespective
>of whether the condemned is guilty or innocent. Thus we must ask
>ourselves at what point an execution becomes 'stoppable', and whether
>we can morally justify direct intervention, which may even result in
>death to the persons seeking to carry out the execution.
>
>A principled abolitionist considers an execution to be a legal
>murder, the word 'murder' conveying the 'unjustness' of the death
>penalty. Would you intervene to stop a murder ? Of course you
>would.
>
>There is a third 'angle' which says that the execution of the innocent
>is unlawful, as the law on capital murder, only allows the execution
>of the guilty. Putting an innocent person to death, therefore, is
>murder, both morally, and legally.
>
>To be continued ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!
fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:50:31 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 52
>Message-ID: <slrnap9a3n.tiu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><amqo98$d4d$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3opk9.2976$O8.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an0e90$mum$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1033152824 11216485 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:41:39 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > you could save the life of TWO wrongly accused innocents by
> > breaking them out of prison, this involving the death of ONE guard,
> > then you would have found that acceptable?
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:43:06 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
>
> > Oh please, God... break the fucking mold.
>
>
You probably mean IPTYM... In addition to the 'T' being quite uncommon
in any of your posts.
Now, for your edification (look it up), one might say of you..that you are a
mouldy fruitcake. However, my meaning is 'mold' in the sense of
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=mold
mold n.
1. A hollow form or matrix for shaping a fluid or plastic substance.
2. A frame or model around or on which something is formed or shaped.
3. Something that is made in or shaped on a mold.
4. The shape or pattern of a mold.
5. General shape or form: the oval mold of her face.
6. Distinctive character or type: a leader in the mold of her predecessors.
7. A fixed or restrictive pattern or form: a method of scientific investigation
that broke the mold and led to a new discovery..
It is only you who insists on the OED.. and even then only when
it suits your purpose. You should understand that
1) I am not responsible to the OED
2) You are.
3) That provides me a great advantage to often spank you
4) Thus, you need to stop this, because you're only making yourself
look more silly than you already are.
5) Did I mention my advantage to often spank you???
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:31:15 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:43:06 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> To be continued ...
>
>> Oh please, God... break the fucking mold.
>
>ITYM 'mould'.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.stealth.net!news.ste
alth.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.rwt
h-aachen.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:31:15 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 15
>Message-ID: <slrnapb4o3.12dd....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><amqo98$d4d$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3opk9.2976$O8.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an0e90$mum$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><slrnap9a3n.tiu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><_G8l9.14694$g73.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1033212810 11254620 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:43:49 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 28 Sep 2002 19:05:35 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> Now, for your edification (look it up), one might say of you..that you are
>a
>> mouldy fruitcake. However, my meaning is 'mold' in the sense of
>> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=mold
>>
>> mold n.
>
>{ snip }
>
> 'mold [...] US variant of "mould"'
>
>... i.e. incorrect.
>
>{ snip various variations of 'I won ! I won ! Nyar ! Nyar !' }
>
>> 5) Did I mention my advantage to often spank you???
>
>You might have done, yeah. Did I mention that hardly anyone even
>reads your posts anymore ? Oh, and guess 'who' (sic) you can thank
>for that ...
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:43:49 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 29
>Message-ID: <slrnapcc55.13dm....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><amqo98$d4d$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3opk9.2976$O8.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an0e90$mum$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><slrnap9a3n.tiu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><_G8l9.14694$g73.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnapb4o3.12dd....@lievre.voute.net>
><34nl9.18303$g73.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1033253091 11957366 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sat, 28 Sep 2002 19:05:35 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > mouldy fruitcake. However, my meaning is 'mold' in the sense of
> > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=mold
> >
> > mold n.
>
>
> 'mold [...] US variant of "mould"'
>
> ... i.e. incorrect.
>
Not as long as I'm US. But that's pedantic post #3 today.
> { snip various variations of 'I won ! I won ! Nyar ! Nyar !' }
>
Just a plain old 'I won' is sufficient for me... you haven't been doing
too good in the 'win' department lately.
> > 5) Did I mention my advantage to often spank you???
>
> You might have done, yeah. Did I mention that hardly anyone even
> reads your posts anymore ? Oh, and guess 'who' (sic) you can thank
> for that ...
Gee... two times in one post.. Pedantic post #4. It's truly
unfortunate that you know nothing else about anything.
But, I've never been concerned about an 'audience.' As long
as I can spank you... and know I've done it.. that's good enough
for me. You're the one who needs to play Shakespeare to the audience.
I believe someone even mentioned that a few days back. You
certainly have the ego of an actor as well. And the breeding...
arrogant, sour, pompous, ceremonial, pious, lecherous and egomaniacal.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> >
> > In the first place, you have once again declared your willingness
> > to commit murder, and you think that makes you a moral person?
> > Having done so, would you then volantarily submit to the Death
> > Penalty yourself?
> >
>
> If I felt it wasn't murder... and I would not, under the hypothetical
> conditions of necessarily taking the life of one innocent to SAVE the
> lives of two innocents, feel that it was murder...
What a shame the Law disagrees with you.
> why would I hold
> up my hand, and admit to a crime (supposedly murder) I did not
> believe I committed --?? Regardless of any 'legal' spin you might
> put on it (you did speak of a 'moral person' above), I would plead not
> guilty in any case of being tried by society. Why would I 'volatarily'
(sic)
a spelling flame, the last refuge of the completely desperate.
> submit to the death penalty for myself, if I felt that my action was
> morally justified? That would be an ADMISSION that what I did
> was immoral, and I do not believe it to be so.
So, you don't think murder is immoral if you think it's morally
justified by your standards. Then, sir, you are a psycopath.
Please seek help immediately
> Now, the question, sport... has been asked and answered.
> No matter how you'd like to wiggle out of that fact.
Yes, you would willingly commit murder, then scream all the
way to the electric chair that you are innocent.
> In any case, we know what you would do... no matter the
> number of innocents that would be killed. Do nothing, if
> even one innocent will be lost.
As usual, you change what I say, then attack an altered
version of it. What I say is that I personally refuse to murder an
innocent individual. This is a million miles from "do nothing if
even one innocent will be lost" as you know well. But
lies and dishonesty are your speciality.
> REGARDLESS. So, since
> we are entering the realm of the unbelievably imaginary,
> let us see exactly how far you would take such a 'moral
> principle.'
It wasn't my moral principle in the first place, just your
twisted lying version of what I said.
> Presume that a terrorist, is holding an innocent hostage in
> front of him, a chokehold to her throat with one hand, and the other
> hand on a toggle switch which, if he throws it, will remotely
> electronically destroy all of London in a nuclear holocaust. But
> you, he, and the hostage are not close enough to London to be
> harmed by that blast. You have no legal authority to take
> any form of law enforcement privileges, you are simply a
> 'by-stander' caught up in coming across this situation.
> He is standing with that hostage 10 feet in front of you.
> In 3 seconds he will throw that switch. You have a high-power
> weapon now pointing directly at the hostage, which will practically
> vaporize both the hostage and the terrorist, and nothing less,
> before he can toggle the switch. But you have only those 3
> seconds to react. You know that, given a minute or two, you
> could easily disable this terrorist, because he is unarmed.
> And you are a karate champion. if you had the time to reach
> him. But you do not have that much time. Do you kill the
> hostage, in order to kill the terrorist? The problem involves the
> theoretical taking of an innocent life to save London. Your choice.
You keep on trotting out this shit. I answer it. You scream and shout
and pretend that I haven't answered it. Then you ask it again. I give the
same answer. You scream and shout and pretend that I haven't answered.
Then you ask again.
Or otherwise, you invent an answer, which is different from the one I
gave
then scream and shout about it. it It really is pathetic. You have had your
answer to this so many times before, and it is not the one you claim
that I said. How many times must you be told before it sinks in?
But once again I will give the same answer I always do.
What you have described is NOT the trolley problem. It has certain
fundamental and very obvious differences.
Of course, in the scenario you have described, the death of the hostage
is caused by the terrorist. It is the terrorist that has placed her in
danger. The terrorist holds her in the line of fire. Whatever happens to
her is the terrorist's fault, not mine. HE has killed her, not me. This is
very
different from the trolley problem, where YOU and YOU ALONE kill an
innocent person, whose death is entirely YOUR responsibility because YOU
choose to steer a train over him.
Read the original article that I posted. This discusses such situations
at length, with actual legal precedents cited. One such case it cites, a
real historical case, involves a damaged submarine that was taking on
water and rapidly sinking. The captain can seal off the engine room
of the submarine to prevent flooding. If he does so, it will trap some
men in the engine room, and they WILL drown. If he doesn't do so, then
the whole ship will flood and everybody will drown. Should he do so?
Answer - of course he should. The difference is that those men are dead
either way. If you seal the engine room, those men are dead. If you
don't seal the engine room, those men are dead, and so are many
others. This makes a considerable difference.
In the trolley problem, by contrast, If you direct a train to run over
an innocent person, he will die, if you dont direct a train to run over
him then he will live. Big difference.
In your terrorist example, the innocent hostage has already been
placed in a position of considerable danger. In the scenario you describe,
it is highly likely that the hostage will be killed whatever happens. This
places it in the realm of the 'submarine' example, and NOT the trolley
problem. And the answer is obviously the same as in the submarine
example. Shoot the terrorist.
And, by the way, the same thing applies to your other example,
where someone is dying from a disease and will die if he doesn't get
medicine, but the medicine has a tiny chance of killing him quicker
than the disease would have.
You have had that answer a hundread times alrerady. You always
either sream and shout and claim that I haven't an
> My choice -- BANG.
>
> > You have of course flip-flopped, as you often do. Earlier in the thread
> > you said " Under no circumstances can an individual murder to prevent
> > a legal act, regardless of that act, because of his personal beliefs or
even
> > factual knowledge" Now you say " there is no question that I would
kill
> > that one innocent person. "
> >
> Actually, one has to believe they ARE committing murder.
Murder is murder, whether you think so or not.
[repetitious waffle snipped]
> > As usual, you change the premises of the trolley problem in your
> > feeble attempts to argue that the Law has got it wrong. You have
> > reversed the meaning of 'switch' and 'do not switch.' You claim that
> > am going for the 'switch' option when plainly I am going for the 'do
not
> > switch' option.
> >
> I'm not 'telling' you which way to go. I am simply setting the
> scenario for YOUR choice. So you presume you will not switch,
> and will allow the executions of those society has placed on the
> execution track.
NO, the precise opposite. To allow the executions is to switch.
And I would not switch.
[snip thousands of words of PV's waffle in which he repeatedly
claims that not switching is switching and willingly killing 786
people is "doing nothing" ]
> > Do nothing (do not switch) - 1 person dies.
> > Kill someone (switch) - 786 people die.
> >
> Actually, that's NOT the problem. Do NOTHING and 786 people
> are executed. That's very clear..
Please try to understand this. Its a very simple point. Executing 786
people is not a 'do nothing' option. It takes a very deliberate action
to kill 786 people. Killing 786 people is the "deliberately kill someone"
option, not the "do nothing" option. You can claim all you want that
refusing to kill 786 people is "switching" but it just aint so.
Whether its deliberately murder 1 person to save 5 , or legally
execute 786 people to save 1, its the same thing. I oppose it.
There is no contradiction here, much as you are desperate to
claim one.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:11Yk9.2805$sh4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > news:3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > I think you should answer Peter's amended question.
> >
> I think I already did.
Yes, then you changed your answer. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
> The original question was posed in a form which would have admitted
> that killing a guard, would have only killed someone carrying out the
> legal act. One cannot 'kill' the legal act. It is an absurd concept
Nobody but you is talking about 'kill a legal act' The rest of us
are talking about killing a human being.
> I felt Peter's question was posed more in the form of would I choose
> to kill one or have two killed by that one... a much more direct meaning
> of an individual act.
>
> Question 1 -- Would you kill an innocent guard to insure that two
innocents
> escape the legal consequences of an act of society? Answer --NO.
>
> Question 2 - Would you kill an innocent guard to SAVE two innocents
> who are about to be killed by him -- Answer - YES.
flip-flop.;
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
In the first place, it was not posted as an insult to you, but as a logical
answer to a silly point you tried to raise. It is no different to any
other answer to the many ridiculous claims you make.
When you claim a recidivism rate of 6.6%, trying to prove some
point, it is perfectly appropriate to luist facts showing that the figure
has no basis in reality. This was done, not to insult you, but to show
the wrongness in the point you were making.
When you state that there were NO innocents found among the
Furman-commuted prisonners, trying to prove some point, it is perfectly
appropriate to show that you knew damn well that there were. This was
done, not to insult you, but to show the wrongness in the point you were
making.
And when you make a boast of your own willingness to sacrifice your
life, trying to make some point, it is perfectly appropriate to say that you
lack the courage to do that. This was done, not to insult you, but to show
the wrongness in the point you were making.
Here is a simple fact. Your posts display cowardice. You spew forth a
stream of venom and hatred while hiding behind an alias. You lack the
guts to put your name to your posts. That is a cowardly action. You called
Dirtdog a coward for doing it to you. I agree with your assessment. But
I formed the same judgement about you for the same reason.
