Principia Discordia

There's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused. Another person who needed compassion at a critical moment and got none. Just people, in pain, living out nightmares, committing gross attrocities, in some twisted way, trying to make it better by making it worse. Trying to transmute their life, to turn lead into gold.
But when we cross that line, we must deal wirth the consequences, we must be dealt with, but dealt with as we are. Not as monsters, as subhuman, but as the people we are. People with problems. People just the same.
The real evil lies not in the poersecuted, but in the persecutors, memetically labeling people forever. Is an alcoholic forever an alcoholic? If so, doesn't that mean that we all are? Somewhere in each of us, we could be? From Pohl pot and Hitler right down to Self-mutilation, it's all there inside us. The "dark" side of human potential, but it's not dark, it just is.
Am I forever violent if I hit a haemopheliac in the nose at age 8? Age 12? Age 20? I did. 8 years old and all the compassion drained out of their faces when they found out. But could they honestly say that they would never do the same? They don't know what went on in my brain, what lead up to it, what lead away from it. Doesn't that matter? There doesn't have to be an excuse, a pardon or any kind of justification. But who ever asked why?
As I got older, and I committed other transggressions, the disapproval was more severe. I was "stupid." I was "hopeless." I was "letting my emotions get the better of me." And yet we all do at times, and when we do there is no compassion for us. We reserve our sympathy, our understanding, for children. We don't expect them to fully understand. Sometimes as adults we don't fully understand, they're "immature." But we're all still growing up. Our bodies grow old and die, but we're always children. Every moment is new, and strange, and confusing, no matter how familiar we are with the scenario.
We're not always thankful for the chance, sometimes we still act out that drama. Trying to make it better by making it worse. It doesn't change the way things are. That we're all human, that we're all worthy, somehow.

~Trollax~

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDThere's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Yup. People on this forum call me evil and we joke around about it,
but all kidding aside.....there is real evil in this world.

Which is not to say that I think for one minute the mistakes you, or
anyone else, made as children can in anyway be construed as evil.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandAuschwitz.
Theory discounted.

Not at all. You seem to be under the impresion that the Nazis committed crimes against humanity because they thought it would be fun.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDThere's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the WastelandAuschwitz.
Theory discounted.

Not at all. You seem to be under the impresion that the Nazis committed crimes against humanity because they thought it would be fun.

Ouch.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the WastelandAuschwitz.
Theory discounted.

Not at all. You seem to be under the impresion that the Nazis committed crimes against humanity because they thought it would be fun.

It doesn't matter what their motives were.

It was evil, so were they.

I just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDThere's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Nonsense.  That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.

I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomI just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomI just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

Call it what you will, you and I will never agree on this one.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDThere's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Nonsense.  That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.

I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

One word.

Palestine.

Rebuttal discounted.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomI just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDThere's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Nonsense.  That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.

I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

One word.

Palestine.

Rebuttal discounted.

At what point did I say that the Jews were angels?

I did not.

What I said was that the camps were Evil.  In turn, they have engendered a "never again" mentality that has bred more evil.

Evil feeds on itself, and prospers when good men (and women) do nothing.  Moral relevance is just another rationalization for doing nothing.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomI just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

The minute you disagreed with something someone said. Oh, wait, but that's just moral relativism taken to the extreme. I'm not actually getting at the "truth."
*Has a heart attack from laughing*

Quote from: Out of the WastelandThat's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

I think you meant moral relativism.

What is wrong with moral relativism?

Also - Trollax's position isn't necessarily relativist. It could be coherently constructed from some forms of intentionalism.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandTell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.
I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

You'd be surprised how many of them are able to forgive what happened to them. Go find one of those people and ask them - they'll tell you that the Evil (capital letter preserved) wasn't perpetrated by all the camp guards. They were nasty, certainly. They were inhumane at times, granted. I still don'taccept that they deserve the capital E.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDThere's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Nonsense.  That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.

I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

One word.

Palestine.

Rebuttal discounted.

At what point did I say that the Jews were angels?

I did not.

What I said was that the camps were Evil.  In turn, they have engendered a "never again" mentality that has bred more evil.

Evil feeds on itself, and prospers when good men (and women) do nothing.  Moral relevance is just another rationalization for doing nothing.

I never even said "give everyone a flower and pray it works out alright. I'm saying that unless we realise the humanity of other people no matter what they have done, we doom ourswelves to repeating the cycle, to continuing sunyata.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomI just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

The minute you disagreed with something someone said. Oh, wait, but that's just moral relativism taken to the extreme. I'm not actually getting at the "truth."
*Has a heart attack from laughing*

I didn't DISAGREE with what you said...I didn't see anything to disagree WITH.

BTW, Trollaxe, I'm enjoying a heated debate.  I will not indulge in a flame war with another Discordian, though.  I save THAT for the Freepers.  Can we agree on THAT?

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the WastelandThat's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

I think you meant moral relativism.

What is wrong with moral relativism?

Also - Trollax's position isn't necessarily relativist. It could be coherently constructed from some forms of intentionalism.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandTell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.
I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

You'd be surprised how many of them are able to forgive what happened to them. Go find one of those people and ask them - they'll tell you that the Evil (capital letter preserved) wasn't perpetrated by all the camp guards. They were nasty, certainly. They were inhumane at times, granted. I still don'taccept that they deserve the capital E.

1.  Yeah, that's what me and those 8 goose island beers meant.  My bad.

What is wrong with moral relativism?  Just the fact that some things ARE so wrong that they cannot be justified, explained, excused, or forgiven.  Jesus forgives, Eris forgets, I take revenge.

2.  They are better than me, in that respect.  The fact that they are good enough (one could almost say foolish enough) to forgive does not change the fact that the camps were Evil.  Why not a capital E?  6,000,000 emaciated corpses doesn't merit a capital E?  WTF does, then?

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDThere's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Nonsense.  That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.

I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

One word.

Palestine.

Rebuttal discounted.

At what point did I say that the Jews were angels?

I did not.

What I said was that the camps were Evil.  In turn, they have engendered a "never again" mentality that has bred more evil.

Evil feeds on itself, and prospers when good men (and women) do nothing.  Moral relevance is just another rationalization for doing nothing.

I never even said "give everyone a flower and pray it works out alright. I'm saying that unless we realise the humanity of other people no matter what they have done, we doom ourswelves to repeating the cycle, to continuing sunyata.

You might be right.  That might be your way.  MY way is to crush the Evil when it pokes its head up, given a smidgen of a chance.

In the CotSG, there are two camps...the Ivangelicals, and the Holocaustals.  You would be in the former group, I in the latter.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandWhat is wrong with moral relativism?  Just the fact that some things ARE so wrong that they cannot be justified, explained, excused, or forgiven.  Jesus forgives, Eris forgets, I take revenge.

If I may paraphrase your argument slightly: moral relatvism is bad because there are objective moral standards and hence moral relativism doesn't work.

The point is that, for the moral relativist, that just isn't the case. I understand that you aren't a moral relativist but that still doesn't explain why other people shoudln't be either.

On a personal note: I'm gonna ping you for claiming that there are things so bad as that they cannot be forgiven if you mention it again.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandWhy not a capital E?  6,000,000 emaciated corpses doesn't merit a capital E?  WTF does, then?

It isn't a numbers game. 6 billion people could die in the defense of freedom and it not be an evil thing. 1 person could die and it be evil (the usual examples are nasty sexual crimes against children). I'm not saying that the camp guards didn't do some nasty stuff and I'm not saying that I condone what they did. All I am saying is that the existence of Nazi death camps is not a counter example to Trollax's original post.

Edit: P.S. Eris forgets?!? Which fucking goddess did you meet?

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomI just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

The minute you disagreed with something someone said. Oh, wait, but that's just moral relativism taken to the extreme. I'm not actually getting at the "truth."
*Has a heart attack from laughing*

I didn't DISAGREE with what you said...I didn't see anything to disagree WITH.

BTW, Trollaxe, I'm enjoying a heated debate.  I will not indulge in a flame war with another Discordian, though.  I save THAT for the Freepers.  Can we agree on THAT?

Sure. It's obvious you feel strongly about this. So do I. I can't exactly say with conviction that I could forgive the massacre of 6 million people based on factors more or less out of their locus of control, but I do feel it would be interesting to try.
Did those men and women who went blindly along torture themselves over what happend? You bet they did. Look at Germany today. Somewhere, someone has to jump out of the emotional and psychological conventions and say, "boo!" It happened, it wasn't alright. I still don't believe that makes it evil. Can we honestly say we will never be coerced and led into similar situations? Anything is possible, and there is some sequence of ideas, some collection of events in everyone's head that when lined up correctly will lead to the kind of things we saw in Germany and are seeing in Israel.
I am a potential mass-murderer.
I know six ways to kill a person with just my hands, that doesn't mean I'm proud of it.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the WastelandWhat is wrong with moral relativism?  Just the fact that some things ARE so wrong that they cannot be justified, explained, excused, or forgiven.  Jesus forgives, Eris forgets, I take revenge.

If I may paraphrase your argument slightly: moral relatvism is bad because there are objective moral standards and hence moral relativism doesn't work.

The point is that, for the moral relativist, that just isn't the case. I understand that you aren't a moral relativist but that still doesn't explain why other people shoudln't be either.

On a personal note: I'm gonna ping you for claiming that there are things so bad as that they cannot be forgiven if you mention it again.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandWhy not a capital E?  6,000,000 emaciated corpses doesn't merit a capital E?  WTF does, then?

It isn't a numbers game. 6 billion people could die in the defense of freedom and it not be an evil thing. 1 person could die and it be evil (the usual examples are nasty sexual crimes against children). I'm not saying that the camp guards didn't do some nasty stuff and I'm not saying that I condone what they did. All I am saying is that the existence of Nazi death camps is not a counter example to Trollax's original post.

1.  When you take things far enough, yes, there ARE objective moral standards.  Not the nonsense that Ayn Rand blathered about...but there IS a limit to indulgence.  Wholesale slaughter based on race would seem to be one of them.

2.  Ping away.

3.  Correct.  Numbers may be immaterial to some degree (pedos are a good example)...but not completely.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomI just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

The minute you disagreed with something someone said. Oh, wait, but that's just moral relativism taken to the extreme. I'm not actually getting at the "truth."
*Has a heart attack from laughing*

I didn't DISAGREE with what you said...I didn't see anything to disagree WITH.

BTW, Trollaxe, I'm enjoying a heated debate.  I will not indulge in a flame war with another Discordian, though.  I save THAT for the Freepers.  Can we agree on THAT?

Sure. It's obvious you feel strongly about this. So do I. I can't exactly say with conviction that I could forgive the massacre of 6 million people based on factors more or less out of their locus of control, but I do feel it would be interesting to try.

Did those men and women who went blindly along torture themselves over what happend? You bet they did. Look at Germany today.

1.  Good.  I fell no need for a flamewar.  Not HERE, anyway.

2.  Why woul it be interesting to try?  Other than out of sheer morbidity?  Enlighten me on this one, because I am truly clueless as to your posible motivation.  FACT:  There are monsters in this world, and they need to be opposed.

3.  Not good enough.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  When you take things far enough, yes, there ARE objective moral standards.  Not the nonsense that Ayn Rand blathered about...but there IS a limit to indulgence.  Wholesale slaughter based on race would seem to be one of them.

2.  Ping away.

3.  Correct.  Numbers may be immaterial to some degree (pedos are a good example)...but not completely.

I'll borrow your numbers:

1. 'Scuse the French but bullshit there are objective moral standards. If you really think that there are, name the standard that superceeds all others in cases where moral standards conflict or explain why there isn't a single overriding objective moral good.

2. You just cross that line then. I warn you - I'll be irrational and tell my mummy.

3. Explain how numbers aren't completely irrelevant. If it helps, center your arguments on a discussion of why 6000001 deaths are worse in any real objective sense than 6000000 and estimate the cutoff point for the number of deaths below which an act doesn't qualify as Evil (TM)

I used to be a moral objectivist. I believed so strongly in my own standards I was prone to breaking them when I believed that other people were in the wrong. Not saying that is going on here, but at one point I got to thinking that unless I could accept the possibility I was in error, then I would most likely keep breaking my own standards because I would get all heated up and myopic.

Here's an E-mail joke that was going around and around...

You're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  When you take things far enough, yes, there ARE objective moral standards.  Not the nonsense that Ayn Rand blathered about...but there IS a limit to indulgence.  Wholesale slaughter based on race would seem to be one of them.

2.  Ping away.

3.  Correct.  Numbers may be immaterial to some degree (pedos are a good example)...but not completely.

I'll borrow your numbers:

1. 'Scuse the French but bullshit there are objective moral standards. If you really think that there are, name the standard that superceeds all others in cases where moral standards conflict or explain why there isn't a single overriding objective moral good.

2. You just cross that line then. I warn you - I'll be irrational and tell my mummy.

3. Explain how numbers aren't completely irrelevant. If it helps, center your arguments on a discussion of why 6000001 deaths are worse in any real objective sense than 6000000 and estimate the cutoff point for the number of deaths below which an act doesn't qualify as Evil (TM)

1.  Mass murder of non-combatants is wrong, hands down.  There are no exceptions.

2.  Um, I was waiting for a PING!

3.  Well, let's put it this way...of the Nazis had slaughtered 12 million Jews, rather than 6 million, it wouldn't be any worse?  Of COURSE quantity matters...each murder is wrong, and it IS cumulative.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDI used to be a moral objectivist. I believed so strongly in my own standards I was prone to breaking them when I believed that other people were in the wrong. Not saying that is going on here, but at one point I got to thinking that unless I could accept the possibility I was in error, then I would most likely keep breaking my own standards because I would get all heated up and myopic.

Here's an E-mail joke that was going around and around...

You're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

LOL.  Actually, I throw him an anvil.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
1.  Mass murder of non-combatants is wrong, hands down.  There are no exceptions.

2.  Um, I was waiting for a PING!

3.  Well, let's put it this way...of the Nazis had slaughtered 12 million Jews, rather than 6 million, it wouldn't be any worse?  Of COURSE quantity matters...each murder is wrong, and it IS cumulative.

1. Consider a case where th mass murder of non-combatants is nesessary to preserve the common good. I'm guessing here and this may need to be tweaked - there are four (is that enough for 'mass'?) non-combatants on a bridge. The bridge is being crossed by an armoured divison. The civilians can't get off for some reason. If the armoured division gets across the bridge (and let's say they're nazis) they'll capture the town and establish a strongpoint that could ultimtely lead to them conquering all of the Free World and enslaving all the people. You have the means to blow the bridge and prevent this until friendly reinforcements arrive but doing so will kill the non-combatants. Are you meaning to tell me that the lives of those four are worth the pain, suffering and death of millions that will result if you don't kill them? If not, what is the objective moral good that outweighs all others?

2. You draw first  ;)

3. Is killing 200 million ants better than killing 2 people? If I kill one person, am I more moral than the killer who killed two?

Quote from: Guido Finucci[quote="Out of the Wasteland]
1.  Mass murder of non-combatants is wrong, hands down.  There are no exceptions.

2.  Um, I was waiting for a PING!

3.  Well, let's put it this way...of the Nazis had slaughtered 12 million Jews, rather than 6 million, it wouldn't be any worse?  Of COURSE quantity matters...each murder is wrong, and it IS cumulative.

1. Consider a case where th mass murder of non-combatants is nesessary to preserve the common good. I'm guessing here and this may need to be tweaked - there are four (is that enough for 'mass'?) non-combatants on a bridge. The bridge is being crossed by an armoured divison. The civilians can't get off for some reason. If the armoured division gets across the bridge (and let's say they're nazis) they'll capture the town and establish a strongpoint that could ultimtely lead to them conquering all of the Free World and enslaving all the people. You have the means to blow the bridge and prevent this until friendly reinforcements arrive but doing so will kill the non-combatants. Are you meaning to tell me that the lives of those four are worth the pain, suffering and death of millions that will result if you don't kill them? If not, what is the objective moral good that outweighs all others?

2. You draw first  ;)

3. Is killing 200 million ants better than killing 2 people? If I kill one person, am I more moral than the killer who killed two?[/quote]

1.  That's not murder.  That's manslaughter.  BIG moral difference.

2.  PIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNG!  Gotcha!

3.  Yes.  Ants aren't people.  They have  brain about as complex as an electrical relay.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
1.  That's not murder.  That's manslaughter.  BIG moral difference.

2.  PIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNG!  Gotcha!

3.  Yes.  Ants aren't people.  They have  brain about as complex as an electrical relay.

1. How is that not murder? Let's say they are pleading with you to not kill them - does that help?

2. Thhhbbbbbt!

3.  Okay, what about the other one: if I kill one person, am I more moral than the killer who killed two?

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
1.  That's not murder.  That's manslaughter.  BIG moral difference.

2.  PIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNG!  Gotcha!

3.  Yes.  Ants aren't people.  They have  brain about as complex as an electrical relay.

1. How is that not murder? Let's say they are pleading with you to not kill them - does that help?

2. Thhhbbbbbt!

3.  Okay, what about the other one: if I kill one person, am I more moral than the killer who killed two?

1.  Murder involves direct intent or motive to do harm to the person.  Manslaughter means that you know it's wrong, and intend no harm, but you do not feel you can avoid the situation.

2.  That's the weirdest death rattle I've ever heard.  Bill the Cat?  Is that YOU?

3.  Depends?  What's the backstory?

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  Good.  I fell no need for a flamewar.  Not HERE, anyway.

2.  Why woul it be interesting to try?  Other than out of sheer morbidity?  Enlighten me on this one, because I am truly clueless as to your posible motivation.  FACT:  There are monsters in this world, and they need to be opposed.

3.  Not good enough.

1.) nice to hear.

2.) When I bopped that kid on the nose, I was the loner, the person in school everybody hated (not hard with only 68 students.). After that I became the violent kid, am I? Letters were sent home, I was to see the school counsellor once a week. They said I had ADD.
I knew in my bones I was angry because nobody was giving me a chance. I thought at that time I deserved one. I don't think that the universe is fair anymore, but I still believe I deserve a chance, you know? I think about all the people that gave me a hard time, and what I learned about them along the way. It doesn't justify the way I was treated by them, but it does explain it. And no it isn't as big as 6,000,000 people dead, but maybe there is a point in the lietime of every killer where they cross the line. I'm talking about preventing that.
I know people who have become killers, junkies, people who have died before they are two decades old. It makes me shiver to think that I was around them, near them, when those changes were happening and that I never really new. I saw a scared 12-year old kid become a violent, combative thug, who used to steal cars and drive interstate before being picked up and taken home by the police. I was exactly the same at 12 years old, same problems at home, same social situation too. He's the only person I'd say I'd gladly kill without a second thought, I probably would, and I'm not proud of that. Yet here I am. Was it evil that made the difference? People aren't born evil. Although people with brain defects make an interesting case for semantics don't they?
I agree with you, there needs to be an opposition to the nutcases of the world.

3.) What is the correct penance?

4.) Buddha was once pursued by a man who believed he needed the ears of 1,000 travelers to attain salvation. He had 999 when he came across Shakyamuni. Legend says, as hard as he ran he could not catch him. When he gave up, frustrated, buddha came to him. He was enlightened.
Were his crimes absolved? Can anything overtake the bad things we do? Or are we really doomed to be forever rewarded or eternally punished? If that is the way of the world then send me down with all the other malcontents. They might need consoling after all that eternity.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDI used to be a moral objectivist. I believed so strongly in my own standards I was prone to breaking them when I believed that other people were in the wrong. Not saying that is going on here, but at one point I got to thinking that unless I could accept the possibility I was in error, then I would most likely keep breaking my own standards because I would get all heated up and myopic.

Here's an E-mail joke that was going around and around...

You're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

LOL.  Actually, I throw him an anvil.

That's where we differ. I hate the asshole, and I would tell him so after fishing him out. But I wouldn't watch him die.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  Murder involves direct intent or motive to do harm to the person.  Manslaughter means that you know it's wrong, and intend no harm, but you do not feel you can avoid the situation.

2.  That's the weirdest death rattle I've ever heard.  Bill the Cat?  Is that YOU?

3.  Depends?  What's the backstory?

1. Okay - if the Auschwitz guards knew what they were doing was wrong but didn't feel that they could avoid the situation, does that make what they did morally justifyable as manslaughter? Or why not?

2. Not cats here. Noone but us chickens.

3. No backstory - pure numbers game.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD2.) When I bopped that kid on the nose, I was the loner, the person in school everybody hated (not hard with only 68 students.). After that I became the violent kid, am I? Letters were sent home, I was to see the school counsellor once a week. They said I had ADD.
I knew in my bones I was angry because nobody was giving me a chance.
3.) What is the correct penance?

2.  That does not qualify you for monster-dom.  There is a VAST difference between bopping someone on the nose and massacring people.

3.  The destruction of the monster in question.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandDepends?  What's the backstory?

And you said you weren't a relaivist!  :lol:

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDI used to be a moral objectivist. I believed so strongly in my own standards I was prone to breaking them when I believed that other people were in the wrong. Not saying that is going on here, but at one point I got to thinking that unless I could accept the possibility I was in error, then I would most likely keep breaking my own standards because I would get all heated up and myopic.

Here's an E-mail joke that was going around and around...

You're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

LOL.  Actually, I throw him an anvil.

That's where we differ. I hate the asshole, and I would tell him so after fishing him out. But I wouldn't watch him die.

Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
2.  That does not qualify you for monster-dom.  There is a VAST difference between bopping someone on the nose and massacring people.

The Bamboo is not an Oak.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the WastelandDepends?  What's the backstory?

And you said you weren't a relaivist!  :lol:

True, but I clarified that later, by stating that, beyobnd a certain point, there are absolutes.  I DID make a point out of denying Ayn Rand's brand of moral absolutism, which is what I believe you are accusing me of.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
2.  That does not qualify you for monster-dom.  There is a VAST difference between bopping someone on the nose and massacring people.

The Bamboo is not an Oak.

Yep.  In this case, though, a better wat to say hat would be a single-celled plant life is not a redwood.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the WastelandDepends?  What's the backstory?

And you said you weren't a relaivist!  :lol:

True, but I clarified that later, by stating that, beyobnd a certain point, there are absolutes.  I DID make a point out of denying Ayn Rand's brand of moral absolutism, which is what I believe you are accusing me of.

Actually I was accusing you of being a relativist.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  Murder involves direct intent or motive to do harm to the person.  Manslaughter means that you know it's wrong, and intend no harm, but you do not feel you can avoid the situation.

2.  That's the weirdest death rattle I've ever heard.  Bill the Cat?  Is that YOU?

3.  Depends?  What's the backstory?

1. Okay - if the Auschwitz guards knew what they were doing was wrong but didn't feel that they could avoid the situation, does that make what they did morally justifyable as manslaughter? Or why not?

2. Not cats here. Noone but us chickens.

3. No backstory - pure numbers game.

1.  Of course he could.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Or are you suggesting that the massacres in the deathcamps saved people?

3.  Not enough data.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the WastelandDepends?  What's the backstory?

And you said you weren't a relaivist!  :lol:

True, but I clarified that later, by stating that, beyobnd a certain point, there are absolutes.  I DID make a point out of denying Ayn Rand's brand of moral absolutism, which is what I believe you are accusing me of.

Actually I was accusing you of being a relativist.

Everyone is, to SOME degree.  I think your original post carried it too far, though.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Well if you say you want to destroy the monster would you push Bush in?
What if said rabid fundamentalist pushed you in?

Let's pick this up tomorrow.  I'm beat.

Good night.

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODD

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
Neither would I.  If he grabbed the anvil (an he's dumb enough to do so), there wouldn't be much to watch.

The man invades nations to further enrich the rich.  Watch me not care.

OK let's reverse the situation. There's the world's most rabid fundamentalist, and it's you floating away in a storm surge...


"The man encourages people to doubt the existence of god and promotes heathensim.

Watch me not care."

Is that fair?

This is EXACTLY why I don't live on the coast.  Well, this and Cthulu.

Is it fair?

Yep.  He is under no obligation to save me.   Pushing someone in IS a different matter.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Well if you say you want to destroy the monster would you push Bush in?
What if said rabid fundamentalist pushed you in?

Yes.

I'd drag him in with me.

Wasteland,
Never said he was a nice guy.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandYes.

I'd drag him in with me.

Wasteland,
Never said he was a nice guy.

You miss.
Trollax,
Never intimated that he thought you were

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
1.  Of course he could.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Or are you suggesting that the massacres in the deathcamps saved people?

3.  Not enough data.

Dude - hate to break it to you but you, like just about everyone, are a moral relativist. I put it to you that you can imagine blowing up a bridge and killing innocent people for what you percieve to be a higher cause but claim that the Nazis (who thought they had a perfect moral, higher cause) were certainly evil. That's moral relativinsm right there. Nothing wrong with it - it can be empowering. Thing about moral relativism is that it requires you to examine every choice you make, not just make one and blindly follow the same behaviour ever after. I think that's a good thing.

I think Trollax had a lot of good stuff in there about the personal relationship that each of us has with 'the Beast within' and the idea that morality isn't always an easy thing to hold.

I don't think that the existance Nazi death camps take anything away from this and I don't think Trollax being a moral relativist takes anything away form that either.

My two cents.


And now I'd better jump off and get some work done before I have to work late to catch up....

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDYou're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

I'd save him, and then lecture him until he wished I hadn't.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
1.  Of course he could.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Or are you suggesting that the massacres in the deathcamps saved people?

3.  Not enough data.

Dude - hate to break it to you but you, like just about everyone, are a moral relativist. I put it to you that you can imagine blowing up a bridge and killing innocent people for what you percieve to be a higher cause but claim that the Nazis (who thought they had a perfect moral, higher cause) were certainly evil. That's moral relativinsm right there. Nothing wrong with it - it can be empowering. Thing about moral relativism is that it requires you to examine every choice you make, not just make one and blindly follow the same behaviour ever after. I think that's a good thing.

I think Trollax had a lot of good stuff in there about the personal relationship that each of us has with 'the Beast within' and the idea that morality isn't always an easy thing to hold.

I don't think that the existance Nazi death camps take anything away from this and I don't think Trollax being a moral relativist takes anything away form that either.

My two cents.


And now I'd better jump off and get some work done before I have to work late to catch up....

EVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

Quote from: Out of the WastelandEVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

Then what?

I may surprise you to know that not everyone is a relativist, no, not even a little bit. They argue that there should be one universal set of moral standards for everyone. In that case, they say that you see it as ethnic harted on the part of others vs. no choice on your part and that makes some killing okay and some killing bad. However, it is a pretty safe bet that the Nazis (in this case) rationalise the whole thing rather differently. In fact it is conceivable (although I really don't know for sure) that they see that it is them who have no choice and you could have simply called airstrikes on the tanks after they crossed the bridge without needles loss of life.

Both you and they have a certain moral compass in these situations but how are the rest of use supposed to evaluated your choices? How do we determine that your values are right and their values are wrong? How do we figure out that you are worthy of our approbation and they should be charged with war crimes? Or should it be the other way around?

Originally you were claiming an objective moral standard. The question now is - what is the objective moral standard under which we can all (yes, even the Nazis) evaluate our actions? (the first one you gave about not killing non-combatants under any circumstances seems to have been ruled out).

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the WastelandEVERYONE is a moral relativist, to SOME degree.  However, if you can attach the same signifigance to murdering people out of ethnic hatred as you can to killing people when youhave no choice...

Then what?

I may surprise you to know that not everyone is a relativist, no, not even a little bit. They argue that there should be one universal set of moral standards for everyone. In that case, they say that you see it as ethnic harted on the part of others vs. no choice on your part and that makes some killing okay and some killing bad. However, it is a pretty safe bet that the Nazis (in this case) rationalise the whole thing rather differently. In fact it is conceivable (although I really don't know for sure) that they see that it is them who have no choice and you could have simply called airstrikes on the tanks after they crossed the bridge without needles loss of life.

Both you and they have a certain moral compass in these situations but how are the rest of use supposed to evaluated your choices? How do we determine that your values are right and their values are wrong? How do we figure out that you are worthy of our approbation and they should be charged with war crimes? Or should it be the other way around?

Originally you were claiming an objective moral standard. The question now is - what is the objective moral standard under which we can all (yes, even the Nazis) evaluate our actions? (the first one you gave about not killing non-combatants under any circumstances seems to have been ruled out).

I don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

Quote from: Out of the WastelandI don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

About the point that you said you'll kill non-combatants under some circumstances, provided it server the greater good. So, what is that greater good that their deaths served?

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the WastelandI don't see how it has been ruled out.  Could you please direct me to when THAT happened?

About the point that you said you'll kill non-combatants under some circumstances, provided it server the greater good. So, what is that greater good that their deaths served?

The prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.

The Nazis had no such justification.

Quote from: Out of the WastelandThe prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.
The Nazis had no such justification.

According to them, they did: the protection of the purity of the human race (and hence its continued survival).

Now, given that you are a moral relativist, how do you base a claim that I should take your word over theirs?

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the WastelandThe prevention of the enslavement and/or death of the rest of the world, as outlined in your scenario.
The Nazis had no such justification.

According to them, they did: the protection of the purity of the human race (and hence its continued survival).

Now, given that you are a moral relativist, how do you base a claim that I should take your word over theirs?

1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

1. Okay - sorry 'bout that. If you'll forgive the tweak - you only believe that blowing the bridge will save the day (but you do believe this with all your heart). Now there is doubt. Does that change anything? If not, why shoudl I pick your word over theirs? You each only have well-held beliefs.

2. Yes, this is just a thought experiment (although we have gone down some strange trails since we started). My personal belief is that there are special places reserved in Hell for many of those fuckers.

Edit: I'll be away for a couple of hours; work is about to get in the way. I'll be back...

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  Available evidence:  In your scenario, there is no doubt of the outcome.  In the Nazis, they were flying in the face of the fact that mankind has survived the existence of Jews for ~ 6,000 years.

2.  I hope to hell that this is just a thought experiment on your part.

1. Okay - sorry 'bout that. If you'll forgive the tweak - you only believe that blowing the bridge will save the day (but you do believe this with all your heart). Now there is doubt. Does that change anything? If not, why shoudl I pick your word over theirs? You each only have well-held beliefs.

2. Yes, this is just a thought experiment (although we have gone down some strange trails since we started). My personal belief is that there are special places reserved in Hell for many of those fuckers.

Edit: I'll be away for a couple of hours; work is about to get in the way. I'll be back...

1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

See ya when you get back.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

See ya when you get back.

2.

So. We, (by "We" I mean this little hotbedded discussion group) can agree that what happened in certain parts of europe during WWII was bad, possibly some of the biggest bad to go down in history (although there are some russains and pagans who would debate that, and probably a couple of historians too) What we can't seem to agree on is how we quantify the perpetrators. The question is, not whether what they did was wrong, or justifiable, but do we have the right to deny them the status of human beings and classify them as mythical?
This is where the moral relativism comes in. But not perhaps in a way that we would traditionally apply it. Normally we would ask, what would be the justification provided by a person for their actions? Additionally I'd also like to ask in this case, "Is there any way we can say with 100% certainty that we would not commit a similar action?"
I cannot guarantee that. Sure, it's highly unlikely that we would be drawn into a similar sequence of events that mirrors the events leading up to the deathcamps. But is it not possible for the same series of behaviours to be played out upon a different group? Played out in such a way that ordinary people could be suckered in by sophistry? Seemingly plausible arguments that cater to people's prejudices and amplify them. Our prejudices against politicians? Our prejudices against Fanatical Religious figures? Our prejudices against other political systems?
In situations like this, our own moral judgements damn us. and the more absolute that they are, the easier it is for us to be lead down similar roads by the blindfold of "right."
The minute you make a monster, you create a little blind spot in yourself. A little cataract on your own self-evaluation processes that can prevent you from seeing certain things, and before you know it, you're gladly burning other human beings, because they are "monsters." What they did to make them monsters is your decision.
One of the events leading up to the start of world war one was the assasination of the ottoman "monster" by a Serbian Anarchist, in retalliation for centuries of repression. It's never as easy as black and white, no matter how large the issue.

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

1. Would you be willing to conceed that there are situations in which you'd kill innocent people for what you believed to be the service of the greater good? If not, I think you're not being completely honest. If so, how do you differentiate that from what the nazis did they also believed that they were serving the greater good? (Hint: there is no good answer to that question - if there was, morality wouldn't be so interesting to talk about.)

2. I think they're monsters, you think they're monsters. That doesn't give us the right to treat them as monsters though. After all they thought the Jews were monsters and we don't think that their say-so was good enough so why should ours be?

Thinking about this I think my original point was that Trollax was alluding to the idea that we are all capable of being inhumane and the extent to which we justify it  away in ourselves, we must also allow others to justify it. By aknowledging that we, ourselves, are capable of 'Evil' we gain the freedom to actually make real moral decisions - we can actually choose to not act in those evil ways. If we do not aknowledge that we are capable of evil then everything we do isn't evil, regardless of what others think (and IMO we aren't acting as free, moral agents).

I could be putting words into his mouth though.

Edit: Traollax asked me to explain the last paragraph (well, the last long-ish one, anyway). Here's a shot at it, "basically - if you can do bad then you can choose between doing good and bad 'cause you realise the potential for either in yourself. If don't believe you can do bad then you can no longer be moral because you never have a choice between doing good and doing bad. Or somethign like that."

Quote from: Guido FinucciThinking about this I think my original point was that Trollax was alluding to the idea that we are all capable of being inhumane and the extent to which we justify it  away in ourselves, we must also allow others to justify it. By aknowledging that we, ourselves, are capable of 'Evil' we gain the freedom to actually make real moral decisions - we can actually choose to not act in those evil ways. If we do not aknowledge that we are capable of evil then everything we do isn't evil, regardless of what others think (and IMO we aren't acting as free, moral agents).

I could be putting words into his mouth though.

Well you're certainly putting words in my mouth that I'm in some accordance with...

Just went back to read what Trollax originally wrote.

His was more, "we allow people the possibility of redemption when we see that they are just like us" whereas mine was much more, "Unless we see that we are just like them, we aren't free ourselves".

Apologies, where warranted, for the off-topic ranting. Thanks to all for the discussion; I'm getting a lot out of the two phrases above.

Quote from: Guido FinucciJust went back to read what Trollax originally wrote.

His was more, "we allow people the possibility of redemption when we see that they are just like us" whereas mine was much more, "Unless we see that we are just like them, we aren't free ourselves".

Apologies, where warranted, for the off-topic ranting. Thanks to all for the discussion; I'm getting a lot out of the two phrases above.

I don't see much difference between the two... perhaps that is what you are getting out of it eh?  :wink:

Quote from: Joinee St. Trollax, ODDI don't see much difference between the two... perhaps that is what you are getting out of it eh?

I see a bunch of difference but in a 'two sides of the same coin' kinda way.

Quote from: Guido Finucci

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland
1.  Speaking as a retired infantryman, I'd have to know more about the situation.

2.  Yep.  Which, of course, qualifies them as monsters, IMO, which was the original debate.

1. Would you be willing to conceed that there are situations in which you'd kill innocent people for what you believed to be the service of the greater good? If not, I think you're not being completely honest. If so, how do you differentiate that from what the nazis did they also believed that they were serving the greater good? (Hint: there is no good answer to that question - if there was, morality wouldn't be so interesting to talk about.)

2. I think they're monsters, you think they're monsters. That doesn't give us the right to treat them as monsters though. After all they thought the Jews were monsters and we don't think that their say-so was good enough so why should ours be?

1.  Thankfully, I have never been put in that situation, but yes, it is conceivable.

2.  No, we have an OBLIGATION to treat them as monsters, IMO.

we're all monsters. :|

Quote from: Out of the Wasteland1.  Thankfully, I have never been put in that situation, but yes, it is conceivable.

2.  No, we have an OBLIGATION to treat them as monsters, IMO.

Hopefully you'll read this as though I wasn't hungover and was still able to be tactful.

If it is conceivable that you'd kill innocents for what you believe in and if you buy that the Nazis did terrible things, including killing innocents, for what they believed in - how are you different from a Nazi? (Aside from the (very important) fact that you haven't actually done those things...) As horab said - we're all monsters. I think that (one of) Trollax's point(s) was that we all have the potential to be that evil.

I'd be interested to know more about this obligation to treat the Nazis like monsters and where it comes from. 'Obligation' would seem to imply some moral imperative.

Horab's right. We're all monsters.

I believe, based on personal experiences, that evil exists.
No, believe is the wrong word - I know for a fact that it does.
I also know pretty much what I'm capable of doing myself and it isn't pretty.
It took a long time to come to terms with the fact that we're all monsters.  

It's fine to sit down and have philosophical discussions on whether or not those who practice evil are merely humans who have been wounded and are therefore worthy of pity. That doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous and that each of us is capable of doing the same under extreme circumstances. And it doesn't make the performance of an evil act acceptable or inspire sympathy on my part - pity and sympathy being two different animals by my definintion. I can feel pity for the child the perpetrator once was without feeling sympathy for the person he/she is today.

It's good to ask, as people are doing in this thread, "what would I do under this circumstance, or that circumstance?" But the truth is that you just don't know until you are faced with such a decision in real life. The bottom line is that the ends don't justify the means. And we each need to take responsibility for our own actions and learn to inflict as little damage as possible on our fellow creatures. Doesn't matter that I was hurt as a child. Nor does it matter how people judged me back then - in that it doesn't make me less responsible for what I do now or make it acceptable to pass the hurt along to someone else. Just because we all have the potential to be monsters doesn't mean we can afford to be the least bit tolerant of those who practice evil.

PS: For the sake of this argument, I'm defining "evil" as a deliberate act, or set of actions, intended to inflict pain and suffering on another sentient being for the personal gain/pleasure/etc. of the perpetrator. Torture, for instance, is evil - whether we're talking about nazis or the guy down the street who beats his dog for the hell of it everyday. It's two different heads of a many headed animal.

We are akin to being on steamrollers in motion. The question is not that anyone of us have the ability to flatten (ie. hurt) anyone else. The question is how much responsibility for taking the wheel of the steamroller and learning to navigate so that we don't flatten anyone else nor destroy ourselves in the process. And we don't get instruction manuals. We have to learn to control the damned thing oursleves.

Serial killers, people with political/religious agendas, and world leaders claim to have no choice, and therefore take no responsibility for their actions.

But the truth of the matter is we do have a responsibility for taking the wheel of our lives in hand and trying to manage a good steering job. We fuck up, but we learn from it. Those who take no responsibility never learn.

Quote from: SssBella, Oracle of DoomIt's fine to sit down and have philosophical discussions on whether or not those who practice evil are merely humans who have been wounded and are therefore worthy of pity. That doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous and that each of us is capable of doing the same under extreme circumstances. And it doesn't make the performance of an evil act acceptable or inspire sympathy on my part - pity and sympathy being two different animals by my definintion. I can feel pity for the child the perpetrator once was without feeling sympathy for the person he/she is today.

It's good to ask, as people are doing in this thread, "what would I do under this circumstance, or that circumstance?" But the truth is that you just don't know until you are faced with such a decision in real life. The bottom line is that the ends don't justify the means. And we each need to take responsibility for our own actions and learn to inflict as little damage as possible on our fellow creatures. Doesn't matter that I was hurt as a child. Nor does it matter how people judged me back then - in that it doesn't make me less responsible for what I do now or make it acceptable to pass the hurt along to someone else. Just because we all have the potential to be monsters doesn't mean we can afford to be the least bit tolerant of those who practice evil.

That is nothing I haven't said or believed myself.
A monk in the 8th century is raised in a christian environment enters the seminary and becomes a scribe. He and a group of cohorts with a gripe against the pagans creatively edit certain sections of the bible. But because his soul was born of a different breed than the rest of his friends he is subject to the laws and judgement of the very pagans he is damning. He is cursed for 1,200 years to die before he reaches the age of thirty. For ignorance of things most people never learn of in this place, he is punished when others go free.
There are both sides here. "What would we do in that situation?" I know what I did. "What should be done to us?" I know what was done to me. and I feel that while my actions were certainly unwarranted and certainly dark, I also feel that the punishment was excessive.
While my ends did not justify my means, and while the ends of this monk did not justify his means, neither did the ends of our judges justify their means. There is a certain point where what we call justice passes out of the regions of sanity and into bloodymindedness. One of the reasons I believe the reasons why are important. We cannot explain away, we cannot sweep it under the rug, but what we can do is come to understand what makes ordinary people do things that they swear they would never do.
So maybe the wheel of Samsara can be broken.

