Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

You know, from a conflictive point of view, Civilians are only innocent if they attempt to topple their government who is at war.

So what does it take to be innocent in America?

[Kogan Loloklam]

You know, from a conflictive point of view, Civilians are only innocent if they attempt to topple their government who is at war.

So what does it take to be innocent in America?

You know, from a conflictive point of view, Civilians are only innocent if they attempt to topple their government who is at war.

[Bauglir]

Y'know, that quote I've always found to be pretty specious. It implies that all good men are capable of doing something, and/or that they are stupid enough to act alone. Yes, there's a very important message there about the consequences of inaction, but its primary purpose is to convey that message while sounding profound and memorable - not to be a literal basis for assigning blame. I'm not going to blame a victim here (the parent working two jobs to put food on the table, and to have a table in the first place) for the international fuckery of their government unless there's some reason to other than geography. Voting habits, for instance, would be a valid reason.

[SalmonGod]

You know, from a conflictive point of view, Civilians are only innocent if they attempt to topple their government who is at war.

So what does it take to be innocent in America?

You know, from a conflictive point of view, Civilians are only innocent if they attempt to topple their government who is at war.

So the only innocents in America are domestic terrorists or do you get a free pass if you've shown some appreciative fist pumps to the Occupy movement?  What extent of action and/or recklessness is required to qualify as an 'attempt to topple their government'?

[Kogan Loloklam]

So the only innocents in America are domestic terrorists or do you get a free pass if you've shown some appreciative fist pumps to the Occupy movement?  What extent of action and/or recklessness is required to qualify as an 'attempt to topple their government'?

Nope. No free pass.

And no, Bauglir. Voting Habits isn't enough.
If you don't act to stop someone representing you from doing something you disapprove of, you are showing that you approve their action in so far as that you refuse to stop it. If they are representing you, then you have to accept part of the blame for not stopping it. As an agent of you, their actions reflect directly upon you. Just because you intellectually disagree with the actions the agent does, that does not excuse you from taking your part of the responsibility of their actions in acting in the manner they do. If you do not remove the agent, and the agent takes no individual action to restrict you from doing so, then that person is still your agent.

People now days dont accept responsibility. This is a critical problem of modern society. People are real quick to pass of responsibility for their actions and decisions. The bottom line is you aren't even a quarter innocent as you think you are. If you really are innocent of the wars your country is perpetrating, why aren't you in jail for acting to end the enormous waste of money AND life? Seems pretty negligent to me.

That's like putting a big rusty metal trampoline in your front yard and not expecting to be sued by angry parents when their kids inevitably get hurt on it. You may "think" you are right in what you are doing, but you can't really pretend you don't know what the eventual outcome is going to be. Unless you are totally mentally impaired, you really aren't innocent at all. You may not be guilty of the stupidity of the kids, but you were culpable in their injury. I am certain that this will be disputed, because people today don't accept blame. It's how our society is geared. It isn't going to change, and it is certainly better for individuals to deny blame as strongly as they can. Please don't take my statements as a reason to change. It is how it is for a reason.

If you really did not support the war that your government was executing, If you really felt it was wrong, then it is your responsibility as a human to stop the needless loss of life that a war represents. This would need to be done by any means necessary. Disagreement is not a lack of support. Agreement isn't necessary for support. Support comes in many forms, and the only way to truly deny that support for your government is to go into active conflict with it.
There is no qualifiers. There is no free pass. There is no exceptions. You are only innocent if you attempt to topple your government who is at war. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

[Vector]

I had to sign a statement when I was 13 years old that I wouldn't attempt any violent throw of the United States Government.

At this point, I'm not yet willing to break my promise.

[SalmonGod]

I disagree with you for two reasons.

1.  Every one has a responsibility to their community (including their global community) to oppose harmful agents, especially those that do harm in their name.  However, most people have many other responsibilities as well, and often those take priority.  I have a family that depends on me.  To abandon them over my sense of morality would only be selfish of me.  I didn't ask my children for permission before bringing them into the world in a position of total dependence on me.  To do that and then abandon them for any reason would be a terrible thing to do.

2.  I know someone will make the argument that I am not just abandoning them, I'm fighting for their future.  I agree, and it gets really sticky here.  It's clearly not a black & white issue.  If I were honestly fighting for their future, I would do my best.  This partly means not recklessly throwing myself into a no-win situation just because I have something to prove.  I think there are a lot of people who are simply waiting and working in small, safe ways towards the moment when they can do their part to make change -- when risks will actually have a chance of paying off instead of just making them feel better about themselves.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I had to sign a statement when I was 13 years old that I wouldn't attempt any violent throw of the United States Government.

At this point, I'm not yet willing to break my promise.

...Context? (By the way, you can't be held for that under law even if there's something valid about it. You have to be 18 to make a legally binding contract.)

[Vector]

Kendo dojo made me sign it.  As my mom said, "that's unsurprising, because it looked quite a bit like military training."

As for the latter part of your statement, I do not care all that much about legally binding.  What I care about is that I promised something to some people about whom I care very much.