This is not indended to insult you, rather it's to show a hole in your
logic.
You say << I do agree, that if 'I' were that innocent, there is no doubt
that I
would kill myself instead of allowing that larger number of innocents to
die. >>
You make this claim in an attempt to show that the law books have got it
wrong on the Trolley Problem. I say that there is CONSIDERABLE doubt that
you would do so. I say this, not to insult you, but to show the wrongness
in the point you were making, and in fact the law books have it right.
You made a boast of having a certain noble quality, trying to prove
a point. I state that you lack the quality you boast of, thus defeating your
point. My purpose is to defeat your point, not to insult you. If you feel
insulted anyway, tough luck. You raised the subject of your own
personality,
not me. By doing so, you made any conmments I might make about you
fair game for debate.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<no...@m.please> wrote:
> the trolley problem
It's baaaaaaaaack!
Woohoo!
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
pasdespa...@zeouane.org wrote:
> A principled abolitionist considers an execution to be a legal
> murder
Long bow to draw. I can hear the yew creaking from the Antipodes, I
tell you.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
asc...@zdnetonebox.com (yours_most_truly) wrote:
> Enough of this. Dirtdog, please provide the facts and procedural
> history of Regina v. Dudley & Moore.
Is there a Regina v. Peter & Cook?
Or even a Vagina v. Derek & Clive?
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:24:16 +0000
>
>Le Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:14:33 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> ... i.e. incorrect.
>
>> Not as long as I'm US.
>
>Just as long as you're 'US' what ? Or was that 'US' (sic) meant to
>mean the object pronoun for 'we' ? As in, 'Us [sic] Americans don't
>no [sic] nothin' ...' ?
>
>> But that's pedantic post #3 today.
>
>Ah, another gimmick to attempt to disguise the sound of 'whump-squeal!'
>reverberating around AADP's 'hollowed [sic] halls'. Ho, ho ... your
>problem is that the spankings have been so frequent, that your
>'persecutors' have an almost unlimited supply of little jibes like the
>above, with which to poke you in the ribs. Indeed, one might even
>say that AADP is 'repleat' (sic ... LOL !!) with them. And it really
>drives you _up the wall_ when we remind you of them. One can hear the
>screams from over here in civilisation. LOL ... of course, none of them
>would have the slightest effect, if you hadn't spent so much time and
>effort attempting to appear erudite. You might have got away with it,
>if I hadn't come back onto AADP. Many intelligent abolitionists here,
>but as far as I know, I'm the only linguist here. So your copying and
>pasting words like 'eisoptrophobia' whilst very obviously not being able
>to use plurals, apostrophes, verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs ... the
>alarm bells started ringing, 'Pseudo-intellectual !!'
>
>I love bringing people like you down a peg or two.
>
><fx: contented sigh ...>
>
>It's been a good year ... and I have faith in your ability to give us
>much more 'ammo' in the weeks and months ahead, LDB. One thing: don't
>ever go back to 'school'. You'd be lethal if you ever got a real
>education ... that old joke about brains and explosives ...
>
>>> { snip various variations of 'I won ! I won ! Nyar ! Nyar !' }
>
>> Just a plain old 'I won' is sufficient for me... you haven't been doing
>> too good in the 'win' department lately.
>
>SG ()()Semi()()()(nal ax))))io((((m 6) 'claim victory,'
>
>(damn, where do those brackets go, eh, LDB ? Maybe you can help me
>with that ..... ROTFFLMAO !!!!
>
>>> > 5) Did I mention my advantage to often spank you???
>
>>> You might have done, yeah. Did I mention that hardly anyone even
>>> reads your posts anymore ? Oh, and guess 'who' (sic) you can thank
>>> for that ...
>
>> Gee... two times in one post.. Pedantic post #4. It's truly
>> unfortunate that you know nothing else about anything.
>
>Wow ... that's a 'keeper' (sic) !! 'Two times' ... LOL ... and
>LDB rolls out Gimmick N° 131 ... this is getting almost
>embarrassingly easy to spank you, LDB ...
>
>> But, I've never been concerned about an 'audience.' As long
>> as I can spank you... and know I've done it.. that's good enough
>> for me. You're the one who needs to play Shakespeare to the audience.
>> I believe someone even mentioned that a few days back. You
>> certainly have the ego of an actor as well. And the breeding...
>> arrogant, sour, pompous, ceremonial, pious, lecherous and egomaniacal.
>
>LOL ... a long list of adjectives that LDB copies and pastes from his
>copy of _The OED_ ... so content with having appeared pseudo-intellectual,
>what does he do ? He forgets the noun which the adjectives would
>qualify ... Bwaaaaaahahahaaaa !!!!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212
-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Question For John ...
>Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:24:16 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 79
>Message-ID: <slrnapdl6f.15lh....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnaolniv.1h7i....@lievre.voute.net>
><26Ei9.1416$DR.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><OvNi9.4837$yB5.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><amqo98$d4d$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3opk9.2976$O8.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an0e90$mum$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><slrnap9a3n.tiu.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><_G8l9.14694$g73.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnapb4o3.12dd....@lievre.voute.net>
><34nl9.18303$g73.4...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnapcc55.13dm....@lievre.voute.net>
><Zvzl9.21960$g73.6...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1033295147 11964693 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:an72mq$8lt$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
I've have already provided the official source for that number, in
actual number of those on DR who are recidivist. Are you presuming
we should give them a 'third-chance'? See Table 9 in
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp00.pdf
Number of sentence of death = 3,593
Number of those having prior homicide conviction = 285
> When you state that there were NO innocents found among the
> Furman-commuted prisonners, trying to prove some point, it is perfectly
> appropriate to show that you knew damn well that there were. This was
> done, not to insult you, but to show the wrongness in the point you were
> making.
>
When YOU state that there WERE innocents found among the
Furman-Commuted prisoners, you must be prepared to provide
PROOF of such an assertion. Not that there were not... but a
statement made without some fundamental background has no
meaning. Nebulous statements such as you've made have no
meaning. I've provided NAMES and instances -- PROVEN.. of
those Furman-commuted who DID murder again. I could just
as well say that dozens of OTHERS of those commuted, murdered
again, if I were not required to provide some substance to such
a claim.
> And when you make a boast of your own willingness to sacrifice your
> life, trying to make some point, it is perfectly appropriate to say that you
> lack the courage to do that. This was done, not to insult you, but to show
> the wrongness in the point you were making.
>
No... it's not. It's actually very INAPPROPRIATE. And insulting.
It presumes an insult can form the basis for your argument.
Clearly, would YOU be willing to sacrifice YOUR life in the same
form that your question was posed?
> Here is a simple fact. Your posts display cowardice. You spew forth a
> stream of venom and hatred while hiding behind an alias. You lack the
> guts to put your name to your posts. That is a cowardly action. You called
> Dirtdog a coward for doing it to you. I agree with your assessment. But
> I formed the same judgement about you for the same reason.
>
There we go!!!! I hide my name, so my argument has no validity.
How very stupid of you. And I mean that in the most respectful of terms.
And actually, I know of no instance that I called dirtdog a 'coward.'
As far as can determine he called himself one, and I agreed. Now,
I may have, but hardly in respect to hiding his handle. If you're
going to make such claims, please provide the exact post you're
referring to so we can all decide the context. Again... substance,
please.
> This is not indended to insult you,
LOL... no... calling me a 'coward,' and doing so literally dozens of times,
isn't meant to 'insult' me. Does the word 'hypocrite' spring to mind?
> rather it's to show a hole in your
> logic.
Rather it shows your inability to HANDLE that logic, thus lashing
out in a personal insult.
> You say << I do agree, that if 'I' were that innocent, there is no doubt
> that I
> would kill myself instead of allowing that larger number of innocents to
> die. >>
> You make this claim in an attempt to show that the law books have got it
> wrong on the Trolley Problem.
Ummm. the trolley problem does not LEND itself to the possibility of
'killing myself' to save all parties. The trolley will still go on to kill.
My use of it, was in reference to your miserable little example that
you claimed was the same (it was NOT, simply BECAUSE of the
possibility of sacrificing my own life - which was the POINT of my
using that argument). This was your very first despicable use of that
word to me -- "You are too much of a coward to even answer a question
about your concept of morality, why should I believe you would sacrifice
your life?" And it was in response to your most stupid example of
murder for 'organ harvesting' to save those dying. Where I had responded
with -- "Let me simply say that BEFORE I would kill someone to gain
their organs for anyone, I would volunteer my own, even if it
meant my demise." And you COULDN'T HANDLE that answer.
So you went to the weapon you know best. A vile PERSONAL
insult directed to your antagonist. Quite above any argument
of 'lacking intelligence' in the argument -- instead, to that vile PERSONAL
accusation. One can imagine that your next 'moral step' would
have presumed that my mother provided you oral copulation.
That once was presented as a 'counter-argument' to my postings.
I've realize later that your disgusting use of that word, presuming it is
an 'argument' is not limited only to me. You've directed it to Sharp as
well. Sharp is certainly not afraid to express his views, even on
TV. While you HIDE behind that petty insult, and presume yourself
'moral.'
> I say that there is CONSIDERABLE doubt that
> you would do so. I say this, not to insult you, but to show the wrongness
> in the point you were making, and in fact the law books have it right.
>
That ISN'T what you said, sport. Try being honest here. You directly
ACCUSED me, before another word was placed on paper -- :"You are
too much of a coward..."
> You made a boast of having a certain noble quality, trying to prove
> a point.
Yes, exactly... my expression was meant to show the DIFFERENCE
in a problem you said was the SAME as the trolley problem. Clearly
it WAS NOT. And you couldn't handle that. You further replied on
my having shown this difference -- "There is none. Correctly stated,
the two are exactly the same." But there most certainly IS. The
difference lies in the totally different POSSIBILITIES of a response,
existing in the separate problems. Aside from any PERSONAL
attack. And you lacked the fiber to admit it. So, what does that make
YOU?
> I state that you lack the quality you boast of, thus defeating your
> point.
You can state whatever you wish... that's Usenet. But understand
that YOU are responsible for what YOU say, not me. And understand
that your ARGUMENT was flawed. And understand you made a
PERSONAL attack, presuming that would 'cover up' that flaw.
> My purpose is to defeat your point, not to insult you.
Actually, when looking above, you will see just the opposite. Your
purpose WAS to insult me, because you COULD NOT defeat my point.
The problems were different... and you couldn't handle that. Are
you trying to say that my point that the problems were different
was FLAWED? Hardly. One cannot 'sacrifice' himself in the
trolley problem. While that was a distinct possibility in your
silly and contrived 'organ donor' problem. Trolley problem -- cannot
sacrifice. Silly contrived 'Organ donor' problem -- can sacrifice.
If you feel
> insulted anyway, tough luck. You raised the subject of your own
> personality,
> not me. By doing so, you made any conmments I might make about you
> fair game for debate.
>
Well, that just shows that your 'moral values,' aren't that high, if
you feel ANY comment you might make about me is 'fair game'
to the debate. Why then did you state that you despised dirtdog
as well? Since he also believes that ANY comment is 'fair game.'
I find that there should be limits to what one poster can say to
another. I make no claim to having never exceed those limits.
I have clearly been goaded into some very rash comments here
in certain instances. But you seem to think you've never done so.
That's your conduct that annoys me. You accuse me of certain
behavior, while in the same breath demonstrate toward me the
exact behavior you claim to deplore. I can well understand why
you claim to 'despise' me... because I keep pointing out that
behavior of yours.
Clearly when I've FIRST been called a 'coward,' there is a perception
to me that the one DOING so, is the actual 'coward,' since they
are calling a 'faceless,' 'nameless' voice, expressing an opinion to be
'cowardly' for doing so. With the obvious fact that they are unable
to deal LOGICALLY with that 'faceless,' 'nameless' voice, and so
must call IT a 'coward.' Not him.. not her... but _IT_, a coward.
You might as well call a chair that you stumble over, a 'coward'
for being there. It appears to this _IT_,' that you certainly need
to reexamine your own 'moral compass.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:an705s$4ni$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:ZS4l9.14523$g73.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
>
> > >
> > > In the first place, you have once again declared your willingness
> > > to commit murder, and you think that makes you a moral person?
> > > Having done so, would you then volantarily submit to the Death
> > > Penalty yourself?
> > >
> >
> > If I felt it wasn't murder... and I would not, under the hypothetical
> > conditions of necessarily taking the life of one innocent to SAVE the
> > lives of two innocents, feel that it was murder...
>
> What a shame the Law disagrees with you.
>
> > why would I hold
> > up my hand, and admit to a crime (supposedly murder) I did not
> > believe I committed --?? Regardless of any 'legal' spin you might
> > put on it (you did speak of a 'moral person' above), I would plead not
> > guilty in any case of being tried by society. Why would I 'volatarily'
> (sic)
>
> a spelling flame, the last refuge of the completely desperate.
>
flew into a rage. Consider it simply an accurate quote.
> > submit to the death penalty for myself, if I felt that my action was
> > morally justified? That would be an ADMISSION that what I did
> > was immoral, and I do not believe it to be so.
>
> So, you don't think murder is immoral if you think it's morally
> justified by your standards. Then, sir, you are a psycopath.
> Please seek help immediately
>
in my community, as well. And that's why I 'hide' my identity.
You're a fruitcake... plain and simple.
Nor do I for one instant, believe that you are qualified to decide
what 'murder' is. You constantly put your own particular spin
on it. When someone else does it, it is... but when you find
it necessary in your 'argument,' it's suddenly a moral prerogative.
I believe you once argued that the DP itself is murder. I believe
your words were /quote/ 'abortion is murder' and 'the death penalty is
murder' are in common usage, and recognised as legitimate
by the dictionary./unquote/ Arguing it is so, because both cats
and tables have four legs!!!! ho ho ho. Thus you are hardly in a
position to define what murder is, if you find it to be abortion or the
death penalty.
> > Now, the question, sport... has been asked and answered.
> > No matter how you'd like to wiggle out of that fact.
>
> Yes, you would willingly commit murder, then scream all the
> way to the electric chair that you are innocent.
Once again, Peter goes into 'emotional overload.' Presuming
that serves as an argument. When of course we all realize it is
desperation instead. You have me confused with your 'buddy'
desi, who has admitted he would crap his drawers on his
screaming way to execution.
>
> > In any case, we know what you would do... no matter the
> > number of innocents that would be killed. Do nothing, if
> > even one innocent will be lost.
>
> As usual, you change what I say, then attack an altered
> version of it. What I say is that I personally refuse to murder an
> innocent individual. This is a million miles from "do nothing if
> even one innocent will be lost" as you know well. But
> lies and dishonesty are your speciality.
>
Ummm... pardon me??? Not switching... IS, of course, doing
nothing.
> > REGARDLESS. So, since
> > we are entering the realm of the unbelievably imaginary,
> > let us see exactly how far you would take such a 'moral
> > principle.'
>
> It wasn't my moral principle in the first place, just your
> twisted lying version of what I said.
>
You really don't know how to keep your end of the argument
up, without making such silly comments, do you? You DID
say, you would NEVER switch, didn't you?
> > Presume that a terrorist, is holding an innocent hostage in
> > front of him, a chokehold to her throat with one hand, and the other
> > hand on a toggle switch which, if he throws it, will remotely
> > electronically destroy all of London in a nuclear holocaust. But
> > you, he, and the hostage are not close enough to London to be
> > harmed by that blast. You have no legal authority to take
> > any form of law enforcement privileges, you are simply a
> > 'by-stander' caught up in coming across this situation.
> > He is standing with that hostage 10 feet in front of you.
> > In 3 seconds he will throw that switch. You have a high-power
> > weapon now pointing directly at the hostage, which will practically
> > vaporize both the hostage and the terrorist, and nothing less,
> > before he can toggle the switch. But you have only those 3
> > seconds to react. You know that, given a minute or two, you
> > could easily disable this terrorist, because he is unarmed.
> > And you are a karate champion. if you had the time to reach
> > him. But you do not have that much time. Do you kill the
> > hostage, in order to kill the terrorist? The problem involves the
> > theoretical taking of an innocent life to save London. Your choice.
>
> You keep on trotting out this shit. I answer it. You scream and shout
> and pretend that I haven't answered it. Then you ask it again. I give the
> same answer. You scream and shout and pretend that I haven't answered.
> Then you ask again.
Leading up to.. a refusal to again answer, or 'duck the question,' by
changing the parameters.
> Or otherwise, you invent an answer, which is different from the one I
> gave
> then scream and shout about it. it It really is pathetic. You have had your
> answer to this so many times before, and it is not the one you claim
> that I said. How many times must you be told before it sinks in?
>
> But once again I will give the same answer I always do.
>
I find that hardly believable... since your answers are as shifting as
the sands.
> What you have described is NOT the trolley problem. It has certain
> fundamental and very obvious differences.
>
Yeah.. it involves the murder of millions weighed against the killing
of an innocent. While the trolley problem involved the killing of 5 innocents
weighed against the killing of one innocent.
> Of course, in the scenario you have described, the death of the hostage
> is caused by the terrorist.
Can you see why I often refer to you as a liar? The death of the hostage
will NOT be caused by the terrorist. I very carefully ELIMINATED that
possibility. You cannot put it in as a parameter, if it is stated as
excluded. Simply to 'avoid' the problem itself. It is a question of TIME
and DISTANCE. Not a threat to the death of the hostage, who is not
'actually' a hostage, but is being used as a 'shield.' The terrorist is
UNARMED, and a wimp physically to boot. Just slightly stronger than
his 'shield.' The 'shield' is his weapon, and only you can disarm him
from THAT 'shield.' Either by killing BOTH the terrorist and the shield,
or physically disarming him with your force (but too late to stop him
from throwing the toggle). Nor are you acting in any 'lawful' capacity.
You can very well allow the terrorist to destroy London, and all three
of your group will SURVIVE. You have NO legal obligation to do
anything. If you 'physically' disarm him...The terrorist will face whatever
justice decides... the 'shield' will walk away unharmed. And you will
not have 'broken any law,' and will be able to bravely say -- 'I didn't kill
anyone.' When in fact, your inaction killed millions. In a 'do not kill
the shield' scenario... NO ONE DIES within the three individuals who
are part of that scenario. If you do NOT kill the 'shield' along with the
terrorist. NO ONE. You have chosen to avoid your answer, with
some absurd claim of a threat to the 'shield.' Why? Because you
now realize that any 'reasonable' person would choose the same,
thus you can no longer hide behind your 'principled abolition,' and
must find another excuse.
In fact, one could pose it as a trolley problem with millions of innocents
on the unswitch track (you do nothing), excluding the three parties to
this scenario who are unaffected in terms of killing. And exactly 1
innocent and 1 guilty on the switch track (you shoot both of them).
Remember... the terrorist is unarmed (except for his 'shield') and
is certainly not a threat to YOUR self-defense. Nor could he possibly
murder his 'shield' (nor is that his intent), before you incapacitated him
and released her. Nor are you in any 'law enforcement' capacity.
WHATEVER you do, will be above the law. You PERSONALLY are
not threatened in any way. In fact, YOU are the ONLY ONE with a
weapon. It is the same as the trolley problem, with the switch
replaced with your weapon, and a terrorist placed along with the
innocent on the switch track, and 5,000,000 innocent humans in
London, placed on the unswitch track.
I have no doubt you will not answer this question as it is posed. Because
you can't, and still appear to make sense of your 'philosophy.'
> It is the terrorist that has placed her in
> danger. The terrorist holds her in the line of fire. Whatever happens to
> her is the terrorist's fault, not mine. HE has killed her, not me. This is
> very
> different from the trolley problem, where YOU and YOU ALONE kill an
> innocent person, whose death is entirely YOUR responsibility because YOU
> choose to steer a train over him.
Ummm... 'who' placed the 'innocent' on the switch trolley track
in the original problem? 'Who' placed THAT innocent in danger?
Why would you now try to wiggle out of this dialog, by questioning
'who'? Are you are now saying that if BOTH an innocent and a
another person restraining that innocent were ON the switched track,
THEN you'd switch? One never knows WHAT you mean. Except
you are rather devious in avoiding the question.
The problem is 'would you' or 'would you not' switch? The
'who' placed the innocent in harm's way, is not part of the argument.
The 'end-result' is the argument. And thus we see the deception
from you. Now... you would murder the hostage. Thank you for
providing that answer. I would do so at well. Murder.. since it
is not a self-defense act on your part (you are far removed from
London), or for the 'shield' (she would probably RATHER if you
did not shoot, or switch), while your act against the terrorist himself,
could be suspect since you are not in a law enforcement capacity,
but an ordinary citizen.
Clearly, you've chosen 'switch.' While before you said 'never switch.'
> Read the original article that I posted. This discusses such situations
> at length, with actual legal precedents cited. One such case it cites, a
> real historical case, involves a damaged submarine that was taking on
> water and rapidly sinking. The captain can seal off the engine room
> of the submarine to prevent flooding. If he does so, it will trap some
> men in the engine room, and they WILL drown. If he doesn't do so, then
> the whole ship will flood and everybody will drown. Should he do so?
> Answer - of course he should. The difference is that those men are dead
> either way. If you seal the engine room, those men are dead. If you
> don't seal the engine room, those men are dead, and so are many
> others. This makes a considerable difference.
>
yada, yada, yada... just another of your miserable attempts to divert
from the argument... much as your --- a doctor looks for organ donor
victims by murdering the next innocent he sees on the street. --
> In the trolley problem, by contrast, If you direct a train to run over
> an innocent person, he will die, if you dont direct a train to run over
> him then he will live. Big difference.
>
If you direct your weapon and fire at the terrorist, the innocent and the
terrorist will die. If you don't direct your weapon and fire at the terrorist,
much of London will be the victim of a nuclear holocaust. NO ONE
ELSE will die.. your call.
> In your terrorist example, the innocent hostage has already been
> placed in a position of considerable danger.
Hello... the innocent on the switch track in the trolley problem is not in
Albuquerque, sitting in a topless bar. He is 'on that track.' He IS part
of the philosophical argument contained in the trolley problem If NO
ONE were on the switch track.. then NO ONE would be in danger if
you switched, and the problem would be moot. He is in a position of
'considerable danger' in respect to the argument. As I've said... suppose
he was being HELD on that switch track? Does that mean you WOULD
switch to kill both him and the person holding him, in original trolley
problem? In fact, the switch itself could be defective, and any action
taken meaningless. While the guy in the topless bar, would be totally
unconcerned about a 'defective switch.' That guy is the only one in 'no
considerable danger.'
> In the scenario you describe,
> it is highly likely that the hostage will be killed whatever happens. This
> places it in the realm of the 'submarine' example, and NOT the trolley
> problem. And the answer is obviously the same as in the submarine
> example. Shoot the terrorist.
>
No.. you're making an 'assumption' outside of the parameters. The 'shield'
is no different than the unswitch innocent in the original problem. They
are BOTH -- part of the problem when we examine it.
> And, by the way, the same thing applies to your other example,
> where someone is dying from a disease and will die if he doesn't get
> medicine, but the medicine has a tiny chance of killing him quicker
> than the disease would have.
>
Oh... horseshit... but we already know that's the only smell you're
familiar with. You keep jumping around, different arguments, different
scenarios, different 'assumptions.' In the end... an inability to face
the reality that you will not answer the question as it is posed. Without
introducing all that rubbish.
> You have had that answer a hundread times alrerady. You always
> either sream and shout and claim that I haven't an
>
Funny.. I have that answer a hundred times.. and guess what? It
changes from answer to answer. It's now changed from 'never switch,'
to 'switch if someone is holding the innocent on the switch track.'
>
> > My choice -- BANG.
> >
> > > You have of course flip-flopped, as you often do. Earlier in the thread
> > > you said " Under no circumstances can an individual murder to prevent
> > > a legal act, regardless of that act, because of his personal beliefs or
> > > even
> > > factual knowledge" Now you say " there is no question that I would
> > > kill
> > > that one innocent person. "
> > >
> > Actually, one has to believe they ARE committing murder.
>
> Murder is murder, whether you think so or not.
Actually that isn't your decision to make. And obviously different from
what you've said before. When you claimed the DP could be seen
as murder (see above).
>
> [repetitious waffle snipped]
>
Sure... we all know what that means.
> > > As usual, you change the premises of the trolley problem in your
> > > feeble attempts to argue that the Law has got it wrong. You have
> > > reversed the meaning of 'switch' and 'do not switch.' You claim that
> > > am going for the 'switch' option when plainly I am going for the 'do
> > > not
> > > switch' option.
> > >
> > I'm not 'telling' you which way to go. I am simply setting the
> > scenario for YOUR choice. So you presume you will not switch,
> > and will allow the executions of those society has placed on the
> > execution track.
>
> NO, the precise opposite. To allow the executions is to switch.
> And I would not switch.
>
Good grief... can you hear yourself? 'To allow the executions is to
switch.'!!!! Who do you think you are? Society??? Only society
can 'allow' an execution. Sport, the group we are examined are
proven murderers who ARE going to be executed... if you do NOTHING.
You CANNOT execute them by switching since YOU are not society.
They have been convicted, sentenced and are on DR. You do not
'allow' that... society does. And did. The only argument is would you
CHANGE what society is now doing. Your implication is that YOU
can execute them by switching... but THAT has already been decided.
The 'set' of the examples we are talking about... those 786 convicted
murderers have been set on that track by SOCIETY, not you. They
are THERE. And you can ONLY stop it (by doing SOMETHING), or
allow it (by doing NOTHING).
> [snip thousands of words of PV's waffle in which he repeatedly
> claims that not switching is switching and willingly killing 786
> people is "doing nothing" ]
>
Of course it is. We were NOT talking about 786 people we picked
up off the street at random. We were talking about 786 convicted
murderers that society had placed in 'harm's way.' We are talking
about 'willingly' providing no objection to society killing 786 proven
murderers. If we do nothing, society (and the trolley) will simply
do what it intends to do.
> > > Do nothing (do not switch) - 1 person dies.
> > > Kill someone (switch) - 786 people die.
> > >
> > Actually, that's NOT the problem. Do NOTHING and 786 people
> > are executed. That's very clear..
>
> Please try to understand this. Its a very simple point. Executing 786
> people is not a 'do nothing' option. It takes a very deliberate action
> to kill 786 people. Killing 786 people is the "deliberately kill someone"
> option, not the "do nothing" option. You can claim all you want that
> refusing to kill 786 people is "switching" but it just aint so.
>
I would ask YOU to understand. The 'deliberate action' has ALREADY
been taken. Just as the 'deliberate action' which examined the trolley
problem of five against one. There was a 'deliberate action' to place
those 5 on one track, and 1 on the other. The placement was EXTERNAL
to any control you might exert. You were only given the CHOICE.
Not the placement. You couldn't avoid THAT argument, by claiming
that 5 were on the switch track and only one was on the unswitch
track as you're now trying to do. In this case, Society has convicted
that SPECIFIC group of people we are talking about. Society has
determined the PLACEMENT, not you. You are NOT SELECTING them
deliberately. Society has already done that. They are going to be
'deliberately executed' by that 'DP trolley,' which you had nothing to
do with. You cannot avoid this argument by hoping to place them on
a track which REQUIRES you to switch. Because you doing NOTHING,
means society WILL execute them. Your only choices are to 'do
nothing' and society will execute them. Or do something, which
prevents their execution, but results in one of them murdering at a
later date. Society is GOING to execute them (that SPECIFIC
group). Only you can prevent it. By SWITCHING. Do nothing...
and society will execute them
> Whether its deliberately murder 1 person to save 5 , or legally
> execute 786 people to save 1, its the same thing. I oppose it.
> There is no contradiction here, much as you are desperate to
> claim one.
>
Taking this out of any wording which uses the trolley problem
or a switch:
Just so we're clear. You oppose the legal execution of 786
proven murderers to save one new innocent. Thus, you have
clearly stated that if society intends to execute those 786,
and you have the power to prevent those executions you would
do so, even if it meant that one new innocent would be murdered
in the future. . Is that your argument? It must be, as you've
said ""killing 786 people to save one is an obvious absurdity"
Actually, I knew it long before this, having looked at some of
your past posts, in the course of this, our most recent
confrontation, to see that your 'moral standards' are quite
a bit lower than even that.
It seems that it's actually only 200 proven murderers that
you would save in a 'trade' for one new innocent murdered.
Quite moral of you. These were your words that demonstrate
what I'm saying -- In a post to Richard you argued --
"Here is the point at which our opinions differ. The 2% figure for
recidivism is frequently quoted on this newsgroup. That means
that "only" 1 in 50 murderers will kill again. This means that in
order to prevent 1 *greater* evil act, you would have to commit
50 *lesser* evil acts. To me, the moral tradeoff does not seem
worthwhile. You will note my use of the word "only" in inverted
commas. I do not consider a 2% recidivism rate to be a low one.
The fact is that the parole system in America is screwed up to
hell and back. It is utterly disgraceful that a proven murderer may
be released after spending only about six years in prison. It seems
to me that by improving the parole system you could serve most
of the functions of the death penalty. Longer prison sentences
would be a better deterrent, more punishment, and better
incapacitation. By lengthening the sentences, I think it reasonable
to suppose that the recidivism rate could be lowered to (say)
0.5%. Or to put it another way, 200 executions to prevent 1
recidivist murder."
So if we could 'get it down' to ONLY 1 new innocent to 'trade'
for saving the totally worthless lives of 200 proven murderers...
YOU'D SWITCH. How very noble of you, in your 'gamble'
with innocent lives.
And now that we 'have it down to 200 to 1,' exactly WHEN
does it 'end being an absurdity'? There MUST be SOME
point you believe it is no longer such an absurdity. So,
let's carry it to a new level. Perhaps we can presume that
even if every second murderer was recidivist, you might
STILL believe it is an 'absurdity.'. Unwilling to even trade 2
proven murderers for 1 new innocent murdered by the 2
that you refused to switch to execute. Since you've claimed
YOU'D NEVER SWITCH. How very noble of you, in your
'gamble' with innocent lives.
But, allow me to make an assumption that you would no longer
believe it an absurdity to trade 2 proven murderers for 1 new
innocent. And if that's the case, then we've narrowed your
'argument' (ho ho ho), down to somewhere between 200 proven
murderers traded for 1 new innocent murder IS an absurdity, but
2 proven murderers traded for 1 new innocent IS NOT an absurdity.
So my question is... now that we've narrowed it down to between
200 to 1 (absurdity) and 2 to 1 (not absurdity), EXACTLY at what
point between those two values does it change from an
absurdity to a non-absurdity of 'trading' new innocent lives
for proven murderer lives in your 'moralistic' view? split the
difference, perhaps -- 100 to 1 it changes? Jesus... I grieve for
mankind.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:an707a$o2r$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:_A7l9.14602$g73.3...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:11Yk9.2805$sh4.1...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > > news:3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > I think you should answer Peter's amended question.
> > >
> > I think I already did.
>
> Yes, then you changed your answer. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
>
about to execute 786 convicted murderers, and you can stop them
by switching, to the presumption that YOU would execute them
if you switch. YOU CANNOT execute them --- In ANY CASE.
Society does that. Presuming that switching will execute them,
presumes that YOU could be the executioner. But you are not.
Society is. Doing nothing they WILL BE EXECUTED. Because
we are speaking of those TO BE executed. You can only 'prevent'
those executions. Society WILL execute, without your intervention.
Society has placed them on the unswitched track... not you. You
are only allowed to 'prevent' those executions, in your role as an
abolitionist, switching what society has already determined it will
do. And by switching to prevent those executions,. accepting that
doing so will result in the murder of a new innocent. How
many ways must I express this before it sinks into your rather
hard skull?
> > The original question was posed in a form which would have admitted
> > that killing a guard, would have only killed someone carrying out the
> > legal act. One cannot 'kill' the legal act. It is an absurd concept
>
> Nobody but you is talking about 'kill a legal act' The rest of us
> are talking about killing a human being.
>
I really don't 'care' what everyone else is talking about. They can't
speak for the way I perceive the two questions. Why is it, that
so many of 'you' rely on the argument of 'THE REST OF US' as
some sort of 'proof' of argumentation? Using that form of logic,
we can presume that 'the rest of us,' if a majority hold to the DP,
are ALSO correct. In point of fact, being the ONLY one who
perceives something in a way different from others who examine
that problem, does not make them WRONG. Quite often, that
view will prevail. Ever see '12 angry men'? NEVER rely on a
'majority' as YOUR ARGUMENT to support your view. ALWAYS,
examine it with YOUR OWN eye. I am always reminded of this
story when someone claims 'the majority' will always make the
correct choice ---- I do not remember the name of the French
Philosopher (desi would probably know), who was imprisoned, in
a time of great turmoil in France... who when visited by another
philosopher (perhaps Diderot visited by Rousseau), and the latter
asked "Why in the world are you in here?" Replied..."In times
such as these, why in the world are you out there?"
In my view, (regardless of your claim to having 'a majority behind
you'), the guard is EITHER the 'legal act,' or he is personally
killing. In the first case, I would not kill the guard, he IS the
LEGAL act, and cannot be killed to change that. In the second
case, I would kill the guard. The second case lends itself to the
trolley problem.. where 'I' am in control of a choice which will not
just 'permit the innocents to escape,' but will SAVE them. While
in the first case it is society that is in control of events.
> > I felt Peter's question was posed more in the form of would I choose
> > to kill one or have two killed by that one... a much more direct meaning
> > of an individual act.
> >
> > Question 1 -- Would you kill an innocent guard to insure that two
> innocents
> > escape the legal consequences of an act of society? Answer --NO.
> >
> > Question 2 - Would you kill an innocent guard to SAVE two innocents
> > who are about to be killed by him -- Answer - YES.
>
> flip-flop.;
>
Not at all.. question 1, supposes that the innocents are THREATENED
by society... the guard is innocent. One cannot 'kill' society to 'help an
innocent escape.' The second question supposes that the GUARD'S
'existence' (even though innocent) is weighed against the 'existence'
of TWO innocents. It divorces itself from him being cast in the role
of society. He is simply 'an innocent' I would find only half as valuable
as 'two innocents,' because I MUST choose INDIVIDUALS. In the first
case I am choosing 'society' v. 'individuals.' And society cannot
be killed. The second is much as the trolley problem, in which I've
already expressed my choice over and over (regardless of YOUR choice).
Switching in the second case, and killing the guard will SAVE the
innocents. The individual existence, not the existence of society, is the one
being weighed in the end result. It places me more in 'control' of the result,
much as the trolley problem. The first is simply an empty action which
will only result in another guard, and another trolley. The second presumes
there IS NO next guard, or another trolley. The first trades the killing
of the guard for NOTHING. Thus is simply a senseless killing. The
second PRESUMES that two innocents will be SAVED...as in the
trolley problem. I put this very clearly in the sense of 'bombing an
abortion clinic.' They will simply REBUILD that clinic. One cannot
destroy SOCIETY'S 'will' with such an act. Look Peter, put both into
the trolley problem. The first will 'kill the innocent guard.' The innocents
will 'escape,' only to possibly be caught again, and certainly now
executed as 'escaped murderers' as well as 'murderers.' Regardless
of their innocence. There is NO SAVE... there is only a possible
'escape' and a more probable recapture and execution anyway. The
second problem presumes that ONLY the guard (not society) stands
in weight against those two innocents. The first problem is an examination
of whether I find two innocent more valuable than society. I do not.
The second problem is an examination of whether I find 2 innocents
more valuable than 1 innocent. And of course I do. Regardless of
whether you do not.
A Planet Visitor
> Le Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:14:33 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
>
> > Not as long as I'm US.
>
> mean the object pronoun for 'we' ? As in, 'Us [sic] Americans don't
> no [sic] nothin' ...' ?
>
I simply responded to what you had posted, which was --
'mold [...] US variant of "mould"'
> > But that's pedantic post #3 today.
>
> Ah, another gimmick to attempt to disguise the sound of 'whump-squeal!'
> reverberating around AADP's 'hollowed [sic] halls'. Ho, ho ... your
> problem is that the spankings have been so frequent, that your
> 'persecutors' have an almost unlimited supply of little jibes like the
> above, with which to poke you in the ribs. Indeed, one might even
> say that AADP is 'repleat' (sic ... LOL !!) with them. And it really
> drives you _up the wall_ when we remind you of them. One can hear the
> screams from over here in civilisation. LOL ... of course, none of them
> would have the slightest effect, if you hadn't spent so much time and
> effort attempting to appear erudite. You might have got away with it,
> if I hadn't come back onto AADP. Many intelligent abolitionists here,
> but as far as I know, I'm the only linguist here. So your copying and
> pasting words like 'eisoptrophobia' whilst very obviously not being able
> to use plurals, apostrophes, verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs ... the
> alarm bells started ringing, 'Pseudo-intellectual !!'
>
Certainly wasting a lot of effort, while actually saying nothing.
> I love bringing people like you down a peg or two.
>
Would that you could.
> <fx: contented sigh ...>
>
> It's been a good year ... and I have faith in your ability to give us
> much more 'ammo' in the weeks and months ahead, LDB. One thing: don't
> ever go back to 'school'. You'd be lethal if you ever got a real
> education ... that old joke about brains and explosives ...
>
> >> { snip various variations of 'I won ! I won ! Nyar ! Nyar !' }
>
> > Just a plain old 'I won' is sufficient for me... you haven't been doing
> > too good in the 'win' department lately.
>
> SG ()()Semi()()()(nal ax))))io((((m 6) 'claim victory,'
>
> (damn, where do those brackets go, eh, LDB ? Maybe you can help me
> with that ..... ROTFFLMAO !!!!
>
> >> > 5) Did I mention my advantage to often spank you???
>
> >> You might have done, yeah. Did I mention that hardly anyone even
> >> reads your posts anymore ? Oh, and guess 'who' (sic) you can thank
> >> for that ...
>
> > Gee... two times in one post.. Pedantic post #4. It's truly
> > unfortunate that you know nothing else about anything.
>
> Wow ... that's a 'keeper' (sic) !! 'Two times' ... LOL ... and
> LDB rolls out Gimmick N° 131 ... this is getting almost
> embarrassingly easy to spank you, LDB ...
>
> > But, I've never been concerned about an 'audience.' As long
> > as I can spank you... and know I've done it.. that's good enough
> > for me. You're the one who needs to play Shakespeare to the audience.
> > I believe someone even mentioned that a few days back. You
> > certainly have the ego of an actor as well. And the breeding...
> > arrogant, sour, pompous, ceremonial, pious, lecherous and egomaniacal.
>
> LOL ... a long list of adjectives that LDB copies and pastes from his
> copy of _The OED_ ... so content with having appeared pseudo-intellectual,
> what does he do ? He forgets the noun which the adjectives would
> qualify ... Bwaaaaaahahahaaaa !!!!!
>
Ah.. there it is.. Grouped together... the first line of defense .. the
pedantic examination of grammatical structure. Ah ha... he
remarks... I've won!!!! And then... the old 'second line of
defense.' Call the other 'pseudo-intellectual,' or cast doubts on his
education. But I knew who Tennyson was, while you seemed
to simply be befuddled. With..'Tennyson?????' Who's that?
