Hang John Walker

[Strelnikov]

Wow!

I tossed a rock into the pond, and look where the ripples have gone.

Myriads, point of information: Are your views universally pro-life, or do you make exception when the sentients are unborn? If so, at what point do they graduate to sentience? And what about victims of late stage Alzheimer's, from whom all sentience has fled?

The responses I've seen from America's foreign friends confirms me in my view that the destruction of terrorism and its state supporters is a job for Americans. My view is summed up by a quote from General W. T. Sherman, from a letter he wrote after the fall of Atlanta in 1864:

"I fear that the world will jump to the wrong conclusion that because I am in Atlanta the work is done. Far from it. We must kill the three hundred thousand I have told you of so often, and the further they run the harder for us to get them."

Or, in his words in an earlier letter, victory required "that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright." Those were the men who were a danger in war, and potentially afterward. Men like Osama bin Laden.

You won't win the hearts and minds of highly motivated enemies by liberal sentimentality. At liberty, they will try their best to commit other atrocities. In prison, they are a danger to our fellow citizens guarding them, and to the rest of us if they manage to escape - and rest assured, they will try to do so. The only deterrence for such, as Sherman knew well, is to kill them. Our present war differs with Sherman's only in that, with potential use of nuclear and biological weapons by the enemy, the stakes are immeasurably higher.

Our future military actions should be geared toward maximizing enemy deaths. Captured terrorists should receive a speedy trial and a swift execution - existing laws against piracy ought to suffice as legal cause. And as for John Walker, the original topic of this thread: The old Bolsheviks had one good idea. A traitor got a bullet in the back of the head. His family got a bill for the cost of the cartridge.

Strelnikov

 

[Biscuit]

Here's my (unpopular) take on the whole thing

First of all, let me start by saying that I am by nature dispassionate, analytical, and detatched. I am unmoved by pictures of starving Ethiopian children, victims of oppressive governments interest me not at all. I firmly believe that at some level, nations and individuals always dig their own hole, climb in, then complain that they don't like the view. I do not feel moved at all to help dig them out. Cats up trees can haul their feline asses down, or starve. I'm indifferent. Sorry.

I have NO personal stake in the recent world events. I don't know anyone in New York. Nobody. Never even been there except passing through on business. My take on this does NOT stem from passion, emotion, or desire for vindication, for I have none of these where this is concerned. I have no friends or relatives in the vicinity, so my personal impact is nil.

My view is strictly economic. Irregardless of the reasons usually put forth for going to war and waging it, the root cause is always economic. Theology, Societal differences, idealogy, always are subordinate on a national level to money. Always. Without exception. Individuals may be moved by passion and righteosness, but nations are moved by money.

The attack on Sept 11th has yet to affect me personally, but it has significantly altered the economic strength of the nation, and I am sure that this WILL eventually trickle far enough down the economic ladder to affect me. That said:

I personally would like to see the prisoners, including the american, squeezed of whatever information they have in whatever manner seems expeditious at the time. Once they are wrung dry of this information, which will allow us to quash this very real threat to our economic stability, I really don't care at all what is done to them. Hang them, turn them loose to mob justice, incarcerate them, etc. It is of absolutely no importance to me. Wouldn't cross the street to find out about their treatment once they cease to be useful sources of information.

I have no desire for justice, blood, fire or brimstone. I am interested in the ecomomic health of the nation as a whole, because this will undoubtedly eventually affect me and my loved ones personally at some point. Beyond that, I have no opinion.

Sorry, but nobody ever accused me of being a nice guy. Or politically correct. I could name some other adjectives that have been used frequently, but many of them are unsuited to polite company.

Let me close by saying that I find this thread fascinating, and will continue to read it, but that I'm not particularly interested in being agreed with. Not that I MIND, exactly, but rather that this view is so integral to who I am that outside agreement is pretty much irrelevant to me.

Hope everybody has a nice day 😉.

 

[Myriads]

Myriads, point of information: Are your views universally pro-life, or do you make exception when the sentients are unborn? If so, at what point do they graduate to sentience? And what about victims of late stage Alzheimer's, from whom all sentience has fled?

