Quote Digest

[Sentenal]

I went back into my stash, and I found a few of a certain person...  Josh should get a kick out of these:

Being stuck is a position few of us like. We want something new but cannot let go of the old - old ideas, beliefs, habits, even thoughts. We are out of contact with our own genius. Sometimes we know we are stuck; sometimes we don't. In both cases we have to DO something.

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.

Compassion is no substitute for justice.

If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is with representation.

No nation ever taxed itself into prosperity.

The last thing they want is a revitalized economy now. I'm not saying the Democrats don't want a strong economy. Don't misunderstand. They just don't want it now.

Quotes from Rush Limbaugh.  And everyone loves Rush.

[Lord J Esq]

Love relies on honesty. Love without honesty is like ice in an oven: Sooner or later, it will melt away.

I suppose this is the crux of your argument, yes? Aside from some rather strange deviations onto the subject of moral relativism, most of what you say can be boiled down to this pithy idea: that honesty is a necessary prerequisite for sincere and persisting love.

Do you believe that to be true? Maybe you think you do, but let's try and falsify it instead. That's the scientific way. What if I told you there are people in the world who believe in lies, people whose love, no matter how sincere, is misguided? What if some people lived their whole lives believing in things that are not true, loving their perception of something more than the something itself? Do you dispute that such people exist? I leave it to you to answer, but there is only one answer.

Your argument is impressively tall, but insufficiently deep. It will fall over...and all those tall towers will look rather silly lying on the ground.

I cannot believe that you and I are truly in disagreement. It simply must be some failure on my part to convey my idea effectively. Boil it all down, and the crux of my position has been that, all else being equal, it is better to be loved than hated. You'll get further with people's support. It feeds on itself, even! How many times have you dismissed the beliefs of strangers, only to listen intently when someone you admire espouses that very same belief? Your friend benefits from your built-in respect by receiving a favorable hearing.

Most of the people who have disagreed with that--with me--have said either that love cannot exist without the object of the love being what the love-giver perceives it to be, or that it is too emotionally uncomfortable to maintain such a charade. But the former argument is a phoney, and the latter is irrelevant.

It isn't folly to admit the truth. The human condition is riddled with imperfections. Here is one of them. Even though honesty is the "best" policy, it is not always the most practical one. Playing people's ignorance by exploiting their love may sound like something Darth Vader would do, but in the end it's just a tactic...another move on the chessboard, toward achieving one's ultimate ambitions.

[Sentenal]

And some more:
Some from Rush...

“The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down”

“Bigot-A person who wins an argument with a liberal”

And now some from Neil Bortz, and a Libertarian talk-radio host from Atlanta.

“Greed: A word commonly used by liberals, low achievers, anti-capitalists and society's losers to denigrate, shame and discredit those who have acquired superior job skills and decision-making capabilities and who, through the application of those job”

“If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it, to take their money by force for your own needs, then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.”

“The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.”

[Radical_Dreamer]

Love relies on honesty. Love without honesty is like ice in an oven: Sooner or later, it will melt away.

I suppose this is the crux of your argument, yes? Aside from some rather strange deviations onto the subject of moral relativism, most of what you say can be boiled down to this pithy idea: that honesty is a necessary prerequisite for sincere and persisting love.

The reason I spoke about moral relativism was because it was directly relelvant. I was attempting to show that your logical frame work was internally incosistent. Should I assume that you are not dismissing this claim? Because that is a fundamental flaw with your argument. If you present a framework that is not internally consistent, then it's of no use. You wouldn't buy a car that would only start half the time, would you?

Do you believe that to be true? Maybe you think you do, but let's try and falsify it instead. That's the scientific way. What if I told you there are people in the world who believe in lies, people whose love, no matter how sincere, is misguided? What if some people lived their whole lives believing in things that are not true, loving their perception of something more than the something itself? Do you dispute that such people exist? I leave it to you to answer, but there is only one answer.

I do not dispute that such people exist. That was never a point of contention. There are a great many people who believe in lies, and have a sincere, misguided love as a result. I am saying that it is better that they not be misguided. I am saying that knowledge is better than ignornace. Do you disagree with that assertion? If so, why do you bother with science?

Your argument is impressively tall, but insufficiently deep. It will fall over...and all those tall towers will look rather silly lying on the ground.