Now, don't forget to mention that 'lack of 'something or other.'
While your arguments lack substance. But explain to all the
group what 'cultural openmindedness' (sic) means again. The
rage that overcame you when I connected it to Cajun Voodoo
was positively delicious. Tennyson, anyone??? Calling anyone
who wishes to explain to desi who Tennyson was.
Pedantic post #13??? About that I guess.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> >
> > You keep on trotting out this shit. I answer it. You scream and shout
> > and pretend that I haven't answered it. Then you ask it again. I give
the
> > same answer. You scream and shout and pretend that I haven't answered.
> > Then you ask again.
>
> Leading up to.. a refusal to again answer, or 'duck the question,' by
> changing the parameters.
I have NEVER refused to answer. I have given the same answer
a bazillion times. You screaming that I haven't answered it is a lie.
You may disagree with the answer I have given, that is your
entitlement. But to claim that I haven't answered is a lie, plain
and simple.
> > Or otherwise, you invent an answer, which is different from the one
I
> > gave
> > then scream and shout about it. it It really is pathetic. You have had
your
> > answer to this so many times before, and it is not the one you claim
> > that I said. How many times must you be told before it sinks in?
> >
> > But once again I will give the same answer I always do.
> >
>
> I find that hardly believable... since your answers are as shifting as
> the sands.
I have given the same answer time and time again.
What you have stated is not the same as the trolley problem. There
are fundamental differences between the two. I would shoot the
terrorist, even knowing that the terrorist would throw an innocent
person in front of the bullet. The death of the hostage is entirely the
terrorist's responsiubility, and not my fault.
I have listed legal precedents that clearly show a difference between
the two. You may disagree with the decision of the judges and
juries in these cases, that does not change the fact that they
are written into the law. You may see them as the same, the law
sees them as different.
I agree with the law. Because these cases are legally different,
I can give different answers in these two different cases without
any contradiction.
> > What you have described is NOT the trolley problem. It has certain
> > fundamental and very obvious differences.
> >
> Yeah.. it involves the murder of millions weighed against the killing
> of an innocent. While the trolley problem involved the killing of 5
innocents
> weighed against the killing of one innocent.
>
> > Of course, in the scenario you have described, the death of the hostage
> > is caused by the terrorist.
>
> Can you see why I often refer to you as a liar? The death of the hostage
> will NOT be caused by the terrorist.
Of course it is. How can you justify this absurd statement. When a
terrorist has kidnapped a hostage. ANYTHING that happens to
that hostage is entirely the fault and the responsibility of the terrorist.
This is yet another case of you claiming to know different from all
the law books, judges and police.
> I very carefully ELIMINATED that
> possibility. You cannot put it in as a parameter, if it is stated as
> excluded. Simply to 'avoid' the problem itself.
In the first place, in the question as stated, thge death of the hostage
is quite definitely the fault of the terrorist, without needing to alter
the question.
In the second place, you old pal are the past master at changing
questions to avoid difficult answers. What a hypocrite you are.
> You have chosen to avoid your answer,
I have given you the answer, many many times,
which is yes I would shoot the terrorist.
I have cited legal precedents that show this does not
contradict my stance on the trolley problem. Whether you agree
with the decisions made by the judges and juries in those
precedents is irrelevent. The law says those cases are different.
Your mind cannot cope with the fact that I have answered the
question. You are in denial.
But the question has been answered. Over and over and over.
Whether you like it or not, its been answered.
But you will claim that my answer of "yes I would shoot the terrorist"
leaves the question unanswered, as you always do.
> with
> some absurd claim of a threat to the 'shield.' Why? Because you
> now realize that any 'reasonable' person would choose the same,
> thus you can no longer hide behind your 'principled abolition,' and
> must find another excuse.
It has been part of the original article that I posted at the very
beginning. I have never changed one little bit from that.
> I have no doubt you will not answer this question as it is posed.
> Because you can't, and still appear to make sense of your 'philosophy.'
I've answered the question many many times.
[ Dozens of repetitions of :
PV : 'would you shoot the terrorist'
Peter :'yes, I would shoot the terrorist'
PV : 'you haven't answered the question, would you shoot the
terrorist,
Peter : 'yes I would shoot the terrorist',
PV saying 'you haven't answered...'
snipped]
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> > Here is a simple fact. Your posts display cowardice. You spew forth
a
> > stream of venom and hatred while hiding behind an alias. You lack the
> > guts to put your name to your posts. That is a cowardly action. You
called
> > Dirtdog a coward for doing it to you. I agree with your assessment. But
> > I formed the same judgement about you for the same reason.
> >
> There we go!!!! I hide my name, so my argument has no validity.
No, you hide your name which shows that you lack courage.
This has nothing to do with the lack of validity in your arguments.
Except for when you base your arguments on a claim of personal
courage that you don't possess, and then it becomes very relevent.
> How very stupid of you. And I mean that in the most respectful of terms.
Obviously, because if you didn't respect stupidity you would
have no self-respect at all.
> And actually, I know of no instance that I called dirtdog a 'coward.'
> As far as can determine he called himself one, and I agreed. Now,
> I may have, but hardly in respect to hiding his handle. If you're
> going to make such claims, please provide the exact post you're
> referring to so we can all decide the context. Again... substance,
> please.
No problem.
Having checked the post, I find that you used the adjective "cowardice"
to describe him, rather than the noun "coward." I admit getting this
wrong, but its a minor error that only someone as pedantic as you
would object to.
You state that he wouldn't dare say in real life the things he says
on usenet, because he might be 'popped.' This, you call cowardice.
Please explain what gives you the right to accuse him of cowardice,
but why nobody is allowed to call you a coward. What gives you the
right that nobody else has?
The difference is, you said it to dirtdog just to insult him. It was well
deserved, admittedly, but from you it was just an insult. By contrast,
I said the same thing of you only when you made the subject of your
own bravery a point in a logical debate. As such, I have the right to
state my opinion that you lack the bravery you were bosting about.
Anyway, here are the exact words that you wrote.
This was posted 2001-05-10 15:45:44 PST in the thread
"My website is up!!! check it guys :-)" and was in response to some
pretty vile stuff by Dirtdog.
<< ...
Now I'll tell you something. I've seen your face more than a
thousand times. And it's always disgusting to me. You have no
reasonable thought connected to any subject, so you commence
with obscenities, racial slurs, connections with parents in sexual
acts, and ultimately fraud, lies, and denials.
You hide your inadequacy behind this facade of obscenities.
You say "That's the way I am," but are you really? Do you
do the same in front of your family, friends, associates and
strangers you first meet on the street? Do you tell them you've
had oral copulation with their Mother? If you did, it would
be a wonder that you're still alive. And this is the part of you
I've seen so many times in others. When confronted by
PHYSICAL presence you squirm away in cowardice, and
then look to attack those who have confronted you by going
behind their back to others, and claiming "What a prick... you
know what I did to his Mother?" But Usenet is different... and
you are consumed by love for that fact. HERE in Usenet...
all the wrath, all the rage, all the fury, all the madness, that
builds up inside of you because of your inadequacy,
can come out directly in obscenities against anyone
presenting an argument (some even not as in the case of
Mr. D. at first), and you serenely know you are safe from
being physically 'popped.' And all you lust after becomes
obtainable to you.
In truth (which rules us all), you really don't know squat,
but you'd like others to think you do. And when others get
sick of it... morally sick of it... they just shut you out, as a raging
maniac. Then, you drift away to perpetuate your obscenity
somewhere else. Because the SUBJECT isn't essential to you,
you'd get your jollies spouting obscenities in ANY newsgroup.
The fact you can expel your obscenity without fear of getting
'popped,' physically, is what drives you and what's essential to
your depravity. You must UNDERSTAND that this is a
psychological problem that will plague you your entire life unless
you recognize it for what it is. It's a frustrated feeling of
inadequacy on your part, which can only be released by
substituting obscenity for sense.
... >>
Check and mate.
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>
> > > > I think you should answer Peter's amended question.
> > > >
> > > I think I already did.
> >
> > Yes, then you changed your answer. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
> >
> Not a chance. You've changed an argument in which society is
> about to execute 786 convicted murderers, and you can stop them
> by switching, to the presumption that YOU would execute them
> if you switch.
That is what "switching" means whether you want it to or not.
YOU CANNOT execute them --- In ANY CASE.
> Society does that. Presuming that switching will execute them,
> presumes that YOU could be the executioner. But you are not.
> Society is. Doing nothing they WILL BE EXECUTED.
That is utter nonsense. If someone deliberately kills them, they
will be executed. Doing nothing means they will live.
Abraham Lincoln once asked a riddle :
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Answer: four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Think on that. Killing 786 people is the "deliberately kill someone"
option. Calling it "doing nothing" doesn't make it so.
> Because
> we are speaking of those TO BE executed. You can only 'prevent'
> those executions. Society WILL execute, without your intervention.
> Society has placed them on the unswitched track... not you. You
> are only allowed to 'prevent' those executions, in your role as an
> abolitionist, switching what society has already determined it will
> do. And by switching to prevent those executions,. accepting that
> doing so will result in the murder of a new innocent. How
> many ways must I express this before it sinks into your rather
> hard skull?
It doesn't matter how many ways you express it. It will never be true.
I won't murder one person to save six
I won't execute 786 people to save one.
You can scream and scream and scream that there is a contradiction
between these, but there isn't. Not one single person on this
newsgroup thinks there is, and I include you in that.
> The original question was posed in a form which would have admitted
> > > that killing a guard, would have only killed someone carrying out the
> > > legal act. One cannot 'kill' the legal act. It is an absurd concept
> >
> > Nobody but you is talking about 'kill a legal act' The rest of us
> > are talking about killing a human being.
> >
> I really don't 'care' what everyone else is talking about.
And therein lies the problem.
> They can't
> speak for the way I perceive the two questions. Why is it, that
> so many of 'you' rely on the argument of 'THE REST OF US' as
> some sort of 'proof' of argumentation?
I don't. I am not claiming 'majority' as a basis for my arguments,
I am pointing out that you are changing the argument. Everybody
was talking about killing a prison guard. You and you alone changed
that, to 'kill a legal act' then you declared that 'kill a legal act' is an
'absurd concept' as if that proves somethig. I am just pointing out
that 'kill a legal act' is something you dreamed up on your own that
has nothing to do with what the rest of us are talking about, and it
is your own concept whiuch you declare to be absurd. I point this out,
not as proof that my argument is right, but to show that your argument
is totally irrelevent.
> Using that form of logic,
> we can presume that 'the rest of us,' if a majority hold to the DP,
> are ALSO correct. In point of fact, being the ONLY one who
> perceives something in a way different from others who examine
> that problem, does not make them WRONG. Quite often, that
> view will prevail. Ever see '12 angry men'?
Yes, and I see you as the last juror stubbornly clinging to a guilty
verdict when everybody else is voting not guilty, just because you
can't admit being wrong.
> EVER rely on a
> 'majority' as YOUR ARGUMENT to support your view.
I am not claiming majority to support my view, I am pointing
out that your so-called 'argument' had no connection to the
things we were talking about.
>
> In my view, (regardless of your claim to having 'a majority behind
> you'),
NOT my claim, your invention.
> > > I felt Peter's question was posed more in the form of would I choose
> > > to kill one or have two killed by that one... a much more direct
meaning
> > > of an individual act.
> > >
> > > Question 1 -- Would you kill an innocent guard to insure that two
> > innocents
> > > escape the legal consequences of an act of society? Answer --NO.
> > >
> > > Question 2 - Would you kill an innocent guard to SAVE two innocents
> > > who are about to be killed by him -- Answer - YES.
> >
> > flip-flop.;
> >
> Not at all..
Of course it is. First you said you wouldn't, then you said you would,
then you said you wouldn't.
>question 1, supposes that the innocents are THREATENED
> by society... the guard is innocent. One cannot 'kill' society to 'help
an
> innocent escape.'
Nobody is asking you whether you would kill 'society'. I am
asking you whether you would kill an innocent guard. A guard is not
'society'
Once again, you change a difficult question into one that you can
answer, and don't care that it wasn't the one asked.
Peter Morris
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
message news:jonathan-10AB37...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> In article <an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, "Peter Morris"
> <no...@m.please> wrote:
>
> > the trolley problem
>
> It's baaaaaaaaack!
>
> Woohoo!
Apologies, Mr D, but I saw PV make another huge flip-flop, and
I just couldn't resist rubbing his nose in it.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:anagrh$m1l$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:CuQl9.26856$O8.10...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
>
> > > > > I think you should answer Peter's amended question.
> > > > >
> > > > I think I already did.
> > >
> > > Yes, then you changed your answer. Did you think we wouldn't notice?
> > >
> > Not a chance. You've changed an argument in which society is
> > about to execute 786 convicted murderers, and you can stop them
> > by switching, to the presumption that YOU would execute them
> > if you switch.
>
> That is what "switching" means whether you want it to or not.
>
who isn't... I wish I could find a 'gambling game' that I could have
such a choice in respect to my bet.
> > YOU CANNOT execute them --- In ANY CASE.
