|
|
10 Jul 2005, 19:26
|
#51
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
why aren't Lords 'guilty' ?
|
Lords do not have the right to vote, nor do Convicted Prisoners (in Prison) or The Insane.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2005, 20:03
|
#52
|
J to the C to the A G E
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
|
Re: Innocents?
Lords are guilty however, because they dictate policy.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2005, 20:08
|
#53
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: Innocents?
id be more appreciative of al quedas :ninja:ness if they did go after the head honchos more.
They might fail, but it'd still make good copy.
edit
who got rid of the ninja smilies?
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
10 Jul 2005, 20:21
|
#54
|
7 Dimensional Puddleduck
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Not where I want to be :(
Posts: 1,556
|
Re: Innocents?
Everyone is innocent of something.
__________________
<CmdrCyrax> I'm sure GDers are bastions of the civilized world.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2005, 21:58
|
#55
|
J to the C to the A G E
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
Everyone is innocent of something.
|
Lionel Hutz: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to prove to you not only that Al Qaeda are guilty, but that they are also innocent of not being guilty."
|
|
|
10 Jul 2005, 22:27
|
#56
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I meant whose definition of 'guilty'. You're using the word in a strange way if you want to equate it with 'everyone of voting age in a democracy'.
|
ah.
i tried to keep little 'quoties' around both it and 'innocent' every time i used them.
from the original post, we make the assumption that we are viewing from the terrorist perspective, from which it appears that the UK has committed a crime, and so the question is, when the UK government commits a crime, who is guilty?
the original post implied that the guilty parties consisted of tony blair, the queen, etc.
but if the government is the people, and the government committed a crime, then the people committed a crime.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2005, 23:05
|
#57
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Innocents?
But if all youre saying is that people are responsible for their government, then surely this applies everywhere rather than just democracies? If person A favours candidate B but candidate C wins the election, is A 'guilty' because he doesnt start plotting a civil war or overthrow of government? And if so, why doesnt this apply to people under other forms of government who are unhappy with their rulers (those living in totalitarian regimes 'can' also rebel)?
In any case, its wrong to say the government is the people in Britain. A more accurate statement is "the government is a group of people who have been chosen to govern by a majority of the people".
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 00:16
|
#58
|
share the <3
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 2,709
|
Re: Innocents?
Id agree with Nodrog, although in general terms i wouldn't say 'majority of the people' (since voter turn out can be shit and you might have a coalition government).
To me the essential point is the people give the government a mandate and responsiblity, they get to make the decisions but they also take the shit for it. The IRA blowing up thatcher made more 'sense'* to me than the IRA blowing up a bunch of pubs.
* note speech marks
__________________
Sophie is hotter than you
though ive gone off her now; the way Susanna Reid squirms around on sml is, however, awesome
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 02:53
|
#59
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Innocents?
But who are the mythical group of people 'giving the government a mandate'? There are only individuals, some of whom voted for the current regime, and some of whom never.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 06:14
|
#60
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Re: Innocents?
In the last General Election in the UK, roughly 50% of the people voted (for any party) of those that voted less than 50% actually voted for this Governement.
So in approximate terms roughly 25% of the people entitled to vote, actually voted for this Government.
Doesnt exactly give a ringing endorsement of the Governments policies when only 1/4 of the electorate supported them.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 17:12
|
#61
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
But who are the mythical group of people 'giving the government a mandate'? There are only individuals, some of whom voted for the current regime, and some of whom never.
|
'never voted' i assume. and some voted against.
and some voted for, expecting the current power to behave completely differently than it ended up behaving,
and some voted for the current power thinking (perhaps rightly?) that the strongest opponent would have committed the same 'crimes' and more.
The fact is that in a democracy, the elected have the full backing, however reluctant, of all the citizenry.
I don't think people of totalitarian societies are guilty for the same reason prisoners aren't guilty for the same reason children aren't guilty. Because somewhere someone does have an honest-to-god gun to their head.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 18:43
|
#62
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Innocents?
So then, when people who support a totalitarian regime blow up busses of a democratic people, the people of the democracy are guilty?
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 18:52
|
#63
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
So then, when people who support a totalitarian regime blow up busses of a democratic people, the people of the democracy are guilty?
|
what crime are we talking about that people might be guilty of?
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 19:17
|
#64
|
Next goal wins!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London
Posts: 5,406
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dda
So then, when people who support a totalitarian regime blow up busses of a democratic people, the people of the democracy are guilty?
|
I think we are trying to have some empathy for the terrorists with the "innocent-guilty" thing
but then thats probably stupid anyway. I've become much more pro war since we got bombed (i suck), if only so they don't "win".
stupid and reactionary i know, but thats human nature for you
__________________
bastard bastard bastard bastard
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 19:44
|
#65
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
I think we are trying to have some empathy for the terrorists with the "innocent-guilty" thing
but then thats probably stupid anyway. I've become much more pro war since we got bombed (i suck), if only so they don't "win".
stupid and reactionary i know, but thats human nature for you
|
The original post could have said "Why didn't the terrorists blow themselves up, they're the scumbags!" but it would have been somewhat pointless and stupid as well.
