What is an innocent civilian?
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2013, 08:46 PM
RE: What is an innocent civilian?
(17-03-2013 02:56 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Accessory after the fact. That's a legal term. If I kill someone and tell you and you don't tell the cops, you're as guilty as I am in the eyes of the law.

I understood the legal concept of accessory to crime before I made my post, but [I and I] didn't specify he was talking about legal innocence.

I had no intent to question his or your understanding of what "innocence" is, but instead was only encouraging more specification of what you two considered "innocence". Legal innocence differs from Biblical innocence differs from general innocence, etc. I think if someone hasn't specified which idea they speak of, it would be inconsiderate for me to assume which idea anyone refers to in any given use of the term "innocence", so I ask questions before carrying on the conversation. I apologize if I came off to you or others as rude or anything like that.

Quote: But more to the point, anyone here that has a Mac or an iPhone is using something that is produced in a Chinese factory with a worker suicide rate so high, that they installed NETS around the buildings to prevent people from jumping to their deaths. That's a pretty damn direct relationship.

I'm under the impression that a "direct" relationship is one in which two variables immediately influence each other with no other variable existing in that influence. Under that notion, relationships are direct or they are not, so there is no "pretty damn" direct, but instead only direct.

That said, a direct relationship between what? Many people working in Apple factories don't commit suicide, so if you're implying there's a direct relationship between us buying and using Apple products, you're making a false implication.

Quote:I think that the overall point is that there are atrocities like Third World labour, slavery, factory farming, forced labour, stripmining....that we can look at and call an atrocity. But what is our involvement in that? Can we say, "I'm innocent, it has nothing to do with me," or are we complicit? If we're complicit then what's our responsibility?

This is what I interpreted as I and I's overall point, too. I've spent much of my life dwelling on such thoughts, and that played a large role in me being a chronically sad, detached person. I only became a happier person after I started basing all my notions of "innocence" and "responsibility" on objective/physical circumstance, and thus I encourage more specification from others, hoping they might also some day feel happier about the subjects.

Quote:Anyway, what do you think innocent means? When I say, "the people killed on 911 were innocent," what is your reaction?

"Innocent" to me is a subjective term which means free of "guilt", another subjective term. Whether a person is "innocent/guilty" for carrying out any given act depends upon a standard or set of standards differentiating actions as creating "innocence" or "guilt". Those standards are decided upon for various reasons, be they logical, emotional, whatever, and all those reasons are arbitrarily adopted unless something in the universe (outside our own intentional creations) objectively constitutes "innocence" and "guilt".

So when someone says "the people killed on 911 were innocent", I accept that's their opinion, and then go into discussing how they came to hold that opinion, whether or not they think anybody in existence is "innocent" by their standards, and whether or not that's inherently relevant to any current decision we are faced with.

Quote: Finally, it's not that complicated, dude Cool

How much is "that" in the phrase "not that complicated"? I didn't say anything is "that" complicated, let alone complicated. I think everything is only as complicated as it is, however complicated that may be. I determine something's complication by the amount of variables involved in that thing, not by how easy/hard it is for anybody to understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: What is an innocent civilian?
(17-03-2013 08:27 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Aurora.

My Ishmael.

(For the uninitiated, I'm going to be using Quinn jargon. You may or may not be able to follow along.)

Around page 88-91, Quinn talks about the conflict resolution strategies of Leavers (erratic retaliator) and Takers (annihilator). The strategy of choice for the people of Our culture is annihilator; wipe out your competition whenever you can. This, of course, dovetails perfectly with the Taker vision.

The Annihilator strategy is anathema to the law of limited competition.

We can see this in the way we approach just about everything, from totalitarian agriculture, to war, to philosophical and ideological positions. The Annihilator strategy is the way in which Takers enact their story.

As with Highlander, there can be only one.

The problem is that every state and every corporation on Earth has adopted this strategy. In terms of the Nash Equilibrium, no one benefits from unilaterally abandoning the Annihilator strategy because if you do, the other players, who all practice Annihilator, will annihilate you.

So while we know that our lifestyle, the manner in which we make our living, is killing us (deforestation, carbon emissions, habitat depletion, soil erosion, speciocide, stripmining, exploitation of natural resources, exploitation of human labour, pollution, the list goes on for a while), and while we know that the reason we're doing things in this manner is because of the Annihilator strategy (all of these problems are manifestations of a strategy that tells us to wipe out our competition), we aren't changing. But the reason we aren't changing isn't because we're stupid, it's because we're locked in. It's like Speed. Driving at 50mph in a bus is insanity, it will kill us and we bloody well know it, but if we drop bellow 50mph, the bus explodes. So how do we stop it and how do we get off without dying? There's no easy answer. And while we're trying to figure it out, we're still doing 50mpm in a school zone.

And then we have to ask ourselves. While our bus is cutting its swath of destruction and leaving carnage in its wake and (and granted the metaphor breaks down a little here Drinking Beverage ) making us RICH, how complicit are we?

Anyhoo, I don't particularly want to hijack this thread. If you'd like to discuss Annihilator further or any of Quinn's theories, feel free to start a thread. I imagine that the philosophy forum is the most appropriate forum.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Thanks, Matt!

I will attempt to read My Ishmael (albeit slowly and with a dictionary on hand) and the thread idea is a good one.

Cheers Thumbsup

Humankind Dodgy (a total misnomer)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: