Is our current strategy against terrorism working?

[Whaleboy]

moral relativism is total junk.

Why is it junk?

My position is merely (psuedo) objective because I can see it from the US pov, how it views the terrorists and their communities, and how they view the US, and I see that both are equally valid opinions, and I also see that number of guns and warships is hardly a good method for determining which one wins and trounces the other, because I dont see that outcome or that means being necessary. Coexist here baby!

[yavoon]

no elijah somewhere you have elaborated my point out 10x into much more than it is. what I am saying is that values like the mill limit can not be morally held at the societal level and then ignored at the interpersonal level w/o the person being intellectually dishonest or politically corrupt...but in a good way! etc etc. so saying that islam has a right to be protected by a moral it does not uphold and infact rigorously violates is a farce.

[Whaleboy]

Why? Why cant one treat a society differently to the way that society treats its individuals?

[yavoon]

fine prove to me that the mill limit does not apply in interpersonal reaction but does apply on societal interaction. what is it about the mill limit that limits it to societal interaction? etc...

[Whaleboy]

Im not multiplying it, when that is fundamentally what you are saying, that one cannot hold a value like the Mill Limit, as that society regarding other societies, and not hold it for its own individuals. I ask why it cant, and why it is dishonest?

It assumes that the different society is the same as an individual, whereas that is clearly not the case. I live in Britain which has about 60 million people, the society will treat them differently to the way it treats France or the USA or Nepal.

[yavoon]

ur sidestepping. u r trying to be general w/ things like "treat." I am being specific, "mill limit." I am asking you to tell me why you can uphold a moral like the mill limit on one level of interaction but not on another. responding w/ "why not" is not generally considered a valid retort.

[Whaleboy]

fine prove to me that the mill limit does not apply in interpersonal reaction but does apply on societal interaction. what is it about the mill limit that limits it to societal interaction?

Whoaaa slow down there monsieur velocitie!! With regards to a society, the Mill Limit can be APPLIED as a non-interference directive, with those other cultures. Applying to the first society in itself is a differnet matter and will take longer, and be harder, see my article. However, with regards to the way individuals deal with equal individuals, the way society deals with those individuals, and the way society deals with other societies, the Mill Limit applies. For example, the way societies, working under the Mill Limit here, deal with other societies, would be parralel to how I, obeying the ML, deals with another person, as opposed to how society, as an entity and a conglomeration of everybody else, deals with me.

[yavoon]

one of the basic get out clauses to things like the mill limit is when one side starts disregarding it. "u have equal rights until u take mine away, then ur ass is grass." so I don't know why it would be moral much less prudent to protect someone disregarding the mill limit vigorously w/ the mill limit.

[Whaleboy]

I am asking you to tell me why you can uphold a moral like the mill limit on one level of interaction but not on another

Because the entities one is dealing with are different. Assume society (1) to be made up of constituent individuals a,b,c. Society (2) is made of constituent individuals x,y,z. How does (1) view x,y,z? It does not view them as part of its own society, for it is entirely subjective over this people, whereas it is objective (ideally) over a,b,c. Same vice versa.

However, 1 and 2 can deal with each other in the same way that a,b,c can interact, or x,y,z can interact.

I say treat, because the Mill Limit is one way, among others, that one can deal with societies. I can set the watermark anywhere, but the problem you are describing would, according to your argument, still exist, whereas I am arguing that at any level, it doesnt, thus I can use the scale, not merely a particular point on that scale.

"why not" is not generally considered a valid retort

Indeed, however, it shuold be imo. It precludes the very basis for all scientific discovery, and the investigation and acquisition of human knowledge, the notion that something is possible until proven impossible.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by elijah


Because the entities one is dealing with are different. Assume society (1) to be made up of constituent individuals a,b,c. Society (2) is made of constituent individuals x,y,z. How does (1) view x,y,z? It does not view them as part of its own society, for it is entirely subjective over this people, whereas it is objective (ideally) over a,b,c. Same vice versa.

However, 1 and 2 can deal with each other in the same way that a,b,c can interact, or x,y,z can interact.

if u subscribed to the mill limit then abc/xyz ne other stupid letters u wna stick in should all treat each other according to it. and treatiung abc different then xyz(I don't see why u need to make it so abstract). would be a violation of the law. simply cuz u think that xyz are different is not valid justification for violating the mill limit.

[Whaleboy]

"u have equal rights until u take mine away, then ur ass is grass."

Althuogh I do have a way for that not to be the case, that only applies to crime and punishment, and is long winded and irrelevant here. I take a Maslow-based approach. If someone takes away one of my rights, under the Mill Limit, I have the right to take away that same right he does, plus another higher on Maslows hierarchy of needs, in order to remove his ability to deny that right, using proportionate force. For example, if he has a gun to my head, I have the right to put a gun to his (somehow) and fire, restoring my right "not to have a gun to my head" and taking away his right to do the same. This of course assumes that there is no other way to neutralise him than to kill him, but you get my idea .

protect someone disregarding the mill limit vigorously w/ the mill limit

My point is that they are NOT protected from their own society, those who have had their rights taken away, but if they have not taken away the rights of the other society, then that society has no right to interfere. Like I said, the alien society has no right, due to its inherent subjectivity, over the population in a society, and as such that society in itself, which in order to modify that society, is the effect it would have, society of course being a veneer over the people.

[Whaleboy]

ply cuz u think that xyz are different is not valid justification for violating the mill limit

no thats the key thing!!!

Imagine a family tree like structure. You have granparents at the top, who have two sons, who marry and produce one child each. Those children are cousins. The parents have right over their child, whereas the uncle does not. Similarly, the child does not have right over its cousin, whereas, if the child had a sibling, then they would obey the Mill Limit, under the objective of that parent. How the uncle treats the parent is wholly irrelevant to how the parent or uncle treats their own respective children.

I have a love for the metaphoric, I used to be a poet .

[Whaleboy]

The grandparent of course shuold be the UN!!! jk

[yavoon]

so saddam is the father and the children are the iraqi ppl? k I get it. great idea.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by elijah

My point is that they are NOT protected from their own society, those who have had their rights taken away, but if they have not taken away the rights of the other society, then that society has no right to interfere. Like I said, the alien society has no right, due to its inherent subjectivity, over the population in a society, and as such that society in itself, which in order to modify that society, is the effect it would have, society of course being a veneer over the people.

we're still arguing from two different plateaus. ur cultural relativism is just not a view I hold so I think we're firing shots that are missing both our targets because we don't believe in the same fundamental value. it happens.