I think "The terrorists must lose!" is a pretty bad mentality. I could care less if they win or lose. I want me to win, and if that happens, I'm happy. Okay, so who do the terrorists want to win, so I know who to vote against? Well, they haven't bombed us lately, so that must mean they like the people we have in office, so I should vote them out...unless that's what they want me to think, in which case I should vote to keep them in place, exactly what they don't want to happen. Or maybe that's what they think we'll think. Pretty clear cut.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2005, 19:47
|
#66
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
what crime are we talking about that people might be guilty of?
|
Comlicitiy in the actions of the Government, ie by not opposing the Government policies (the war in Iraq for example) we the citizens give tacit support to the actions of our Government.
I hasten to add, that this is not my POV, merely an explanation of the point raised.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 20:49
|
#67
|
Back from timeout.
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 901
|
Re: Innocents?
Acropolis, if you had any realistic measure of how Americas and other 'Democracies' work, then you would know that the people have about as much say in government as the dog shitting on the fence around the corner.
On another note, The London bombers used small bombs, (like earlier mentioned by someone) I think that this was just a scare tactic. A kind of "We're still here, assholes." type thing. If they just wanted to kill people, what kept them from throwing enough C4 at that train to collapse the whole subway? Nothing kept them from putting the little bombs on.
Someone once said that you could rob a bank in broad daylight if you acted like you were supposed to be doing it.
I'm not implying anything, just what I think.
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You'll have to prise my penis from my cold, dead hand!
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yahwe
Gay ducks only do it because it impresses their peers.
|
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 20:52
|
#68
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
the dog shitting on the fence around the corner.
|
i'd pay good money to see this
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
I'm not implying anything, just what I think.
|
everything else you said was bollocks btw.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 20:53
|
#69
|
Back from timeout.
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 901
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
i'd pay good money to see this
everything else you said was bollocks btw.
|
Care to give reason? or plead the 5th?
__________________
Quote:
Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You'll have to prise my penis from my cold, dead hand!
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yahwe
Gay ducks only do it because it impresses their peers.
|
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 20:55
|
#70
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
Care to give reason? or plead the 5th?
|
there are too many new spastics on the boards at the moment for me to look after the old ones.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 21:17
|
#71
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
Acropolis, if you had any realistic measure of how Americas and other 'Democracies' work, then you would know that the people have about as much say in government as the dog shitting on the fence around the corner.
On another note, The London bombers used small bombs, (like earlier mentioned by someone) I think that this was just a scare tactic. A kind of "We're still here, assholes." type thing. If they just wanted to kill people, what kept them from throwing enough C4 at that train to collapse the whole subway? Nothing kept them from putting the little bombs on.
Someone once said that you could rob a bank in broad daylight if you acted like you were supposed to be doing it.
I'm not implying anything, just what I think.
|
yes and what kept queda from putting enough explosives to knock down the world trade center building back in '93?
obviously it was just a scare tactic, they didn't want to knock down the towers at all.
and i'd be interested in seeing how long the british government kept going about their 'business as usual' after the citizens quit paying taxes.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 21:19
|
#72
|
J to the C to the A G E
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scúnthorpe
Posts: 5,583
|
Re: Innocents?
Most of the time you can't quit paying taxes; they are taken automatically. If you are self employed you can do secret work, but for most people this is not possible.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 22:28
|
#73
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LHC
Most of the time you can't quit paying taxes; they are taken automatically. If you are self employed you can do secret work, but for most people this is not possible.
|
I do Secret work and pay taxes, as the work is for the UK Government and the US Gov.
but I get your point, working in the "Black" economy however is not too profitable, unless your an out and out criminal or drug dealer.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 23:04
|
#74
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by QazokRouge5
Someone once said that you could rob a bank in broad daylight if you acted like you were supposed to be doing it.
|
Rumor has it that Al Queda is planning a daring raid in which they have drunks weraring pink sun glasses dirve bombs into major population centers on lawn mowers. However, in test runs, so far, the drunks have been unable to keep from falling off of the lawn mowers and breaking their glasses.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
12 Jul 2005, 23:34
|
#75
|
Lifelong Student
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Belfast, NI
Posts: 23
|
Re: Innocents?
This could go all the way back to when the IRA tried to explain what it meant be 'legitimate targets'. The aim is to try and get the people to change their mindset. The attackers aim is to make people feel so unsafe that they will push for an end to whatever set of events paved the way for the attack itself. I suppose it's success lies with the people affected the most.
In terms of Madrid, it worked for the bombers as a new government was voted in on the promise of extracting themselves from Iraq.