Sentience cannot begin until some point in the late 2nd trimester when brain cell differentiation and development begins to take place, so before that point they are not sentient, but only potential sentients which are effectively parasitic extensions of their hosts. That host is the only one who should get to make the call about what is still an effective extension of their own body before and up to this point.

After the point where brain cell differentiation begins the potential for sentience begins to be realized, and the new sentient deserves all the protection and rights of any other sentient.

The Alzheimer's victim has an pre existing claim on sentience, in that they have proven sentience in the past. That they do not have it now is of no import. They proved sentience at one point and thus qualify as a sentient deserving all rights of a sentient being until their death. This also covers individuals who have suffered radical brain injuries, severe stroke, and so on.

Myriads

 

[venray]

to Myriads

A question.....

Would you have us keep these men prisoners for life and if so at what cost? Should we ask the husbands, wives, mothers, daughters, and friends of those lost to foot the bill for the next 30 to 50 years to
keep these devils alive and well until they die of natural causes?

I for one cannot in good conscience ask them to do so. If we do not try them and if found guilty put them to death then we will most certainly send them back to their own land where I am sure justice will be swiftly served under the newly formed government there.

 

[JoBelle]

WOOHOO!! Parasitic extensions of their host...LMFAO! There's an advertisement for parenthood, eh? I suppose some were parasites to their folks AFTER they were born too. 😛 Sorry..THAT was too funny.

I always think hearing men discuss the act of carrying a child to be rather humorous. Now, I don't mean to be anti-man with that comment, but c'mon...hehe😉
Jo

 

[Myriads]

A question.....

Would you have us keep these men prisoners for life and if so at what cost? Should we ask the husbands, wives, mothers, daughters, and friends of those lost to foot the bill for the next 30 to 50 years to keep these devils alive and well until they die of natural causes?

Yes that is exactly what I would propose. At what cost? What ever the cost of doing it is. The cost of doing so is one of the prices that a civilized nation needs to accept to meet the standards of being such.

Myriads

 

[MadKalnod]

The Comedy Never Stops...

Myriads, my friend, I just have to say this before I start:
I'm not flaming you. I'm not trying to start a fight.
I'm just trying to make sure I'm on the same page as far as your philosophy goes. Consider the following to be within {GOOD-NATURED RIBBING} html code brackets.

You say that it's unequivocally bad to categorize anyone as being less than human, even if the subject in question has made repeated conscious decisions of their own free will to ignore their responsibilities to behave like human beings by, oh, I don't know, declaring a Jihad and calling the killing of innocent civillians in skull-crunching numbers a virtuous goal. Now, I'd think that such behavior would qualify as reneging on your Union Dues to the Human race and forfeiting all Membership Priviledges, but hey, that's just me. I'm magnanimous enough not to challenge you on that opinion, though. A belief in the value of all life is a lovely thing. Superman & Batman refuse to kill anyone too, and I'm completely behind them.

But that being said, you then claim that abortion is okay because the fetus isn't human, it's just a mass of cells and the "Host" (not Mother but Host) is encouraged to exterminate it like the parasite it is if she's the slightest bit inconvenienced by it.

Huh?😕 Let me see if I've got this straight. If a group of men make it the focus of their lives to kill you and everyone you know, and have already made one attempt to escape custody and continue the slaughter which resulted in the death of a man trying to keep them confined; it is unacceptable to kill them in the name of what is essentially the people's collective self-defense, and instead we must permit them to continue festering like an infected wound. It is, however, perfectly fine to callously snuff out what could be the next Einstein or Mozart or Gandhi or Shakespeare or King just because somebody forgot to use a condom, since, after all, we aren't dealing with human life like you or I. Convicted Killers must be protected in "Civilized Society" like they're an Endangered Species, but unborn innocents are fair game. If I were a callous pragmatist, I could believe that both abortion and capital punishment are acceptable. If I were a devout Christian, I would say neither is ethical. But I get a headache trying to believe both of your positions at the same time, Myr old mate. That's the kind of logical contradiction that Captain Kirk would use to destroy rogue computers.

Now, I don't know if this evidence is admissible, but if even your Mother (or should I have said Host? 😉 ) knows, then it can't be a violation of lawyer/client confidentiality. Am I the only one who finds it hysterically funny that a guy who's had people sign contracts in their own blood making them his slaves wants to talk about how "civilized societies" should and shouldn't behave? Oh, Myriads old buddy, you've got to be smelling at least a little irony.