I had only a few key points:

1) Your goal (with the framework) is to sate your own ego to the fullest degree possible

2) The framework you provide is not internally consistent

3) Being honest, in general, is a better practical policy than being dishonest

By all means, address any of these points you disagree with.

[Mystik3eb]

Most of the people who have disagreed with that--with me--have said either that love cannot exist without the object of the love being what the love-giver perceives it to be, or that it is too emotionally uncomfortable to maintain such a charade. But the former argument is a phoney, and the latter is irrelevant.

I still have yet to be shown why guilt is irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? Or who, should I say? Those who wish to ignore honesty and exploit people by treating them as stepping stones to achieve some height of worth, which is actually defined by the support of such people you wish to exploit? Or those who wish to create genuine friendships and acquaintences with the people in this world, with this inexpliacble feature inside us called emotions, and not exploit their support...but truly earn it?

This time, Josh, I'm actually agreeing that you're not being consistent. You should address those issues before continuing your argument, or the thorn will only dig deeper into your argument. Just a friendly warning. I do enjoy reading your posts, still. I laughed after reading "flower power" in the other post.

[Lord J Esq]

"Inconsistent"?! Ugh, you're really going to make me go through RD's entire post, eh? All right. Gimme a few days. It took me all week just to find time to make the rounds here tonight.

*mutters*

I was ever so close to simply conceding the argument on grounds of diminishing returns. But I suppose RD deserves a fuller reply if he wants to force the issue.

Where do the hours go? Midnight already, I'm dead tired, I have to get up early, and--whoosh!--there goes another minute.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Josh, I think part of the problem is that you and I are looking at the issue in different terms, with different parameters of success, and we haven't defined them well. Respond how you want, when you want (I believe you have my screen name) but I do want a bit more perspective on where you're coming from.

But back on topic.

I killed the child molester. He won't touch any more kids.

I bring this quote up because I think it brings up an interesting issue. Hammond is a convict, who learned that a convict child molester in his jail wanted to work with kids upon his release. So he killed the chimo.

Now he's being charged with murder. He's going to try to use an insanity defense (a previous attempt at this failed; and now he's in jail) but I don't know.

On the one hand, we can't let people going around murdering people willy-nilly, but on the other hand, there is one less child molester in the world, and that's never a bad thing. Do the ends justify the means? And is it sending the wrong message if we do or do not convict Hammond of murder?

[Mystik3eb]

On the one hand, we can't let people going around murdering people willy-nilly, but on the other hand, there is one less child molester in the world, and that's never a bad thing. Do the ends justify the means? And is it sending the wrong message if we do or do not convict Hammond of murder?

Boondock Saints, man. What a fantastic movie. I'm all for having gang members, mafia, and murderers killed, especially by a kick-ass Irish twin-team.

[Tonjevic]

How can we say that it is a good thing that a previous child molester is murdered?
How can we say that he hadnt re-habilitated for sure?
While alot of these kinds of people are rather pathological, and thier behaviour is not easily changed, how do we know that during thier jail time they didnt have a good, long think about where they are going and what they are doing, and decide to play it straight?

Killing a fellow human, whatever his/her lot in life has been up to that point is, in my opinion, unforgivable (unless in defense of self or friends). Hammond is a muderer now, nothing can change that, whatever his rationalle. He killed someone who he did not know would go back to his old ways, maybe the molester just wanted to make it up to society, in the place he thought it most appropriate. I'm not saying he did, but there is always the possibility. These kinds of people are monitered after a jail sentence, and if he were to re-offend, that would be it for him. leave him be I say, until he does offend there is no sure way to tell whether he is a nice, cuddly fellow, or a being of pure malice who's only intent is to kill and rape.

[Exodus]

Will you two please shut the hell up?

[GrayLensman]

On the one hand, we can't let people going around murdering people willy-nilly, but on the other hand, there is one less child molester in the world, and that's never a bad thing. Do the ends justify the means? And is it sending the wrong message if we do or do not convict Hammond of murder?

Vigilantism is the antithesis of civilized society.  No one should have the choice of life or death over a person.  The rule of law is what protects us from the lynch-mob.

[Radical_Dreamer]

On the one hand, we can't let people going around murdering people willy-nilly, but on the other hand, there is one less child molester in the world, and that's never a bad thing. Do the ends justify the means? And is it sending the wrong message if we do or do not convict Hammond of murder?