[Bauglir]

No, I meant that voting habits would be an acceptable reason to blame somebody, because it's an act that more or less endorses the candidate's behavior. If somebody I never voted for and have never taken any action in support of, and have spoken against frequently among those I know, makes a decision I disagree with, I fail to see how that reflects on me. It'd be like saying that, as an American citizen, I'm culpable for the UK's Prime Minister's decisions.

I'm not in jail because my arrest would accomplish nothing, because anything I could do that would get me arrested in the first place would only serve as public relations fuel in support of the wars if it were somehow important enough to be noticed, and, yes, because I don't want to be in jail. I do admit, I could be doing more - I'm not the person in that hypothetical. I accept that, but it's because I believe I'm more valuable to society progressing along the path I'm already taking. That value is probably negligible in the long run, but whatever.

It's more like my neighbors put a big rusty trampoline in my yard, and it's too heavy for me or any of my friends to move, and besides that it's really actually pretty sharp so even trying is likely to end up with me getting cut up pretty badly. And whenever I call the cops about it, they raid my house and say the neighbors told them I was a drug dealer. Meanwhile, the neighbors are using my backyard as storage space, and charging their buddies for access.

In short, elected representatives are only very rarely my representatives. I don't lay claim to innocence, but I do think you're being pretty obnoxious about the degree of blame you're handing out, not just to me, but to others who're in worse shit than I ever have been. Let me be clear: I'm not arguing with you for my own honor or any such nonsense. I'm arguing with you because there are a lot of people you're assigning blame to who's greatest crime was having responsibilities more important than politics - among them, eating regularly.

To accept your definition of guilt would be to accept that all people are guilty for basically everything they could potentially have stopped, no matter how slim the chances of success - which is basically everything that ever happens during that person's lifetime. That degree of guilt would be so great that, in comparison to it, any differences between (say) you and Stalin would be negligible. That's not meant to imply that you are actually similar to Stalin, by the way, but rather the exact opposite. I'm sure you've noticed that, but somebody was bound to complain about Reductio ad Hitlerum by another name, so I thought I'd head that off. At any rate, if you're willing to accept that, that's fine I guess, but my worldview demands more nuance.

[SalmonGod]

I'd like to see that enforced, anyway.  If you're seriously trying to overthrow the government, I don't think invoking a legal contract is going to stop you. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's just a technical point about contracts. I've met a number of people who believe that contracts made as minors bind them, so I mention that point whenever it comes up just in case.

[Kogan Loloklam]

1.

You choose to be guilty because you feel it is more important to protect your own family than to end the conflict. In doing so, you provide economic and labor support to the warfighting agent. You find reasons you can sleep better at night, but you are not innocent.

2.

The longer it takes, the more support you give the agent whom is acting wrong. You are "Disagreeing" with your government, but you are not ceasing support. You are still not innocent. You may be choosing the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't make it right. I am not saying I disagree with you. I am just saying you aren't innocent.

I had to sign a statement when I was 13 years old that I wouldn't attempt any violent throw of the United States Government.

At this point, I'm not yet willing to break my promise.

This is an interesting story. That seems a violation of the Fifth Amendment to me. I wonder how that would look in the supreme court
Would our judges who are part of our government consider it a breach of contract for you trying to violently overthrow the system they are part of? I would hope that they would be able to view it from an objective standpoint.

I of my own free will swore an oath to support the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. There was some more after that, but I've always viewed that part being contingent on my being in an active military chain of command. I never claimed to be innocent. I do strongly disagree with the Iraq war, but even that disagreement doesn't free me from my guilt in it. I provided support during the Iraq war. In fact, I was on active duty during parts of it so I provided what others might view as real support. Fact is though, I was wearing material that was provided to me via American Tax Dollars. The entire nation pitched in a few pennies so that I could help fight a war they didn't agree with. None of them were innocent. Even if they didn't pay taxes, they still helped support the infrastructure that this nation has.
Like I said. No exceptions.

Bauglir, You keep trying to use shades of gray to change the facts here. There are many reasons people sleep better at night while being guilty of this, but that doesn't change the guilt. The bottom line is we all have several important aspects that keep us all alive. It allows people like webber to get on high horses and complain about (comparing to history, exceptionally low quantities of) civilian casualties without really considering them as people. When we aren't acting to remove our government, we are giving it our approval. In doing so, we are guilty of it's actions. The reasons for continuing that approval don't matter. They may be noble. I may agree with them fully, but like I said, agreement doesn't matter to blame.
Someone who murdered in self defense may get off with no consequences, but that doesn't change the fact that they are guilty of murdering someone. They can never take back the fact that the life before them was removed by their action, no matter how justified.

[Bauglir]

It seems I've misunderstood you, because I agree with that assessment. It's just that I wouldn't use the word "guilt" to describe it, because it seems to me to reduce to complete moral neutrality a word I reserve for negativity, and only for actions (not failures to act, a distinction I have to make since there is literally an infinity of the latter).

[Kogan Loloklam]

So... back on topic...

Anyone have any new details about Egypt?

I heard last from some web article or another that the Junta is planning to keep control and install a puppet governing body to add an air of legitimacy to the whole scenario. I don't think the Egyptians would be happy with that, but not a peep further. Is there a crackdown? Something I missed?