{/GOOD-NATURED RIBBING}

 

[Myriads]

But that being said, you then claim that abortion is okay because the fetus isn't human, it's just a mass of cells and the "Host" (not Mother but Host) is encouraged to exterminate it like the parasite it is if she's the slightest bit inconvenienced by it.

I never said that the fetus is not human. I said it was not sentient (and only then before brain cell differentiation). A very significant distinction. It is not being human that accords you a right to life, it is sentience.
Being simply human cannot be the only litmus test for applying rights. A woman's eggs can be considered human. After all, they have been known to undergo spontaneous mitosis and develop into natural clones in some historical cases. Thus like the fetus that has yet to have differentiated brain cells, each egg too posses potential for sentient life. If this is the case, then moral and potential legal issues with each ovation period that pregnancy fails to occurs, could be troublesome indeed...

The term host was used because 'mother' applies only after a child is born, and I felt incubator was too easy to confuse with mechanical analogs.

Huh? Let me see if I've got this straight. If a group of men make it the focus of their lives to kill you and everyone you know, and have already made one attempt to escape custody and continue the slaughter which resulted in the death of a man trying to keep them confined; it is unacceptable to kill them in the name of what is essentially the people's collective self-defense, and instead we must permit them to continue festering like an infected wound.

They have been captured, disarmed, and no longer pose a threat. There is nothing to be gained in depriving them of their right to life. Civilized societies are burdened by costs that uncivilized ones are not. Caring for uncivilized elements that have been isolated from mass society is one such cost. Because a barbarian has no compunction about violating basic sentient rights, does not mean that civilized sentient beings get a free pass to do the same.

It is, however, perfectly fine to callously snuff out what could be the next Einstein or Mozart or Gandhi or Shakespeare or King just because somebody forgot to use a condom, since, after all, we aren't dealing with human life like you or I. Convicted Killers must be protected in "Civilized Society" like they're an Endangered Species, but unborn innocents are fair game. If I were a callous pragmatist, I could believe that both abortion and capital punishment are acceptable. If I were a devout Christian, I would say neither is ethical. But I get a headache trying to believe both of your positions at the same time, Myr old mate. That's the kind of logical contradiction that Captain Kirk would use to destroy rogue computers.

My position is simple. Sentience accords one with the basic right to life. The issue that is probably causing you difficulty is where one draws the line at sentience occurring, as being opposed to only being the potential to sentience. I draw that line at brain cell differentiation. Before you have a potential sentient human. After you have a sentient human.
You might place the line someplace earlier. Everyone needs to make such calls themselves. An analog argument is the silly Pro and Anti abortion fight over where life starts, same format, different focus.

Now, I don't know if this evidence is admissible, but if even your Mother (or should I have said Host?) knows, then it can't be a violation of lawyer/client confidentiality. Am I the only one who finds it hysterically funny that a guy who's had people sign contracts in their own blood making them his slaves wants to talk about how "civilized societies" should and shouldn't behave? Oh, Myriads old buddy, you've got to be smelling at least a little irony.

My mother (and former host, up to the moment of my birth) predeceased my ownership of a slave so it was never an issue that came up. Though, based upon what I understand of her world outlook, she would not have had an issue with it in any way shape or form. This was the woman who endorsed my tickling fetish, teaching me that it was simply another aspect of my sexuality, and aided my father in the purchase of materials pertaining to it when I was age 13.

As to there being a conflict between part of a civilized society and my being a slave owner, there are absolutely no contradictions involved (leaving aside the fact that I'm not convinced I DO live in a fully civilized society). A civilized society allows it's sentient citizens to make their own mindful choices about how to lead their lives so long as those choices do not interfere with the basic rights of other citizen sentients. If a mindful citizen sentient wishes to enter into a contract with another mindful citizen sentient (and uses blood to write said contract due to personal symbolic significance) then it is that pair of sentients business regardless of the contents and issues defined by that contract. Non-governance of mindful consensual sentient interaction is another hallmark of a civilized state. Civilized states recognize the right of their mindful citizens to pursue whatever courses they chose, regardless of the apparent moral directions of those choices, so long as said choices violate no ones rights.