> > Society does that. Presuming that switching will execute them,
> > presumes that YOU could be the executioner. But you are not.
> > Society is. Doing nothing they WILL BE EXECUTED.
>
> That is utter nonsense. If someone deliberately kills them, they
> will be executed. Doing nothing means they will live.
>
do, and whether you accept that (by doing nothing) or would
change that (by doing something). You are not in the position
of claiming that you 'doing something' will execute them. Because
that is the function which society has already chosen.
Society has placed those convicted murderers in harm's way,
simply by convicting and sentencing them... which you have
nothing to do with. You can only 'prevent' them from being
executed. The powers you assert that you could use to
'execute' them if you switched are not yours.
> Abraham Lincoln once asked a riddle :
> If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
> Answer: four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
>
Are you losing touch with reality?
If you're going to quote someone, please make it appropriate to
the argument.
> Think on that. Killing 786 people is the "deliberately kill someone"
> option. Calling it "doing nothing" doesn't make it so.
>
which society has determined. Certainly,. that is a 'one-way
street.' A governor cannot sentence someone TO death,
if the justice system has not. He can only 'do nothing' and they
will be executed. Or 'do something' and they will NOT be executed.
If he does nothing, they will be executed and the murder they
would have committed will not be. If he does something, they
will not be executed, but it will result in the murder of an innocent
by one of those not executed at some future date. That is the
entire problem. Think of yourself as 'the governor' at that switch.
And understand that this governor does not have the power
to 'switch and execute.' He can only 'do nothing' and they
will be executed, or 'do something' and they will not be
You simply (or deceptively) fail to understand that the 786 are
convicted murderers that society has determined should be
executed. You did not, and cannot determine this. That would
be murder. You can only prevent society from doing so, by
doing something. You cannot continue to deny that it is
society that has placed those convicted murderers on the
track that provides for their execution, not you. Your
argument is convoluted to the point that, if you believe you
have the power to execute them by switching, as an individual,
that would be murder, not lawful execution. Because NO
individual has such power within the law. So you are just
trying to say it's better to murder one than murder 786.
But that's not the problem. An individual who contends that
'he can decide' (by switching) who should be executed, is
simply a vigilante committing murder, or just another murderer.
Which is the context you would wish to place this into to
avoid the clear reasoning that you can only prevent executions.
In an individual sense you cannot execute, because that is
murder. You can only, as a governor or through abolition
prevent an execution of a proven murderer sentenced to
death by society.
> > Because
> > we are speaking of those TO BE executed. You can only 'prevent'
> > those executions. Society WILL execute, without your intervention.
> > Society has placed them on the unswitched track... not you. You
> > are only allowed to 'prevent' those executions, in your role as an
> > abolitionist, switching what society has already determined it will
> > do. And by switching to prevent those executions,. accepting that
> > doing so will result in the murder of a new innocent. How
> > many ways must I express this before it sinks into your rather
> > hard skull?
>
> It doesn't matter how many ways you express it. It will never be true.
>
Actually, no matter how many ways you express it, you cannot
really deny it. Especially if you put yourself as a governor,
in place of that passerby at the switch. That passerby, certainly
does not have the power to execute 786 proven murderers by
switching. Nor does any governor.
> I won't murder one person to save six
> I won't execute 786 people to save one.
>
I think in the other thread... we've already determined you would
murder one innocent to save London. And in your second part,
we've already narrowed it down to that you wouldn't execute
200 to save one. We're only trying now to narrow it down further
to the exact number you wouldn't execute to save one. We are
now working our way downward toward finding out how many proven
murderers you would execute to save one innocent. I find it
hard to believe that you wouldn't execute two proven murderers to
save one innocent. Suppose it could be shown that every second
murderer managed to somehow murder again if not executed.
Would you then 'execute' all murderers? Understand we are in
the realm of hypothesis, simply to determine what your 'moral
standard' is, regarding how many innocent lives you would 'gamble'
in recidivism for a certain number of proven murderer lives. Could
you confirm that... so we might move on?
> You can scream and scream and scream that there is a contradiction
> between these, but there isn't. Not one single person on this
> newsgroup thinks there is, and I include you in that.
>
It seems to me that you're screaming... because I'm trying to
lay this out logically. We've determined that (from your previous
correspondence with Richard) that you wouldn't execute 200
proven murderers to save one innocent (you accept that a 0.5%
recidivism is something you could 'live with' - although that 1
certainly couldn't 'live' with it). If you don't wish to argue that
2 proven murderers for 1 innocent new murder... then let's
start with 100 proven murderers for 1 innocent new murder.
Could you 'live with that'? Hopefully we can 'narrow' that
elusive view of yours down more firmly.
>
> > The original question was posed in a form which would have admitted
> > > > that killing a guard, would have only killed someone carrying out the
> > > > legal act. One cannot 'kill' the legal act. It is an absurd concept
> > >
> > > Nobody but you is talking about 'kill a legal act' The rest of us
> > > are talking about killing a human being.
> > >
> > I really don't 'care' what everyone else is talking about.
>
> And therein lies the problem.
>
Hardly... we all have our opinions as to how we view such a problem
In the first case, it seemed clear to me that the argument was
'murder' an innocent guard, to help two innocents escape. That
seems absurd to me. That's the part you obviously agree with.
But YOUR question seemed to be more of one couched in terms
of weighing one innocent life against two innocent lives, independent
of 'escape' or evasion of justice. Probably done so purposely, for
your own argument. I don't have a problem with that, but don't
expect me to answer the question in the way you would expect
me to. Your problem seemed to address itself to a TRUE SAVE.
The innocents could get up, join society, praise the fact they've
been SAVED from death, and never find any retribution against
THEM, or be sought out for recapture by society, for MY ACT.
Quite different from the first case, where the innocents could do
NONE of those things.
Your problem seemed to be totally divorced from any examination
of the involvement of society, and was simply one innocent life
weighed against two innocent lives, and the choice of such a
selection in my hands. Obviously (to me - not you of course) two
innocent lives are simply twice as valuable as one innocent life,
if no possibility of reprisal against those INNOCENTS is involved
from society. Quite aside from all that 'legal precedent' nonsense,
because I am always speaking in terms of MY moral perspective,
and expect NO ONE to make the same choice that I might make.
In your problem, I may have done something unlawful. But THEY
are TOTALLY SAVED. Just as in the trolley problem.
So... If the innocent I must kill to save the lives of two innocents,
is not really a source which will result in totally saving those
two innocents; and is simply an instrument of society who will
only be replaced by another instrument; and the innocents I
would release are only permitted to 'escape' to an unknown
future: I would not kill that innocent. I cannot kill the entity
that is actually behind the execution of those innocents by
killing only one instrument of that entity.
On the other hand.. if it is truly that by killing one innocent,
I will perfectly save two innocents, I find (all other things equal),
I would necessarily have to kill that innocent. By other things,
we always subconsciously value each life differently, so I
am speaking in the sense that each of the innocent lives are
equal. For example... age of each of the innocents might
enter into my judgment process, given the time to analyze
the situation. Nor can I deny I might be biased if one of the
innocents was closer to me, as a relation or a friend. So I
am approaching this in a theoretical sense, that each of the
three innocent lives are seen as equal. And clearly 2 is
greater than 1.
> > They can't
> > speak for the way I perceive the two questions. Why is it, that
> > so many of 'you' rely on the argument of 'THE REST OF US' as
> > some sort of 'proof' of argumentation?
>
> I don't. I am not claiming 'majority' as a basis for my arguments,
> I am pointing out that you are changing the argument. Everybody
> was talking about killing a prison guard. You and you alone changed
> that, to 'kill a legal act'
But that's how I ALWAYS saw it... That's why I compared it to
'bombing an abortion clinic.' Doing so DOES NOTHING, in respect
to 'saving lives.' I certainly can't help how others saw it.
> then you declared that 'kill a legal act' is an
> 'absurd concept' as if that proves somethig. I am just pointing out
> that 'kill a legal act' is something you dreamed up on your own that
> has nothing to do with what the rest of us are talking about, and it
> is your own concept whiuch you declare to be absurd. I point this out,
> not as proof that my argument is right, but to show that your argument
> is totally irrelevent.
>
Well... then you just go on and talk about what you want to talk
about. But don't try to tell me how I must VIEW the parameters
which determined my view. Clearly in problem 1, if the guard
WERE threatening the innocents PERSONALLY, he would not
be an innocent.
> > Using that form of logic,
> > we can presume that 'the rest of us,' if a majority hold to the DP,
> > are ALSO correct. In point of fact, being the ONLY one who
> > perceives something in a way different from others who examine
> > that problem, does not make them WRONG. Quite often, that
> > view will prevail. Ever see '12 angry men'?
>
> Yes, and I see you as the last juror stubbornly clinging to a guilty
> verdict when everybody else is voting not guilty, just because you
> can't admit being wrong.
>
How can THAT be? Since I am the only one who has chosen
the path which (regardless of any legality you might presume)
ACTUALLY SAVES MORE innocent lives. Everyone else in
problem 1, chose 'do nothing' and innocents are executed. So
did I, because I perceived no benefit from killing such an innocent.
Everyone (I guess - although who are those everyone?) in Problem
2, also said 'do nothing' and let those innocents die. I chose to
'do something' (legal or otherwise) that would have resulted in
SAVING (your word) innocent lives.
In fact, it seems John Rennie answered the question in respect to what
a person SHOULD do. A truly innocent person would kill himself.
And you seemed to find this concept beyond you. But it was the
very idea of your 'donor problem' which made it different from the
'trolley problem.'
Again --
Question 1 -- Would you kill an innocent guard to insure that two
innocents escape the legal consequences of an act of society? Answer --NO.
Question 2 - Would you kill an innocent guard to SAVE two innocents
who would otherwise be killed -- Answer - YES.
I just don't understand why you can't see the differences in those
two questions. Since 'escape' and 'save' have quite different meanings.
> > EVER rely on a
> > 'majority' as YOUR ARGUMENT to support your view.
>
> I am not claiming majority to support my view, I am pointing
> out that your so-called 'argument' had no connection to the
> things we were talking about.
>
Arrrrggggg.
> >
> > In my view, (regardless of your claim to having 'a majority behind
> > you'),
>
> NOT my claim, your invention.
>
Then you DON'T 'claim' to have 'a majority behind you'? Good grief,
you just finished saying I was the ONLY one arrayed against all
the others. That seems like a majority to me.
>
> > > > I felt Peter's question was posed more in the form of would I choose
> > > > to kill one or have two killed by that one... a much more direct
> meaning
> > > > of an individual act.
> > > >
> > > > Question 1 -- Would you kill an innocent guard to insure that two
> > > innocents
> > > > escape the legal consequences of an act of society? Answer --NO.
> > > >
> > > > Question 2 - Would you kill an innocent guard to SAVE two innocents
> > > > who are about to be killed by him -- Answer - YES.
> > >
> > > flip-flop.;
> > >
> > Not at all..
>
> Of course it is. First you said you wouldn't, then you said you would,
> then you said you wouldn't.
>
No... question 1 - wouldn't
Question 2 - would.
> >question 1, supposes that the innocents are THREATENED
> > by society... the guard is innocent. One cannot 'kill' society to 'help
> > an
> > innocent escape.'
>
> Nobody is asking you whether you would kill 'society'. I am
> asking you whether you would kill an innocent guard. A guard is not
> 'society'
>
He is the instrument of society, and will simply be replaced by
another instrument... killing that instrument will not SAVE those
innocents... they can only 'escape.' A much less viable concept
than 'SAVE.'
> Once again, you change a difficult question into one that you can
> answer, and don't care that it wasn't the one asked.
>
yada, yada, yada.
PV
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:anagb9$5ah$2...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:BuQl9.26854$O8.10...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > > Here is a simple fact. Your posts display cowardice. You spew forth
> a
> > > stream of venom and hatred while hiding behind an alias. You lack the
> > > guts to put your name to your posts. That is a cowardly action. You
> called
> > > Dirtdog a coward for doing it to you. I agree with your assessment. But
> > > I formed the same judgement about you for the same reason.
> > >
> > There we go!!!! I hide my name, so my argument has no validity.
>
> No, you hide your name which shows that you lack courage.
> This has nothing to do with the lack of validity in your arguments.
> Except for when you base your arguments on a claim of personal
> courage that you don't possess, and then it becomes very relevent.
>
logic. Which is considerable. You realized the only way you
could strike back, while refusing to recognize that flawed logic
was through a 'personal attack.' It didn't bother me then... nor
does it bother me now... because you do not 'KNOW ME.' And
when you use DEVIOUS arguments such as that, it only diminishes
YOU.. not me. if you think I CARE that you might presume
anything about me, you're delusional. A 'faceless,' 'nameless'
specter that has only put words on an electronic medium, that
you'd feel those 'words' come from a 'coward,' as your pathetic
excuse for having been spanked. The words 'coward,' and
'despise,' cannot degrade me if they come from YOU. They can
only degrade YOU, for you having found it necessary to stoop
so low to use those words, because you lack an argument. I've
been called worse, much worse here. And I'm still here. The fact
is the trolley problem does not provide for the possibility of the
'decision maker' replacing the innocent on the switch track. The
fact is your 'organ donor' problem DOES provide for the possibility
of the 'decision maker' replacing the innocent who would be
murdered to 'harvest their organs.' Thus, the absolutely certain
conclusion is that the two problems are TOTALLY dissimilar.