Vigilantism is the antithesis of civilized society.  No one should have the choice of life or death over a person.  The rule of law is what protects us from the lynch-mob.

This is true. But that begs the question, what is more important, law or justice? They try to bring them in line as much as possible, but no matter how optimistic you are on the situation, you must admit that it is not 1:1. The system fails. Should people accept these failures? If I knew someone was going to murder again, absolutely knew it, but that the law would fail to convict them, would it be wrong of me to intervene, simply because I would be doing so outside of the law?

How can we say that it is a good thing that a previous child molester is murdered?

I didn't. I said that it was good that there was one less child molester in the world. I think most people would agree that the world would be a better place if there were no child molesters in it. The question then is, did the ends justify the means? I am asking what you assumed I stated.

[Leebot]

On the one hand, we can't let people going around murdering people willy-nilly, but on the other hand, there is one less child molester in the world, and that's never a bad thing. Do the ends justify the means? And is it sending the wrong message if we do or do not convict Hammond of murder?

Vigilantism is the antithesis of civilized society.  No one should have the choice of life or death over a person.  The rule of law is what protects us from the lynch-mob.

Ah, here we come to a very interesting subject: Vigilanteism.

Now, on one side of the problem, we have "lynch-mobs" and other such vigilantes exercising their own version of law which is arguably immoral. In this case, there's little question as to this being a bad thing.

But on the other side, we have vigilantes who pick up the slack where the normal legal system fails. RD made a good comment on why this sometimes isn't immoral. But the problem with this case is that it's a symptom of another problem in society, so the fact of its existence is still bad.

Now, one last instance: What about cases where the problem is that the legal system can't act fast enough? It's a fact that in many cases the legal system doesn't actively prevent crimes; they punish them and hope this will discourage future crimes.

Given this, we know that it is legal to kill in self-defense, and often in the defense of another. Also, if someone invades your property, it's legal to use otherwise-criminal force to stop them from whatever they're doing. With this in mind, I must ask: Isn't this vigilanteism as well?

[Sentenal]

If the law says you can use lethal force to defend yourself, family, or property, and you use lethal force to do so, then no, its not vigilanteism.  It would only be so if the law didn't allow it.

[Daniel Krispin]

On the one hand, we can't let people going around murdering people willy-nilly, but on the other hand, there is one less child molester in the world, and that's never a bad thing. Do the ends justify the means? And is it sending the wrong message if we do or do not convict Hammond of murder?

Vigilantism is the antithesis of civilized society.  No one should have the choice of life or death over a person.  The rule of law is what protects us from the lynch-mob.

Interesting point. I'm just going to respond impartially here, not out of opinion but just regarding another's on the matter. Has anyone ever read the Oresteia by the Greek Tragedian Aeschylus? It considers that very matter. In the first part, the lord Agamemnon is murdered by his wife and her lover when he returns home - as she says, judgement and vengeance because he had sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia so that the fleet could depart for Troy. Her lover, Agamemnon's cousin, is acting on an old family fued, for the respective fathers of the two were bitter foes. The cousin's, Thyestes, seduces the wife of Agamemnon's father Atreus. Atreus served his brother Thyestes' children in a banquet. Not a pleasant family. In the second book, the Libation Bearers, the son of Agamemnon, Orestes, returns and avenges his father by killing his mother and her lover. He is then, however, hounded and driven mad by her Furies, for he has slain kindred blood.
The point of it is to show that blood in vengeance begets yet more blood, and each new killer seeks to justify their deeds through vengeance.
Then it comes to the last of the trilogy, which is The Eumenedies. Orestes come to Athens, and appeals to Athena to save him from the Furies. But to vindicate him is not for her alone she says. She, however, calls an assembly of the elders of Athens, and they judge the matter. Apollo is Orestes' defender; the Furies his prosecuters. Athena is the judge, but when the vote is split, she rules for Orestes. He is vindicated by the first court. The idea (well, one of the themes), is that vengeance is a continuing cycle of bloodshed. But what ends it? The court of Law. The gods of order and civilized justice (Athena) over the old ones of vengeance (the Furies). It's an interesting and very deep analysis on the matter. I would recommend any to read it, though it is rather difficult a read.
I just thought it was pertinent to the topic. I'm not stating my opinion on the matter, but thought this would be rather interesting.