When you discover firefox's spellcheck. I'm so proud of you asguarderdrsr
At what point does someone lose there innocence? A baby is innocent because it has no agency. Its parents can be serial killers and the baby wont understand and can't do anything about it, but would an adolescent be innocent if they knew one of there parents was a mob hitman and did nothing about it and lived off the procideds? What about a young adult still living at home? What about the hitmans wife, is she morally innocent when she uses the blood money to spoil herself?
The aim of this thread is to work out if people honestly believe that people who profit from a crime have no moral responcibilit for the conqueses of that crime. Ie the mob boss who sits around and says he has no knowledge of what his underlings are doing or people who vote for governments who then kill and opress in there name and then claim to be innocence when the opressed fight back
Okay ignore the children for a while, they were only there to test the agency side. Lets look at the wife, at what point does she lose the right to put her hands over her ears and say "lah lah lah, I'm not lissening", at what point should she have known?
Would have, could have should have. You cite the bloodied clothing analogy. In that case yes, she was in a position to question or doubt his sincerity. But if there are no traces, how could she possibly know? Unless of course you are saying that as a wife, she should have been automatically suspicious?Anyway the point is at what point do we say to they wife, "sorry you want to claim you had no idea, you should have, the evidence was there when you washed his bloody clothes everyday and lived off the money he brought you, sticking you head in the sand is no excuse"
So you think they deserved to die as they did?Bells claimed in another thread that those who died in the towers and on the planes were innocents. Now sure there may have been babies and young children there who were but the majority weren't innocent, they were civillans sure but they profited from the opression of others, they voted for a government who then surported Israel with funds, guns and political cover from the rest of the world to allow then to murder paliatinian civilans.
And you have taken responsibility for the actions taken in your name have you?Sure in a dictatorship the public have no agency and therefore can't be held responcible but the US, Australia, the UK, NZ ect hold themselves up as democracies which means the lazy public don't just have a right to vote, it means they are responcible for the actions taken in there name,
I take it you ride your 'bike ambulance' to all emergencies since parts of your vehicle are made from using components that use up oil in some way or other, if not the very fuel used in it?you can't scream "but God, we didn't know" while your solders kill and your government funds dictators so that it doesn't cost as much to.fill up the massive 4wheel drive you bought to show your a big tough man.
No one is, but you are virtually saying that every populace is responsible for everything the Government does, and if they are killed in a terrorist attack, no one should complain because those victims could have voted for a Government that may or may not support Israel.You can't stick your head in the sand while your government funds, arms and openly protects Israel even when they are atacking your OWN ships
You are arguing for total war in which there are no civilians in an attempt to justify terrorism.And the votter?
Bells claimed in another thread that those who died in the towers and on the planes were innocents. Now sure there may have been babies and young children there who were but the majority weren't innocent, they were civillans sure but they profited from the opression of others,
they voted for a government who then surported Israel with funds, guns and political cover from the rest of the world to allow then to murder paliatinian civilans.
Sure in a dictatorship the public have no agency and therefore can't be held responcible
but the US, Australia, the UK, NZ ect hold themselves up as democracies which means the lazy public don't just have a right to vote, it means they are responcible for the actions taken in there name, you can't scream "but God, we didn't know" while your solders kill and your government funds dictators so that it doesn't cost as much to.fill up the massive 4wheel drive you bought to show your a big tough man.
You can't stick your head in the sand while your government funds, arms and openly protects Israel even when they are atacking your OWN ships
Well, that logic would also justify Israel waging a war of extermination against the Palestinians. After all, they voted for Hamas, didn't they?
When you discover firefox's spellcheck. I'm so proud of you asguarderdrsr
It seems to me he is saying that one is more of a victim then the other. For example, Palestinians are the true victims of circumstance and of public policy both in Israel and in the West. He has issues considering the victims in 9/11 as victims because firstly, they are Westerners who vote for Government's that have always supported Israel and secondly, they are Westerners who benefit from the tyranny of others in oil producing countries.I'd like to hear the chain of reasoning that establishes how your average US citizen, to be found riding in an airplane or existing in the vicinity of the Twin Towers, "profited from the oppression of others" as such.
And those Americans who have consistently voted against said policies, or even been explicit activists on such questions? It seems quite a reach to assert that all Americans are necessarily political supporters of said Israeli actions.
What you seem to be after is a different matter(s): first, citizens of democratic countries do, on some level, accept a certain level of responsibility for their government, even when "their guy" doesn't win the election. But that doesn't render them conspirators in policies that they explicitly oppose with their (limited) agency. Second, you're riding right over the distinction between civilians and military - one can accept that one does bear a moral responsibility for one's political preferences and their effects, without also accepting that such deprives one of civilian status, as such.
It seems to me he is saying that one is more of a victim then the other.
I find it to be a bit warped to be honest.
I suppose in his view, they would only become victims if they had attempted to overthrow the Government and freed the Palestinians from their oppression.
Otherwise they share the blame and thus, cannot be deemed innocent or victims if some lunatic millionaire living in Afghanistan (at the time) decides to fund other rich men to learn to fly and fly passenger jets into buildings full of office workers.
At what point does someone lose there innocence?
A baby is innocent because it has no agency.
Its parents can be serial killers and the baby wont understand and can't do anything about it, but would an adolescent be innocent if they knew one of there parents was a mob hitman and did nothing about it and lived off the procideds? What about a young adult still living at home? What about the hitmans wife, is she morally innocent when she uses the blood money to spoil herself?
Not so at all. It is born a guilty entity living parasitical being."A baby is innocent because it has no agency. ”
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. The baby exists because of actions taken by the parents. Specifically, they fucked.Not so at all. It is born a guilty entity living parasitical being.
"