My holding slaves is no different then an employer hiring employees. The details of the contracts simply differ in what services, responsibilities and remuneration are expected.

Civilized does not necessarily equal moral. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Civilized is based on the respect of certain explicitly spelled out codes of conduct and interaction between sentient beings, and is blind to personal opinions of morality. For example; that these terrorists have committed mass killings is morally horrid in our viewpoint, no questions, an act of utter barbarity. But since we are hopefully a civilized state, that they are sentient humans provides them with the inalienable right to life, regardless of how we, their captors morally view their actions. Civilization rises above the moral ambiguity of individual (or even mob) judgement, and provides inalienable rights to guide behavior and interaction between all sentients, not just those lucky enough to live under a just legal system, or have the material resources to shield themselves from difficulty.

All comments taken in the spirit of good natured ribbing, and replies to them as if they were serious inquiries into how I think and order my world.

Myriads

 

[JoBelle]

You don't have kids do ya Myr? That last post certainly clears things up for me for me about your logic. I'm speechless.


Jo

 

[Myriads]

You don't have kids do ya Myr?

Nope I have no children. Nor do I ever plan to. I would not be a good parent, and wouldn't inflict myself on a developing sentient. They deserve things that I would not be able to provide.

Myriads

 

[Oblesklk]

Myriads, your thought processes do continue to amaze me, friend 🙂

I am very pleased to see that philosophy is alive and well within the community. It is a gift to see logic divorced from either morality or reactionary fervor, even in the most unconventional of places - a tickling forum.

The last time I read Nietzsche in earnest was 3 years ago...But dare I say I see his spirit sneaking into the shadows of conversation from time to time...

Although it may scare you and pain you a little bit, Myr, I do agree with your sentiments mostly. Except for the slave owning analogy and "not being able to parent" crack. I've encountered people that couldn't reason their way through a crosswalk have scores of little ones running about the house. I think you'd do fine

 

[JoBelle]

Had to edit this a bit.

Scot, Faulty? Don't put words in my mouth, darlin'..lol. I TOTALLY disagree, but it's his brain, his life and his bill to pay at the end. Just like me.

Jo

A quote by S.I. Hayakawa
"Each of us has his own little private conviction of rightness and almost by definition, the Utopian condition of which we all dream is that in which all people finally see the error of their ways and agree with us. And underlying practicaly all our attempts to bring agreement is brought about by changing people's minds - other people's."

 

[shark]

So who said these assholes are harmless just because they have been locked away?The first death in afghanistan was killed by a bunch who had surrendered and decided that they hadn't had enough yet.I see no reason why this won't happen in the future,especially since there is something that can be gained by their being held.For instance,I had earlier pointed out that voluntary surrenders were done in korea with the express purpose of creating mass,widespread chaos within the camps.I ts expensive to house prisoners,and ones dedicated to causes like these will jeopardize their guards,prison employees,and other inmates as well.If dying and going to see Allah is their goal,help them along on their merry way.And good riddance.

 

[Strelnikov]

Well, Myriads, you're consistent at least.

As it happens, I agree with you regarding victims of dementia. I draw the line on the abortion question a little later than you do - at the point where a delivery results in a premature birth rather than a miscarriage. My wife and I were fairly senior when our youngest was conceived - of an age when serious genetic defects are a matter of real concern. We gave the matter serious thought.

Where you and I part company is your notion that self-awareness confers an unconditional right to life. I make a moral judgement that some actions are unacceptable. If someone chooses to be a party to the murder of innocents, that person must be held to account. For the worst atrocities, only the death penalty is sufficient.

Furthermore, there are individuals who are too dangerous to be allowed to live. The death penalty may not be an effective deterrent by example, but the individual executed is deterred for all time. Imposing the death penalty is a matter of moral choice. I see nothing wrong with liquidating sociopaths who misuse their free will. There's more moral justification for doing that than shooting sheep-killing dogs that are just doing what comes natural.

Strelnikov

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Of Humans and Monsters...

