[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace

From:	IN%"[email protected]"  "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 22-MAY-1996 15:50:29.93
To:	IN%"[email protected]"  "E. ALLEN SMITH"
CC:	IN%"[email protected]", IN%"[email protected]"
Subj:	RE: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace

Received: from netcom11.netcom.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id
 <[email protected]>; Wed, 22 May 1996 15:50 EDT
Received: from localhost (vznuri@localhost) by netcom11.netcom.com
 (8.6.13/Netcom) id MAA29965; Wed, 22 May 1996 12:52:08 -0700
Date: Wed, 22 May 96 12:52:07 -0700
From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 May 96 00:57:00 EDT."
 <[email protected]>
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH


>I will quote an anonymous AP proponent with the initials EAS

>>>the above sentence I find absolutely abhorrent: it justifies killing,
>>>not merely because of the effect (the sort of "ends-justifies-the-means"
>>>argument used by most here), but that in addition it is 
>>>supposedly "ethical". ethical?!?!? for g*d's sakes, promote your
>>>depraved scheme under any other heading, but do not claim it is
>>>"ethical" unless you want to further demonstrate how far from
>>>morality you have twisted your brain.
>>
>>	In other words, if I'm shooting at you, it's unethical for you to
>>shoot back?

	The above is evidence that your accusing anyone of reposting private
email is the pot calling the kettle black, LD (unless, as Dr. Vulis said,
you're too dumb to be him). That was specifically sent in private email, for
the simple reason that I saw no reason to clutter up the list with another
response like the 10 others that had been sent. 

>get a clue. I didn't argue against someone shooting at you. I argued
>against the claim that you should be allowed to shoot anyone in
>the government because you think the government is corrupt.

	Nobody, so far as I know, is arguing that one ought to shoot anyone
in the government... I'd be in danger if that were the case, given that my
current employer is a state university. If someone is in government and is
doing something very wrong (although one may disagree on what is wrong, of
course), then they're a proper target.

>>I do achnowledge the rightness of self-defense against governmental evildoing.

>ah, now there's where the silly non-sequitur of AP proponents comes
>in. "the government is corrupt, therefore we should be able to shoot
>any government employees we choose". the government is not sticking
>a gun down your throat this minute, are they? well, why are you
>seriously contemplating the converse? oh, you say that FIGURATIVELY
>the government is doing this to you? and you want to respond
>LITERALLY? I wonder who is the tyrant in this situation?

	If the only workable method of self-defense is to kill the person, then
that's a justifiable means of self-defense. Hopefully, other means of removal
of those in government who do what is wrong is possible; I do my best to work
for this. But if it isn't, I'll support AP as an alternative.

>>To use your
>>example of Hitler, somehow I think an assasination of him would have been
>>ethical.

>I used him as an example of the kind of thinking that "murdering your
>enemies solves all your problems". yes, that was his point of view, and
>you inform me that you share it? well, congratualations!! hitler
>doesn't have too many friends and can use all the sympathy he can get.

	All your problems? No. But leaving it out as a possible partial
solution is irrational.

>murdering Hitler would not have
>solved all the problems of WWII. the problem was militarism that
>was embodied by many cultures outside of his own, e.g. Japan and
>Russia.

	Executing Hitler would have saved a lot of lives, even if it didn't
stop the war entirely. Germany without him would, more than likely, not have
held together nearly as long as it did.

>AP proponents believe that:

>1. the world is full of people that are part of the problem or part
>of the solution

>2. I can tell precisely the difference

	No, I don't think that I can tell precisely the difference. But it
appears possible that I'd make less mistakes than the current government does,
even considering only the cases in which they do kill people (e.g., shootouts
with drug dealers et al).

>3. I'd like to kill those that are part of the problem.

	If that's the only way that works, yes.

>4. if AP existed, and it appeared there was a way to kill other people
>without trace, I would go through with it.

	Again, if that's the only way that works, yes.

>5. I have a lot of teachers I hated in my childhood too. I think I
>will go for them next. possibly not before seeing if they beg for mercy.

	I invite you to look at the psychological defense mechanism known as
projection, preferably along with a trained psychiatrist or clinical
psychologist in inpatient therapy.
	-Allen