Quote from: St. Hugh, KSCWe are akin to being on steamrollers in motion. The question is not that anyone of us have the ability to flatten (ie. hurt) anyone else. The question is how much responsibility for taking the wheel of the steamroller and learning to navigate so that we don't flatten anyone else nor destroy ourselves in the process. And we don't get instruction manuals. We have to learn to control the damned thing oursleves.

Serial killers, people with political/religious agendas, and world leaders claim to have no choice, and therefore take no responsibility for their actions.

But the truth of the matter is we do have a responsibility for taking the wheel of our lives in hand and trying to manage a good steering job. We fuck up, but we learn from it. Those who take no responsibility never learn.

Yes. And do we tear others from their driver's seat and run them over? Does that really allow someone to take responsibility for what they do? does it even throw what they have done into some kind of ugly relief? Only if they know what responsibility they abused or failed in the first place. Like I said. There are some people who may be beyond our ability to recover, but there are some who do. There was a guy who was in prison for 30 to life. He was a biker, a hit man and a standover guy. But he did end up turning his life around. He discovered religion. I remember another man who used to teach scripture to my class in year 6. He used to be a prize fighter, a street fighter. One night he was going out to fight a man who had a reputation for putting people into comas. The guy who had been fighting him beforehand came back, sat down, started screaming in pain then fell over, dead. He'd been given a stroke from all the bare-fisted blows to the head he'd taken. That was the night he walked out and decided to change.
My karate sensei, even though he was a fundie. He was the kid in town that the cops were always watching, harassing. He used to steal cars and deal drugs, he even swam across the manning river one night to escape the cops. these days he has a wife and two kids. and he's a well-respected member of an international martial arts school. Not all of them monsters, no. And yes, perhaps across lifetimes the burden fades. but perhaps it is food for thought.

As a matter of fact, yes. We rip them from the driver's seat and run them over before they can hurt anyone else. Preventing further damage has to be given priority over understanding and/or rehabilitation of the offending party. If some perpetrators of evil are able to recover and make something better of themselves, good for them. But it's on their heads, and must not come at the expense of others.

As for the reasons why, horab already nailed it.
We're all monsters - and we each have a responsibility to tame the monster within us.
If not, we have to accept the consequences of our actions.

The wheel of samsara ('wandering') can only be broken after enough people have become so thoroughly disgusted with the suffering they inflict upon themselves and others. A western Buddhist monk by the name of Sangharakshita (the Western Buddhist Order) said that when wisdom is your operating principle then you are on a spiral path. It is spiral because you are starting to rise from samsara, but the energy of the spinning still influences you. How long that path takes depends obviously on circumstances, skill, and awareness.

Using wisdom we can see directly that all things are impermanent. This helps us to loosen our clinginess and greed...and also our preferential treatment towards those who we allow in our lives simply because they make us happy. Too often we use others as means to our ends or as backdrop characters to our dramas.

Quote from: St. Hugh, KSCThe wheel of samsara ('wandering') can only be broken after enough people have become so thoroughly disgusted with the suffering they inflict upon themselves and others.

Yeeeeah.  THAT'LL happen.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: St. Hugh, KSCThe wheel of samsara ('wandering') can only be broken after enough people have become so thoroughly disgusted with the suffering they inflict upon themselves and others.

Yeeeeah.  THAT'LL happen.

Let's not hold our breath waiting. But let's still have some ideals...they go good with ravioli.

Quote from: St. Hugh, KSC

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: St. Hugh, KSCThe wheel of samsara ('wandering') can only be broken after enough people have become so thoroughly disgusted with the suffering they inflict upon themselves and others.

Yeeeeah.  THAT'LL happen.

Let's not hold our breath waiting. But let's still have some ideals...they go good with ravioli.

Hope keeps the door open.

If we are to tame the monsters within us, what happens if the monster within us tames the self? Then are we truly responsible, and who color coded my sock drawer?

Quote from: fullmoonerIf we are to tame the monsters within us, what happens if the monster within us tames the self? Then are we truly responsible, and who color coded my sock drawer?

That is (of course) assuming that the monster within us is a separate entity. Every choice we make, we are responsible for, we must live with every consequence. There is of course a certain amount of leeway offereed to people who are brainwashed, manipulated, multipe personalities etc. but in the end we even made the choices that got us to that place. Certainly it dimishes our capacity to respond, but not our responsibility to own up to the actions of whatever self crosses that line.

In other words, it IS my fault and my socks are forever run amock. Gotcha. Either way, if the monster within me is not seperate, then who does the living when I am dreaming at night? And what is it with the damned grey house in my dream that keeps changing in the inside? I view that as one of the monsters I have no control over, as it seems to see things I do not and act accordingly.. Thus I tend to do things that even I do not understand until something it prevented happening ccomes to pass. Not completely seperate, perhaps, but definitely not always something I can see coming......

Quote from: fullmoonerIn other words, it IS my fault and my socks are forever run amock. Gotcha. Either way, if the monster within me is not seperate, then who does the living when I am dreaming at night? And what is it with the damned grey house in my dream that keeps changing in the inside? I view that as one of the monsters I have no control over, as it seems to see things I do not and act accordingly.. Thus I tend to do things that even I do not understand until something it prevented happening ccomes to pass. Not completely seperate, perhaps, but definitely not always something I can see coming......

of course... You're not exactly responsible for getting hit by the car while you're walking past the coffe shop... but you are responsible for deciding to take a different way home that day.

we are the monster within. it is as much a part of us as our teeth or our compassion or whatever.

suer there are divsions to the human mind, but they are not so palpable as to simpy put  it down to funtions such as control or abstain. however regardless of how our parts manifest themselves, there is no denying that we are responsible for the whole of our own actions.

I have a running theory that with each cchoice there is a positive and a negative outcome. But sometimes the aftereffects of that negative outcome can be more positive than that original positive outcome, and the aftereffects of the positive outcome can be eventually more negative than the original negative outcome. Either way, if I get hit by a car on the way home, the cab driver who hit me would not have fallen in love with the lovely ambulance worker he met through my death.

Quote from: fullmoonerI have a running theory that with each cchoice there is a positive and a negative outcome. But sometimes the aftereffects of that negative outcome can be more positive than that original positive outcome, and the aftereffects of the positive outcome can be eventually more negative than the original negative outcome. Either way, if I get hit by a car on the way home, the cab driver who hit me would not have fallen in love with the lovely ambulance worker he met through my death.

Not saying that. I'm saying that we're responsible for where our choices take us... small or large, directly or indirectly.

I just mean that if we are responsible, then why can we not know beforehand what will happen next? if we do not know, how can we be held accountable?