Jo, I understand what your saying, but I don’t think your getting the point I’m trying to make. That’s my fault though for not explaining my views well enough. Simply put, you see these people as monsters because of their disregard for human life. I see them as Humans.
That is one of the biggest problems with humanity. There denial of not so much what they are, but what there capable of. Inside each human is the potential for great good or great evil. But, we simple refuse to accept that, and call those who do evil as Monsters and inhuman. Why? So we can sleep better at night. We decide that because of there actions they can no longer be human, and therefore we don’t have to face the reality that the next Hitler could just as easily be one of our friends, our spouse, or children, or even ourselves.
Now, let’s take a look at one of histories Monsters, the Nazi’s. Now, it’s easy to think that all Nazi’s are evil monsters that drank the blood of the living and tortured Jewish people for fun. I highly doubt this though. More then likely, most were men who had loving families and at heart were decent people. Oscar Shindler is an example of that. But, unfortunately, many others didn’t have the money, charisma, or intelligence to do what he did.
During the times before the war and during the war, in Germany there were two sides. Hitler’s side, and the other side. And you didn’t want to get caught if you were on the other side. If Hitler wanted you on his side though, you had probably one of two choices. Join him and possibly commit horrible crimes to other people, or refuse to join him and face the possibility of the torture and death of you and your family. Which would you choose? The death of your family, or the death of complete strangers? Now, that’s not an easy question. It’s not a fair one either. But, life is not fair sometimes. Sometimes hard choices are all the choices you have.
Now, let’s fast forward to the present. We have the Talaban in Afghanistan. Now, Afghanistan is a very violent place. There are lots of factions fighting for power, and either your one of those fighting, or one of those just trying to stay alive. Would it be too surprising to imagine that perhaps a few of those in the Talaban did not join because of religious reasons alone but because they thought it would offer their family protection? Is that so impossible?
Now, let’s say that you are a Talaban member, and one day Bin laden or one of his generals tells you that your going to America to wait for three years and then you were to crash a plane into the world trade center or the pentagon. Now, after being told this, would you say no? COULD you say no? If you did, it could mean the death of you and your family.
Now, we’ll never know what exactly happened with the people who hijacked the planes. We can think we know, we can guess, but we’ll never know for sure. I honestly can’t prove what I suggested above is true, but then again, I don’t know if it can be proved that it didn’t. But, if what is suggested was the case, if these people only did what they did to save there loved ones, would they still be monsters, or would there only crime be the fact that they are human? Tough choices and tough decisions.
We should not blame all Talaban for what happened in the Sept 11 attack. More then likely it was not put to a majority vote. A few of the higher ups decided to do it, so it was done. Simple as that. Does it make what happened any better? No, but it’s something that we should realize.
Now, some people argue that some people are born monsters. Like, for example, nobody forced Hitler to make the choices he made. He was the guy in charge. So, what reason can we come up with to explain his actions? That’s a tough one really. I know I can’t answer it, although I think there were more political and strategic answers for what he did other then hate. Ie, All the Jewish people had the money, so enslave them and take it all away, nobody has to pay for forced labor, A scapegoat for all the problems they had, a common enemy to unite the masses, etc.
I honestly don’t think anybody can be born evil, or be born a monster. A person can be more prone to violence, or not have a conscience, but these are because of genetic defects, and they can no more be held responsible for them then a person born without a leg can be. It’s just a toss of the genetic dice, and every once in a while you get Snake Eyes.
Now, how does a person become evil, or loose the regard for human life? I believe this is part of how you’re brought up and where. For example, if your taught from an early age that life is cheap, more then likely you will believe that. If you are brought up in an environment were violence is day to day thing, more then likely you will be prone to violence. Ie, if your beaten as a child, it’s more likely that you will beat your child, doesn’t mean it will happen, but your more likely to then somebody who wasn’t abused as a child.
Simply put, people do not become bad people until WE make them bad people. Is that an excuse? No, but it is something to look at when we judge them. I wonder how people like Bin Laden and Hitler would have turned out if the had been brought up in a different environment?
I think I covered all the area’s I wanted to, so I’ll just leave a closing comment. Humans aren’t monsters, until we decide to make them Monsters

Cosmo_ac

 

[P.H. Tickler]

WOW, when did abortion get thrown into the mix?

A proposed solution to ALL woes...