__________________
Now you got a corpse in a car, minus a head, in a garage. Take me to it.
|
|
|
13 Jul 2005, 05:50
|
#76
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolis
The fact is that in a democracy, the elected have the full backing, however reluctant, of all the citizenry.
|
What does 'having full backing' mean in this context? I could say "those in a totalitarian society have the full backing of their subjects, as manifested by the fact they havent been overthrown in a bloody revolution".
Quote:
I don't think people of totalitarian societies are guilty for the same reason prisoners aren't guilty for the same reason children aren't guilty. Because somewhere someone does have an honest-to-god gun to their head.
|
But this simply isnt true. If your candidate doesnt win, or wins and does something different to that which you thought he would, then your only real options are gritting your teeth, or starting a civil war. These are the exact same options available to someone who lives under a totalitarian regime. If you want to overthrow a democratically elected government then you will find the police and army opposed to you, so in this sense an 'honest-to-god gun' is at your head.
Last edited by Nodrog; 13 Jul 2005 at 06:02.
|
|
|
13 Jul 2005, 15:25
|
#77
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
But this simply isnt true. If your candidate doesnt win, or wins and does something different to that which you thought he would, then your only real options are gritting your teeth, or starting a civil war. These are the exact same options available to someone who lives under a totalitarian regime. If you want to overthrow a democratically elected government then you will find the police and army opposed to you, so in this sense an 'honest-to-god gun' is at your head.
|
my wife and i wanted a dog.
she wanted a labrador retriever, i wanted one of those big drooly german attack dogs. as you can guess, we got a labrador
so that was our dog. and we took it for walks and played frisbee with it.
then one day it mauled the neighbor's kid. we certainly didn't want it maul the neighbor's kid, so it's pretty clear that we are in no way responsible. and even if you do still blame my wife, you can't blame me. i wanted a big drooly german attack dog. i am absolved.
[edit]i would say that in a free society, the people own the government, and in a totalitarian, the government owns the people. i believe that there is some (often amazingly minimal) level of responsibility for damage caused by your property. property holds no responsibility for the wrongdoings of its ownership. something like that maybe? you've yet to share any thoughts.
Last edited by acropolis; 13 Jul 2005 at 15:33.
|
|
|
13 Jul 2005, 15:39
|
#78
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Innocents?
That analogy has no application here, a more fitting one would be "Our street council decided everyone living on Mayfair Terrace was required to own a dog. A public vote was called to decide which breed of dog should be bought, and a majority voted for pit bull terriers meaning that everyone had to buy one or else their house would be broken into and they would be beaten up in their sleep. I went out and bought a pitbull and a month later it attacked someone". Add something else about every other street on the planet requiring everyone to buy German Shepards or fire-breathing dragons, and youve pretty much got an analogue of your idea.
The fact is that pretty much everyone in the world who doesnt live in a shack in the mountains or Belgium, is 'guilty' in your eyes. It's like a bizarro political version of Original Sin.
|
|
|
13 Jul 2005, 16:40
|
#79
|
Vermin Supreme
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
|
Re: Innocents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
That analogy has no application here, a more fitting one would be "Our street council decided everyone living on Mayfair Terrace was required to own a dog. A public vote was called to decide which breed of dog should be bought, and a majority voted for pit bull terriers meaning that everyone had to buy one or else their house would be broken into and they would be beaten up in their sleep. I went out and bought a pitbull and a month later it attacked someone". Add something else about every other street on the planet requiring everyone to buy German Shepards or fire-breathing dragons, and youve pretty much got an analogue of your idea.
The fact is that pretty much everyone in the world who doesnt live in a shack in the mountains or Belgium, is 'guilty' in your eyes. It's like a bizarro political version of Original Sin.
|
to me true 'guilt' comes from an intended action on your part. if my neighbor steals my gun (whether i left it on my porch or in my house) and kills some people with it, i'm not guilty. i am responsible tho, to a greater or lesser extent. if i went and killed my neighbor with the same gun, i'd be 'guilty.'
and yes, to me you would have to live in a mountain shack to not be responsible for anything. my clothes are made all over the world, possibly by enslaved children, tho i hope not. now lets say my boxers are made by young girls who are constantly raped and beaten by their bosses. to me, if i'm aware of this and still buy them, that's a greater wrong than if i don't know. But if somehow not knowing is the key to absolution, then the true moral path is best followed by avoiding ever knowing anything, keeping your ears and eyes closed at all times. I disbelieve that. And when you buy things and pay taxes and vote or even post on internet message boards, you are having an effect on the world around you, and i believe you bear some responsibility for those effects.
|
|
|
13 Jul 2005, 18:28
|
#80
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Innocents?
Okay, I admit it. I voted for Bush and caused the whole London bombing thing.
Sorry about that.
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:21.
| |