Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Sure. If there's no difference in the outcomes, no matter what you decide, choose the one that makes you feel better. How about if it's 'agressive' but not life-threatening interrogation (extreme enough that you personally would consider it torture) of one suspect against the lives of, say, all the passengers in an airliner?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
How about if it's 'agressive' but not life-threatening interrogation (extreme enough that you personally would consider it torture) of one suspect against the lives of, say, all the passengers in an airliner?

---

And... if the suspect is you, Geezer, and they don't believe you when you say you know nothing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
How about if it's 'agressive' but not life-threatening interrogation (extreme enough that you personally would consider it torture) of one suspect against the lives of, say, all the passengers in an airliner?

---

And... if the suspect is you, Geezer, and they don't believe you when you say you know nothing?

---

Then I suffer some pain and the passengers still die?

But that's not the point here. SignyM and Anthony seem to think that they can oppose 'means' they believe unjustified, and not be responsible for the 'ends' which may occur if those means are not to be used. Yet they won't come right out and say that their principles are worth more than other people's lives.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
But that's not the point here. SignyM and Anthony seem to think that they can oppose 'means' they believe unjustified, and not be responsible for the 'ends' which may occur if those means are not to be used. Yet they won't come right out and say that their principles are worth more than other people's lives.

---

Quote:

---

But that's not the point here. SignyM and Anthony seem to think that they can oppose 'means' they believe unjustified, and not be responsible for the 'ends' which may occur if those means are not to be used. Yet they won't come right out and say that their principles are worth more than other people's lives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"I think if we get caught up in "isms" we make the same mistake that the jihadists make, and we start viewing human lives and happiness as less important than our particular "ism"."

Including capital'ism'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Don't you own Gold? What for?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If I said that I do not want to be tortured even if it would save lives, does that make me selfish?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not willing to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even if it will save lives.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, your point is not even worth debating. I read thru the posts and you did your usual fine job of misrepresenting what other people - includng me- said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If I said that I do not want to be tortured even if it would save lives, does that make me selfish?

---

Wrong question.

If you are able to prevent all torture, or wiretapping, or photometric IDing, or your tyranny of choice - even if you know that preventing such torture, etc. will cost lives - does that make you in some way responsible for those lives which will be lost?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

If you are able to prevent all torture, or wiretapping, or photometric IDing, or your tyranny of choice - even if you know that preventing such torture, etc. will cost lives - does that make you in some way responsible for those lives which will be lost?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The principle of human dignity is one I value very highly and to disregard it, to me, creates the choice of why bother saving people at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:

So yes I'm a heartless bastard, I'm against torturing anyone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not willing to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked, or partially drowned. Not even if it will save lives.

---

That's been pretty clear all along, but it's not the question I raised.

Would you be willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked or partially drowned to save lives?

If not, and your decision was the final say, do you think you're in any way responsible for the lives lost?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
So then, it could be argued that lives would be saved if every firearm in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the gun-related deaths?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, your point is not even worth debating. I read thru the posts and you did your usual fine job of misrepresenting what other people - includng me- said. Call me if anyone interesting shows up.

---

Quote:

---

Was this thread started to illicit honest opinions to your stated question or for like minded people to agree with each other?
If your stated 'end' in RWED is to learn from others, including other peoples motivations and perceptions and how they differ from yours, how do you justify the 'means' in which you go about it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Because I like it ? BTW, since you seems not to know what a capitalist is, here's a definition - a person who owns the means of production. NOT a person who owns private property.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Don't you own Gold? What for?

---

Because I like it ? BTW, since you seems not to know what a capitalist is, here's a definition - a person who owns the means of production. NOT a person who owns private property.

Or, in terms you may be able to understand (taken from "the Cosby Show") - "we work for our money. Rich people have their money work for them."

I work for my money. I am not a capitalist. Get it ?

Oh ---- and, do you have a point ?

***************************************************************
Do you ever have a point ?

---

Quote:

---

Who pays you your money? My guess....a capitalist...thank him tomorrow

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Who pays you your money? My guess....a capitalist...thank him tomorrow

---

And who MAKES the stuff that the capitalist sells? The employee. So that capitalist should thank his employees, because w/o them he'd be nothing.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The defining characteristic of capitalism is indeed private ownership of the means of production.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Citizen

You say there are many systems in which the means of production are privately owned but that aren't capitalist. If you could provide me (and Kaneman) with some examples I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

The defining characteristic of capitalism is indeed private ownership of the means of production.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Well, most of them. Feudalism had privately owned production, Mercantalism (from which Capitalism developed) and so on, off the top of my head I can't think of many systems that don't have private ownership of production. I can't see an option between private ownership and public ownership, and public ownership is largely a factor in Socialism and Communism, and not much else besides.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
.....
If you are going to destroy what you are defending with your means, why bother with the action of defending it at all ?

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
So then, it could be argued that lives would be saved if every firearm in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the gun-related deaths?

---

It could also be argued that lives would be saved if every vehicle in the country was confiscated. Are you willing to allow that? And if not, are you willing to accept responsibility for all the vehicle related deaths?

---

Quote:

---

Simple. The Capitalist, Whether or not he has employees or works SOLO, has the INVESTED stake in an idea OR product that MAYBE in demand to someone....HE takes a chance! That DEMAND is a CUNSUMER. That CONSUMER maybe someone else's employee or another CAPATAILIST...Without the initial gamble there would be nothing! No markets(Actually there will always be a market for MORE and BETTER...it's human nature)....

---

Quote:

---

"Would you be willing for others to be kidnapped, beaten, shocked or partially drowned to save lives?

If not, and your decision was the final say, do you think you're in any way responsible for the lives lost?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I notice you address my question, without having the nerve to answer it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
I notice you address my question, without having the nerve to answer it.

---

I guess if the 'end' of this thread was to answer your question you could dictate the 'means' used to address it.

---