But you said they were the same. Having been shown they were
not... you, as usual, fell back on the only weapon you had left, a
'personal' attack against a 'faceless,' 'nameless' number of words,
placed on this electronic medium.
> > How very stupid of you. And I mean that in the most respectful of terms.
>
> Obviously, because if you didn't respect stupidity you would
> have no self-respect at all.
>
Once again... do you really think I care what you think?
> > And actually, I know of no instance that I called dirtdog a 'coward.'
> > As far as can determine he called himself one, and I agreed. Now,
> > I may have, but hardly in respect to hiding his handle. If you're
> > going to make such claims, please provide the exact post you're
> > referring to so we can all decide the context. Again... substance,
> > please.
>
>
> No problem.
>
> Having checked the post, I find that you used the adjective "cowardice"
> to describe him, rather than the noun "coward." I admit getting this
> wrong, but its a minor error that only someone as pedantic as you
> would object to.
>
I have no objection to that whatsoever. In fact, I was unsure if
I HAD referred to him in that vein in the past. Since the words
became quite brutal, shortly after he claimed that my mother
had orally copulated him, in the most disgusting of descriptions
as well. I cannot believe you would compare my remarking on
his posting style to that between you and me. Certainly I have
never accused your mother of orally copulating me. Nor would
I dream of anything so destructive as a remark offered here.
> You state that he wouldn't dare say in real life the things he says
> on usenet, because he might be 'popped.' This, you call cowardice.
>
Oh.. I'm quite sure that in 99% of cases... if you encountered a
stranger in a bar, struck up a conversation and remarked that "the
last thing i had to get off my chest was was my own jism - your
mother spat it back at me after i shot my load in her mouth," I
am certain that one or the other would shortly be on their backside.
Nor do I have the slightest hesitation in believing he would not do
so in real life... thus he finds his 'false courage' here.
> Please explain what gives you the right to accuse him of cowardice,
> but why nobody is allowed to call you a coward. What gives you the
> right that nobody else has?
>
If I had said those words to you, in this forum, you could well call
me anything you felt like, and I would reason that you certainly
could do so. The point is, you USED that comment in an attempt
to divert from the very clear proof of the fallacy of your argument.
Thus it was more than an insult... it was a deception you intended
to perpetrate on the group.
> The difference is, you said it to dirtdog just to insult him. It was well
> deserved, admittedly, but from you it was just an insult. By contrast,
> I said the same thing of you only when you made the subject of your
> own bravery a point in a logical debate. As such, I have the right to
> state my opinion that you lack the bravery you were bosting about.
>
'My bravery' was not an expression of 'my' bravery since that is an
entire unknown here... I am a 'faceless,' nameless' bunch of words.
My comment might well have been couched in the third person.
Which in hindsight I should have done to prevent you from providing
an insult as an answer. I actually should have said -- "Let me
simply say that BEFORE a person would kill someone to gain
their organs for anyone, they would volunteer their own, even if
it meant their demise." Rather than in the first person, as I said--
"Let me simply say that BEFORE I would kill someone to gain
their organs for anyone, I would volunteer my own, even if it
meant my demise."
It would have then been necessary for you to call EVERYONE a
coward to refute my argument. In fact, were you to argue that
point, one could then call YOU a coward if you would not admit
that YOU would do the same. The point is, at that time, almost
two years ago, even though we had some brutal exchanges, I
believed you had more character than to respond with such a
personal attack to a very clear counter-argument to your 'organ
donor' problem. How wrong I was!!!
You would have then needed to respond to the argument, rather
than to the poster. And let's look at how you deceptively tried to
hide that further on, in your pathetic and deceptive 'reasoning' for
calling me a coward -- when confronted with your words, saying
"I _formed_the_opinion_ that you were a coward because of
usenet anonymity." That is just so much bullshit. You formed
the 'opinion' because you couldn't handle that your argument was
flawed. Just as you've called Sharp a coward.
Not denying one word of that which I posted to dirt. In fact, it
rather describes his posting style of that time to a perfection.
I actually believe he's mellowed somewhat. Having been
beaten logically with a stick so often. I believe I would like
to take some credit for his mellowing... but that is for others
to decide.
PV
> ... >>
>
> Check and mate.
>
That's only SG Seminal axiom 6). My words were -- "I know of no
instance that I called dirtdog a 'coward.' As far as I can determine he
called himself one, and I agreed. Now, I may have, but hardly in
respect to hiding his handle. If you're going to make such claims,
please provide the exact post you're referring to so we can all decide
the context. Again... substance, please."
A point is, I was unsure if I had done so, and checked google for
the word 'coward' and could only find that one instance I referred to.
But I clearly said 'I may have.' So I admit that I called him one, in
the context of his 'hidden identify.' What do you want from me? My
apology to dirtdog? Perhaps you should consider your apology to
me first, since I never made such a claim about your mother, which
could have given you some 'reason' to respond as you did.
And some points that must be recognized
1) You first used it on me, in ANY exchange between us, and
2) YOUR use of the word, cannot be 'justified' if I've used it toward
another. Your words are YOUR responsibility, just as mine are
mine. It could presumably ONLY be justified if I had FIRST used
such a personal insult, far removed from any contextual
argument, toward you, and
3) When you did so, you cannot use the 'excuse' of my remark to
dirtdog, since that remark was AFTER you had already called me
a 'coward.' You called me a 'coward' fully five months before my
post to dirtdog. Subject 'Re:Response to PV on the Recidivism
issue' 2000-12-20 03:26:52 and
4) Perhaps you TAUGHT me all I know about how to be vile.
A Planet Visitor
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message news:anagb5$5ah$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:CuQl9.26855$O8.10...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > >
> > > You keep on trotting out this shit. I answer it. You scream and shout
> > > and pretend that I haven't answered it. Then you ask it again. I give
> the
> > > same answer. You scream and shout and pretend that I haven't answered.
> > > Then you ask again.
> >
> > Leading up to.. a refusal to again answer, or 'duck the question,' by
> > changing the parameters.
>
> I have NEVER refused to answer. I have given the same answer
> a bazillion times. You screaming that I haven't answered it is a lie.
>
argument. For example, in the trolley problem, you presume that
YOU can decide who is on the switch track and who is on the
unswitch track.. turn the problem into a trivial view which permits
you ALWAYS to claim you would not switch. But in effect, the
problem doesn't provide such an escape clause.
> You may disagree with the answer I have given, that is your
> entitlement. But to claim that I haven't answered is a lie, plain
> and simple.
>
You haven't answered truthfully. You've been totally deceptive.
>
> > > Or otherwise, you invent an answer, which is different from the one
> I
> > > gave
> > > then scream and shout about it. it It really is pathetic. You have had
> your
> > > answer to this so many times before, and it is not the one you claim
> > > that I said. How many times must you be told before it sinks in?
> > >
> > > But once again I will give the same answer I always do.
> > >
> >
> > I find that hardly believable... since your answers are as shifting as
> > the sands.
>
> I have given the same answer time and time again.
>
Sure you have. You decide WHO should be on the unswitch track,
and then you select that choice. That's not an answer.
> What you have stated is not the same as the trolley problem. There
> are fundamental differences between the two. I would shoot the
> terrorist, even knowing that the terrorist would throw an innocent
> person in front of the bullet. The death of the hostage is entirely the
> terrorist's responsiubility, and not my fault.
>
So you would murder an innocent. Great... I would as well,
but do not piously hide behind the fact that it is YOU who has
effectively murdered that innocent, because her death was a result
of YOU CHOOSING to do so. You did not HAVE to murder her.
We are speaking of a DELIBERATE shooting THROUGH the
'shield' to kill the terrorist. Not some silly excuse that 'it was
an accident caused by the terrorist.' If you claim that her being
placed in danger was the terrorist's responsibility, than you can
claim whoever told the innocent in the trolley problem to get on
the switch track was responsible for him being there. Perhaps
you should kill him instead.
> I have listed legal precedents that clearly show a difference between
> the two. You may disagree with the decision of the judges and
> juries in these cases, that does not change the fact that they
> are written into the law. You may see them as the same, the law
> sees them as different.
>
yada, yada, yada... when boxed in fall back on bullshit. Do you
REALLY believe there is a 'legal precedent' that has been
decided in the situation as I've described? Has there EVER
been a terrorist with a toggle switch threatening London who
was unarmed with a female hostage as a 'shield'?
> I agree with the law. Because these cases are legally different,
> I can give different answers in these two different cases without
> any contradiction.
>
You can do anything you want, Peter. I've always said that others
will need to decide if you are being truthful in your replies.
> > > What you have described is NOT the trolley problem. It has certain
> > > fundamental and very obvious differences.
> > >
> > Yeah.. it involves the murder of millions weighed against the killing
> > of an innocent. While the trolley problem involved the killing of 5
> innocents
> > weighed against the killing of one innocent.
> >
> > > Of course, in the scenario you have described, the death of the hostage
> > > is caused by the terrorist.
> >
> > Can you see why I often refer to you as a liar? The death of the hostage
> > will NOT be caused by the terrorist.
>
> Of course it is. How can you justify this absurd statement. When a
> terrorist has kidnapped a hostage. ANYTHING that happens to
> that hostage is entirely the fault and the responsibility of the terrorist.
> This is yet another case of you claiming to know different from all
> the law books, judges and police.
>
What a crock of shit. The 'shield' is not in danger of losing her
life! You can take an action OTHER than killing her. Saving
her, and disabling the terrorist. It is not that killing her has
become ESSENTIAL to freeing her. It happens all the time in
real life, where attempts are made to DEAL with the terrorist
rather than kill him, to PROTECT the LIFE of the hostage. Not
murder her to kill the terrorist. No hostage situation I can imagine
believes that KILLING the hostage is a reasonable action to take
if other means are available to disarm the hostage taker. Are you
presuming that a police sharpshooter will PURPOSELY shoot
through a hostage to kill the hostage-taker? I can just see it now.
The police captain telling his sharpshooter -- "The wimp is
unarmed and has her in a choke hold... shoot to murder her so
we can kill that terrorist."
This is the reason I find you so devious, Peter. Can you give a
'legal precedent' for murdering a hostage to kill a terrorist, when
the life of the hostage is not in immediate danger, and the
terrorist can be disabled by others means?
> > I very carefully ELIMINATED that
> > possibility. You cannot put it in as a parameter, if it is stated as
> > excluded. Simply to 'avoid' the problem itself.
>
>
> In the first place, in the question as stated, thge death of the hostage
> is quite definitely the fault of the terrorist, without needing to alter
> the question.
>
You keep saying it over and over, but no one believes you. The
murder of the 'shield' to kill the terrorist is clearly YOUR CHOICE.
Since other means, only 6 seconds later are available.
> In the second place, you old pal are the past master at changing
> questions to avoid difficult answers. What a hypocrite you are.
>
yeah, yeah.. others will need to decide that.
>
> > You have chosen to avoid your answer,
>
> I have given you the answer, many many times,
> which is yes I would shoot the terrorist.
>
Thus, choosing 'do something' as opposed to 'do nothing.' And your
'do something' will be to murder the 'shield' to kill the terrorist.
> I have cited legal precedents that show this does not
> contradict my stance on the trolley problem. Whether you agree
> with the decisions made by the judges and juries in those
> precedents is irrelevent. The law says those cases are different.
>
Once again.. you have 'legal precedent' where one may murder
a hostage to kill a terrorist, holding a toggle switch which can
atomized London, when 6 seconds later that terrorist
could be disarmed at no loss of life to anyone of the three
participants to this scenario? I'd be interested in seeing 'that'
legal precedent.'
> Your mind cannot cope with the fact that I have answered the
> question. You are in denial.
>
No, sport. You are in 'serious denial.'
> But the question has been answered. Over and over and over.
>
> Whether you like it or not, its been answered.
>
Albeit, differently every time as well.
> But you will claim that my answer of "yes I would shoot the terrorist"
> leaves the question unanswered, as you always do.
>
Not at all.. it 'answers' quite a bit. You would choose to 'do
something' in respect to 'do nothing,' and by so doing murder
an innocent, if the conditions were as stated. In fact, as you
are not 'law enforcement' you could actually do TOTALLY nothing,
and walk away from any 'switch decision.' Since the girl is
not in danger of her life, and is only being used as a 'shield'
against whatever YOU might do. After toggling the switch,
the terrorist will laugh diabolically and walk away leaving her
unharmed. And you are NOT law enforcement.
Tell me. Suppose the scenario was simply that he was her
boyfriend, and you were a passerby. And he was holding her
as I described. Could you MURDER her, in order to kill him for
holding her in a choke hold? If you were not law enforcement?
You'd go to prison before you could change your socks, sport.
I can see your defense in that situation now -- 'Well, your honor...
it looked like she was in danger... and I didn't have a clear shot
at him... so I had to murder her to get to him. That's justified...
isn't it???'
