Originally posted by DoctorScribbles You're mistaken. It would not.
It's a shame that you hold the the rest of mankind's capacity for analysis and reason in such low esteem (unless you meant the hypothetical me specifically). I don't.
I think the responsibility lies on both sides. If you think nobody would adopt a prejudice when you repeat it again and again, you are overestimating mankind. Not everybody has the same ability to reason and analyse. So I believe that I am partly responsible if I repeat a prejudice over and over again and someone else adopts it. That's where something I said in another thread comes in, it's not just important what I say, but also to whom.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles That's probably because they are uneducated, camel-riding Pakistanis.
Let's do an experiment.
Accumulate enough recs on this post to bring it to the top of the Recommended list, and in two weeks, let's make an RHP vote about whether people here actually believe that all Pakistanis are uneducated and ride camels, and whether my post influenced that belief.
Originally posted by Nordlys Not everybody has the same ability to reason and analyse.
Doesn't your argument make the gun dealer partly morally culpable, since not all gun owners are capable of exercising enough self-control to stay within the bounds of the law?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles You're mistaken. It would not.
It's a shame that you hold the the rest of mankind's capacity for analysis and reason in such low esteem (unless you meant the hypothetical me specifically). I don't.
I was talking about the hypothetical you (though I believe every person has such prejudices to a greater or lesser extent).
Incidentally, if you don't hold the rest of mankind's (or at least a good chunk of them) capacity for analysis and reason in low esteem, then what are you on about in the majority of your posts in this forum?
Originally posted by lucifershammer Incidentally, if you don't hold the rest of mankind's (or at least a good chunk of them) capacity for analysis and reason in low esteem, then what are you on about in the majority of your posts in this forum?
Their refusal to make use of that capacity out of laziness.
If I thought most people here truly lacked the capacity, I wouldn't waste my time.
You will note, however, that there are some posters that I simply don't bother with. Deduce.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Doesn't your argument make the gun dealer partly morally culpable, since not all gun owners are capable of exercising enough self-control to stay within the bounds of the law?
Let's replace "gun dealer" with "Bishop" and "gun-toting killer" with "molesting priest" for a moment.
By your logic, the Bishops had no moral culpability in the subsequent crimes committed by these priests as the action was the latter's alone.
In the past, you have argued against this conclusion. Now your logic seems to support it. What gives?
By your logic, the Bishops had no moral culpability in the subsequent crimes committed by these priests as the action was the latter's alone.
That does not follow from my argument.
The Bishop-priest relationship is substantially different.
The Bishop bestows the priest with powers and protections in exchange for duties that the priest carries out using those powers and protections.
If the gun dealer gave out guns and pay in exchange for having people patrol his estate as their form of employment, and one of them went beserk and starting shooting kids that strayed onto the property, the relationship would be more similar, and I would hold that gun dealer responsible. He is negligent in handling his resources.
The dealer/buyer relationship ends at the transaction. The Bishop-priest relationship persists for the time that the priest is using the Bishop's resouces in his role as the Bishop's agent.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Doesn't your argument make the gun dealer partly morally culpable, since not all gun owners are capable of exercising enough self-control to stay within the bounds of the law?
Yes. If a gun-dealer has good reason to suspect that the person who wants to buy a gun is not capable of exercising enough self-control to stay within the bounds of law (for example because the person is drunk or a child), and he still sells the gun, I would hold him partly responsible for the consequences. And I am all for laws which prevent that anybody can just go and buy a gun.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Let's do an experiment.
Accumulate enough recs on this post to bring it to the top of the Recommended list, and in two weeks, let's make an RHP vote about whether people here actually believe that all Pakistanis are uneducated and ride camels, and whether my post influenced that belief.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles That does not follow from my argument.
The Bishop-priest relationship is substantially different.
The Bishop bestows the priest with powers and protections in exchange for duties that the priest carries out using those powers and protections.
If the gun dealer gave out guns and pay in exchange for having people patrol his estate as their form ...[text shortened]... for the time that the priest is using the Bishop's resouces in his role as the Bishop's agent.
There are those that would argue with the point that the gun seller's responsibility ends with the transaction, or that the bartender's ends with his sale of alcohol to someone who gets drunk and drives his car into a pedestrian.
Offensive god-less Darwinist joke
18 Sep '05 00:45
Back to Top