Quote from: fullmoonerI just mean that if we are responsible, then why can we not know beforehand what will happen next? if we do not know, how can we be held accountable?

Well, we're not accountable as in guilty but we are accountable in that we made the choice. If you bump someone in the street in your haste to pick up a $2 coin someone has dropped and that bump causes them to miss their bus and try to walk and they end up being struck by lightning... No you're not guilty, but it is the reason why.

But the questionn is, am I my own monster, regardless of blame?

Yes.

Then things truly ARE out of my hands then? No matter how hard I try? and is that my monster?

Quote from: fullmoonerThen things truly ARE out of my hands then? No matter how hard I try? and is that my monster?

so you are saying that because you are not your monster you are not the things you have done? Maybe so... but that means that you are nothing you have done.

I am only questioning that maybe some of the things I do are really out of my control.

maybe they are. however it doesn't make you any less responsible for them.

there is a difference between repsonsibility and blame.

if you bump somebody etc and cause them to miss their bus, you are responsible for them missing htier bus, however itdoesn't mean they should kick your ass for it or whatever.

Then maybe the definitioin of responsibility should be only that we are in charge of only what we can control, otherwise, what we cannot control, regardless of our attendance to it or not, would overrun ourselves with the need to fix everything we do wrong. In a sense, it makes the definitions of right and wrong a good bit harder.

Quote from: fullmoonerThen maybe the definitioin of responsibility should be only that we are in charge of only what we can control, otherwise, what we cannot control, regardless of our attendance to it or not, would overrun ourselves with the need to fix everything we do wrong. In a sense, it makes the definitions of right and wrong a good bit harder.

Why bothering to define what is right and wrong? We are in charge of everything around us whether or not we can effect it directly. It's not an intellectual or a moral proposition, it's like that old question:
"What is the face you had before you were born?"
It's not something you can approach about right and wrong, if you're thinking box-wise then you could say it's in an entirely different arena. It's not about who did what or what punishment was metered out, it's about how those things affect our relationship to those events personally. Sure, bad things can happen, does that mean evil walks among us? If truth is relative then there is no way you can answer that convincingly, Things happen. People... real people get caught in the middle and make stupid mistakes. They are accountable to what they have done, but are they accountable to our judgements in the sense that we can forever label them as criminals, deviants, or monsters? You can answer that all you like, but it doesn't ahve to be the truth.

Perhaps I merely fear my responsibility for accountability means my immorality. Goodness knows I get blamed often enough for this crap. Gets wearing on the sense of "Could I have made that better?"

Quote from: fullmoonerPerhaps I merely fear my responsibility for accountability means my immorality. Goodness knows I get blamed often enough for this crap. Gets wearing on the sense of "Could I have made that better?"

*Hands fullmooner a large pitcher of alcoholic beverage*

That's alright. But who are you going to believe? Some nutcase fundamentalist right-wing conservative looney who would seell their own children to buy patriot bonds who rants at you for jaywalking when the street's under 4 feet of snow and the plough won't make it through until wednesday?

Or you?  :wink:

All I am moping about is that it would be damned nice is SOMEONE else though I was right for a change instead of just me. I feel so damned alone.

Quote from: fullmoonerAll I am moping about is that it would be damned nice is SOMEONE else though I was right for a change instead of just me. I feel so damned alone.

Two things I never trust...

People who always tell me I'm wrong.
People who always tell me I'm right.






:roll:
Trust me... Never trust anyone who says trust me...

What about the other stuff they say about you? Granted, I TRY not to listen, but when enough people say the same thing, I no longer feel as happy believing me.

Quote from: fullmoonerWhat about the other stuff they say about you? Granted, I TRY not to listen, but when enough people say the same thing, I no longer feel as happy believing me.

True Story...

After 3 years of everyone else at my highscfhool telling me I stank... I invested in soap. However, afterwards people telling me I stink still occurred on a regular basis.

Sometimes there is an element of truth to people's maliciousness. Sometimes there isn't like the idea that I wanted to form a doomsday cult and kill half the world and shoot up the school. Or the one about me believing I had visions and was the new messiah etc. etc.

In short, trust your judgement because more often than not people insult you because they are fucked up.

If I were the killing kind......You'd think with all the training I had of dealing with the maliciousness of other people I would not be taking them so damnedably.

Quote from: fullmoonerIf I were the killing kind......You'd think with all the training I had of dealing with the maliciousness of other people I would not be taking them so damnedably.

Just count up the number of ways you can kill thim with your bare hands... then think about the fragility of life and how easy it is to end it. Then think about that person pleading and begging for their life, and how similar you would be in the same situation. Then the reasons why seem trivial. It's helped me not perform massacres on many occasions. The jail time and the label kind of cancels out the benefits of having one-less jerk in the world.

Exactly why I am not the killing kind. too many repercussions compared to simply walking away.

Quote from: fullmoonerExactly why I am not the killing kind. too many repercussions compared to simply walking away.

Then why beat yourself up about being the strong one?

::sniffles:: Cause I wanna hurt them for being mean. I walk away and some stupid person walks up and continues telling me what I walked away fromm hearing in the first place. Ergo, by walking away, I now have TWO people I wanna smash until bleeding.

Quote from: fullmooner::sniffles:: Cause I wanna hurt them for being mean. I walk away and some stupid person walks up and continues telling me what I walked away fromm hearing in the first place. Ergo, by walking away, I now have TWO people I wanna smash until bleeding.

Sometimes I feel like giving wouldn't be so bad myself.

although I haven't been arrested yet so you can guess which way I voted...

Quote from: fullmoonerThen things truly ARE out of my hands then? No matter how hard I try? and is that my monster?

Sorry for jumping in on this late.

You are drawing a distinction between the ego (your 'I') and the monster. Things aren't out of your hands 'cause you and the monster aren't seperate entities. Or to put it another way, when the monster is making your decisions for you, it is still making your decisions, decisions that you could have made differently. Even thinking of it as 'not you' in some way can kinda be dangerous - after all you stil haev to accept responisibility for all of your choices whether you made them with the best or worst of intentions.

Read the rest of this conversation and see WHY I worry about those repercussions and blame and accountability and uncontrol. This gets more interesting.

Quote from: fullmooner::sniffles:: Cause I wanna hurt them for being mean. I walk away and some stupid person walks up and continues telling me what I walked away fromm hearing in the first place. Ergo, by walking away, I now have TWO people I wanna smash until bleeding.

Walking away is a metaphor. Actually walking until there is physical distance between you often helps but 'walking away' is about letting go of the emotions that were locking you into a situation. If someone else continues talking about it and you get twisted straight back into all the crap, I would usggest to you that you have yet to let go of the original stuff...

... just walk away.   :)

Kinda hard to walk when others throw marbles at your feet.

Then skate (it's faster anyway).

Or just to flee the analogy before it gets to arbitrary - fight fire with marshmallows (or pie).