The point is, you are murdering her... not because SHE is threatened,
but because he threatens OTHERS (those on the unswitch
track in London) who will die if you took 'no decision.' That
would be the only consequence of you doing nothing. In point
of fact, the ONLY reason you are murdering her is not
because he threatens HER. If that was the ONLY threat he
represented, you would certainly not MURDER her, to kill him.
It is the most absurd argument I've ever heard... murder the
hostage to kill the terrorist in order to 'save the hostage.'
> > with
> > some absurd claim of a threat to the 'shield.' Why? Because you
> > now realize that any 'reasonable' person would choose the same,
> > thus you can no longer hide behind your 'principled abolition,' and
> > must find another excuse.
>
> It has been part of the original article that I posted at the very
> beginning. I have never changed one little bit from that.
>
ho ho ho.
>
>
> > I have no doubt you will not answer this question as it is posed.
> > Because you can't, and still appear to make sense of your 'philosophy.'
>
> I've answered the question many many times.
>
> [ Dozens of repetitions of :
> PV : 'would you shoot the terrorist'
> Peter :'yes, I would shoot the terrorist'
> PV : 'you haven't answered the question, would you shoot the
> terrorist,
> Peter : 'yes I would shoot the terrorist',
> PV saying 'you haven't answered...'
> snipped]
I just wanted to be clear that 'you would murder the 'shield' to
shoot the terrorist. As long as we have that admission, I'm quite
happy. But do not try to cloud this, by saying you are doing so
for the sake of the 'hostage.' Since you are MURDERING her,
to shoot the terrorist. And it relates DIRECTLY to the point that,
in this instance, you are doing so because of the number of innocents
at risk by 'no decision' on your part (not switching). You have
decided to 'take a decision' to shoot the terrorist, by murdering the
hostage. To put this in proper perspective... would you murder the
'shield' to kill the terrorist if he did not HAVE a toggle switch which
could atomize London? Obviously NOT. Thus the 'shield' is nothing
more than the innocent on the switch track in the trolley problem,
with the population of London being on the unswitch track if you
do nothing. Since without that switch, you would certainly not
murder the 'shield' to SAVE her.
PV.
A Planet Visitor
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in message
news:jonathan-10AB37...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> <no...@m.please> wrote:
>
> > the trolley problem
>
> It's baaaaaaaaack!
>
> Woohoo!
>
Rote claim of victory --
Apologies, Mr D, but I saw Peter make another huge flip-flop, and
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
And this is the level that so many of your 'discussions' on this news group
sinks to.
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:69em9.865$L6.4...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Peter, who expressed those exact words to Mr. D., and I simply 'copied'
them and changed the intent. If he can insult me, claiming he's
'rubbing some nose,' then it's obvious he isn't reading my remarks
at all. Or more probable, Peter has become so offensive to you, that you
have him in your killfile, and would have missed his original comment.
That's perhaps a reasonable assumption.
PV
Incubus
> Le Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:56:20 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> And this is the level that so many of your 'discussions' on this news
group
> >> sinks to.
>
> > Did you somehow miss the 'irony' in my comment?
>
>
> LDB talking about 'irony' ??!! Oh, I literally _cannot_ stop laughing !!
>
> That's like incubus talking about etymology ... or Rennie talking about
> 'integrity' ... or me talking about dishonesty !!!
>
> LOL !!!!
absolutely. I know little of etymology, but i do know about irony and your
comments about English being a "pure language" you dolt :-)
>
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
Incubus
> Le Tue, 1 Oct 2002 23:11:25 +0100, Incubus <inc...@river.styx> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> That's like incubus talking about etymology ... or Rennie talking about
> >> 'integrity' ... or me talking about dishonesty !!!
> >>
> >> LOL !!!!
>
> > absolutely. I know little of etymology, but i do know about irony and
your
> > comments about English being a "pure language" you dolt :-)
>
In English, "oh dear"
Peter Morris
"Incubus" <inc...@river.styx> wrote in message
news:K4pm9.164$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> absolutely. I know little of etymology, but i do know about irony
Let me guess.
You think it means "slightly metallic", right? ;-)
Incubus
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>
> "Incubus" <inc...@river.styx> wrote in message
> news:K4pm9.164$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > absolutely. I know little of etymology, but i do know about irony
>
> Let me guess.
> You think it means "slightly metallic", right? ;-)
what like goldy and silvery? that baldric had the right idea ;-)
dirtdog
wrote:
>
>"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
>news:and9oq$q1j$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "Incubus" <inc...@river.styx> wrote in message
>> news:K4pm9.164$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
<correct lack of snip confirmation>
>>
>> Let me guess.
>> You think it means "slightly metallic", right? ;-)
>
>what like goldy and silvery? that baldric had the right idea ;-)
>>
>> > and your
>> > comments about English being a "pure language" you dolt :-)
>>
Please take a look at the above exchange between these two
fartknockers.
Three stupid fucking lines. Three stupid fucking posts. Three stupid
fucking 'smileys'.
I feel violently sick.
Yes, the smiley is a 'cancer' which will suck the very lifeblood from
this newsgroup. Before we know it, what was once a firey, lively forum
will become just another haven for blithering 'netspeak', ASCII art
and the issuance of *hugs* - all churned out by a bunch of intolerable
fuckwits who cannot press fucking return without placing a cheesy and
needless 'winker'.
Amusing and coherent flames will die. Any last vestige of serious
discussion will evaporate. The prophecy of 'Newspeak' will be
fulfilled.
The danger is real. The infection was introduced by slow Lincoln
schoolboy, 'Incubus' and has spread rapidly. There have been sightings
within the work of veteran poster, Desmond Coughlan. Even our resident
pensioners (and firm advocates that age is no barrier to 'brown love')
have been displaying the vulgar symbol.
However, it is only now that _Beardy fucking Pete_ makes his
bi-monthly appearance, and eschews whining about what he did or didn't
say to PV in favour of a wanton display of reprehensible mutual
schlong rubbing with the instigator of this filth that many of you
must realise what must be done.
So you must all join me. You can still be saved. It _must_ be stopped.
I am sure you will all agree that gently requesting that 'Incubus'
considers whether he really needs to use at least one 'smiley' in
every single post is a solution unlikely to bear fruit.
There remains, therefore, one path. The Cringesome One must be hunted
down, whereupon he must be smited from this planet swiftly and without
scope for error. He must be hung, drawn and bastard quartered.
YOU CAN SAVE YOUR NEWSGROUP! YOU MUST ACT!
w00f
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
I just like the trolley problem.
I like the philosophy behind it.
I like the way it causes people to examine their moral/practical beliefs.
I like its elegance.
I like its simplicity.
I like the way that it makes you and Peter really, really passionate and
angry. ;)
A Planet Visitor
> Le Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:56:20 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> sinks to.
>
> > Did you somehow miss the 'irony' in my comment?
>
>
> LDB talking about 'irony' ??!! Oh, I literally _cannot_ stop laughing !!
>
> 'integrity' ... or me talking about dishonesty !!!
>
Ah... a demonstration of 'your' irony. How droll.
PV
> LOL !!!!
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 00:42:26 +0100, "Incubus" <inc...@river.styx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> >news:and9oq$q1j$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >>
> >> "Incubus" <inc...@river.styx> wrote in message
> >> news:K4pm9.164$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> <correct lack of snip confirmation>
>
> >>
> >> Let me guess.
> >> You think it means "slightly metallic", right? ;-)
> >
> >what like goldy and silvery? that baldric had the right idea ;-)
> >>
> >> > and your
> >> > comments about English being a "pure language" you dolt :-)
> >>
>
> Please take a look at the above exchange between these two
> fartknockers.
>
> Three stupid fucking lines. Three stupid fucking posts. Three stupid
> fucking 'smileys'.
>
> I feel violently sick.
>
> Yes, the smiley is a 'cancer' which will suck the very lifeblood from
> this newsgroup. Before we know it, what was once a firey, lively forum
> will become just another haven for blithering 'netspeak', ASCII art
> and the issuance of *hugs* - all churned out by a bunch of intolerable
> fuckwits who cannot press fucking return without placing a cheesy and
> needless 'winker'.
[snip remainder of amusing and perceptive rant]
I must confess that I find emoticons lame in the extreme.
Reluctantly, I find myself moved to use them on occasion, especially if
the audience is prone to taking itself too seriously[1] or isn't up to
scratch vis a vis the use of irony and sarcasm.
Increased use of emoticons is indicative of an increased fluff quotient.
We're already up to our eyeballs in the mire of pedantry and to add
excessive fluff could be absolutely disastrous. I couldn't agree more
with the gist of what doggie's on about here.
That is all.
=) [2]
Mr Q. Z. D.
[1] - On a.a.d-p.? Nevaaaaah!
[2] - *ducks*
[3] - [2]
Peter Morris
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:q2fkpu068qve3jt7b...@4ax.com...
>
> However, it is only now that _Beardy fucking Pete_ makes his
> bi-monthly appearance,
What on Earth makes you think I have a beard?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<no...@m.please> wrote:
You sound beardy.
*supresses urge to append emoticon*
Mr Q. Z. D.
Peter Morris
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
> > >
> > > However, it is only now that _Beardy fucking Pete_ makes his
> > > bi-monthly appearance,
>
> > What on Earth makes you think I have a beard?
>
> You sound beardy.
What does 'beardy' sound like anyway?
John Rennie
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
S'obvious innit? Just like Peter Morris.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
...is the _correct_ answer.
Hee hee!
Peter Morris
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> wrote in
> In article <HsEn9.562$gY1.80650@newsfep2-gui>, "John Rennie"
> <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
> > news:anmr2k$3tg$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > > "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks>
> > > wrote
> > in
> > > message news:jonathan-F528B4...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, it is only now that _Beardy fucking Pete_ makes his
> > > > > > bi-monthly appearance,
> > > >
> > > > > What on Earth makes you think I have a beard?
> > > >
> > > > You sound beardy.
> > >
> > > What does 'beardy' sound like anyway?
> > >
> >
> > S'obvious innit? Just like Peter Morris.
>
> ...is the _correct_ answer.
>
> Hee hee!
Oh yeah? Try and guess my hair colour, then ;oP>
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: The Cancer of AADP (Was: Re: Question For John ...)
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:12:24 +0000
>
>Le Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:06:45 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> ...is the _correct_ answer.
>>>
>>> Hee hee!
>
>> Oh yeah? Try and guess my hair colour, then ;oP>
>
>You're bald.
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!skynet.be!skynet.be!fu-be
rlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: The Cancer of AADP (Was: Re: Question For John ...)
>Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:12:24 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 16
>Message-ID: <slrnaq456o.hs7.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><jonathan-10AB37...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><dUbm9.32986$g73.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><69em9.865$L6.4...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><8llm9.33587$g73.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnapk23v.1g66....@lievre.voute.net>
><K4pm9.164$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><and9oq$q1j$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><9qqm9.345$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><q2fkpu068qve3jt7b...@4ax.com>
><anfknr$lhm$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><jonathan-F528B4...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><anmr2k$3tg$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> <HsEn9.562$gY1.80650@newsfep2-gui>
><jonathan-5ADE19...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><ant424$5of$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1034032457 18123309 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
The Dr. Dolly Coughlan archive exists because Desmond Coughlan lacks conviction
in his words. He won't allow his posts to be archived in Google. Please feel
free to use it to your advantage.
Incubus
"Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> wrote in message
brown with a tinge of grey
>
>
>
>
>
Peter Morris
> Le Mon, 7 Oct 2002 23:06:45 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >>
> >> Hee hee!
>
> > Oh yeah? Try and guess my hair colour, then ;oP>
>
Bald and a beard?
No, I'm a database guy not a unix guru.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<no...@m.please> wrote:
So you've got a porn-star moustache and smoke a pipe, then?
This _is_ fun!
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: The Cancer of AADP (Was: Re: Question For John ...)
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: 10 Oct 2002 18:50:53 GMT
>
>Le Thu, 10 Oct 2002 18:44:49 +0000 (UTC), Peter Morris <no...@m.please> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > Oh yeah? Try and guess my hair colour, then ;oP>
>
>>> You're bald.
>
>> Bald and a beard?
>>
>> No, I'm a database guy not a unix guru.
>
>LOL !!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>desmond @ zeouane.org |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!news
feed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!
fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: The Cancer of AADP (Was: Re: Question For John ...)
>Date: 10 Oct 2002 18:50:53 GMT
>Organization: None
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <slrnaqbisr.c7j.p...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <3MSk9.6321$O8.5...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><an1n6h$13p$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>
><jonathan-10AB37...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><dUbm9.32986$g73.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><69em9.865$L6.4...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><8llm9.33587$g73.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnapk23v.1g66....@lievre.voute.net>
><K4pm9.164$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><and9oq$q1j$1...@paris.btinternet.com>
><9qqm9.345$W37....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>
><q2fkpu068qve3jt7b...@4ax.com>
><anfknr$lhm$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
><jonathan-F528B4...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><anmr2k$3tg$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> <HsEn9.562$gY1.80650@newsfep2-gui>
><jonathan-5ADE19...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
><ant424$5of$1...@helle.btinternet.com>
><slrnaq456o.hs7.p...@lievre.voute.net>
><ao4hr0$j9i$1...@venus.btinternet.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1034275853 20368486 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93