I would further clarify "pro life" with the word innocent.
I am Pro Innocent Life. I also believe in the death penalty. why? they're no longer innocent.
what the world deperately needs...
A Parent Licence!!!
1. EVERYONE is temporarily sterilized at birth (or shortly after).
2. A couple wishing to concieve proves that they are ready to do so and applies for a licence (heck you need licences to drive and get married)
3. Licence is granted, sterility is temporarily removed
4. happy couple start a family.

that puts an end to the roe v. wade debate forever... when does life begin? when you get the licence! No more doctors breaking the Hypocratic oath, no more of MY tax dollars going to fund the slaughter of the innocents, no more crack babies.

now let's look at the ideal death penalty... if you kill someone intentionally (not because you were trying to keep from being killed yourself), you die... end of story, no 40 year stays, no governors reprieves, no overcrowded prisons. Now, respect for life is the law.

now, applying the above filter to the question of Afghan P.O.W. treatment...
Are they innocent?
NO, they took up arms with the intention of killing the defenders of the 9/11/01 innocent victims.
Did they kill anyone?
NO, not directly anyway... the ones that did should be shot immediately, but no need to wipe out the populations.
Should they get away with it with kind treatment?
HELL no!! Make a lasting impression on them that they made the wrong choice taking up arms with a whacko.

The state of military technology is such that there needed to be no prisoners left alive to take, SO, if the military decided to take prisoners, they should keep them alive, BUT the treatment of them should be harsh enough to make them seriously rethink their allegiance to osama bin lardass.

As for John Walker, if he wanted to be one of them so bad, perhaps we should have just left him there with the rest of the POWs.

 

[JoBelle]

Cosmo,
I hear you. I disagree, but I hear you. I've no argument to set forth here that I haven't already stated. We may label people monsters, but that comes into effect after their choices to act on thoughts in disregard of innocent life.

You seem like a very nice and loving man. If you walk out tomorrow and shoot a child in the head and kill them because of the piece of land on which they live, I would think you a monster. That being defined by your act. I don't care who told you to do it, or how scared you are for your family. You have the choice to do otherwise just as effectively.

You have chosen to say that people are all victims of circumstance. I choose to believe we are victims to weak choices that WE make and that we should be held accountable regardless of the reason behind our decision.

We'll never agree, but I see your point of view.
Jo

 

[Cosmo_ac]

I'm not saying people shouldn't be held acountable for there actions, but it's a hell of a lot easier to pass judgement on a person when it's not your family on the line. Would a person be any less of an evil person if they chose to let there wife and children get killed instead of a complete stranger?
As a general question for all the people reading this post, i pose to you a question. If your daughter, or son, or wife was going to get shot in the head, unless you killed a single stranger, shot to the head, quick and painless death, which would you choose? you must chose one. This is were the problem arises. Stranger vs. Loved one. It's not an easy question, but sometimes we are put in a position were we must make a choice. What would you choose?

 

[JoBelle]

Cosmo....you make my brain tired, but I still like you. 😉

You've essentially changed the topic. You're making this sound like every person that is being held at camp X-ray has their wife and children at gunpoint until every American on the planet is executed.

Sure, there are cases where families were made to choose in order to comply with the so called "overnmental"body in charge, but I dare say this was more of the...."Hop on the bandwagon because it sounds better than what's going on here now" syndrome.

Ask me to kill to protect my son...sure..in a heartbeat. Ask me to kill because the goverment doesn't like Morrocco...nope...I'll pack up and start looking for a better place to live. Anything is doable.

I can't believe you sucked me back in here...grrr...now for an exit again.
Jo

 

[Strelnikov]

Sigh...

Cosmo, people make moral choices. That was true even in Nazi Germany. There was an expression current at the time. Becoming aware of the latest Nazi outrage, Germans of conscience would sometimes mutter, "Ohne mich." Without me. They simply refused to participate. The Nazis seldom took action against such people. Why expend resources to compel the unwilling, when there were plenty of volunteers for the Gestapo and the camp guards?

As for John Walker, he was an American with all of the choices Americans have. He chose to join an organization with an evil program: the murder of innocents. By his choice, he repudiated us. By his choice, he became a party to atrocity. He deserves to hang.

Strelnikov