If it wasn't for the man's actions nothing would have happened either. At least, there is no proof it would have.
I'll put what I said before another way. If he needed to tempt them into making an attack, that means they would not have done it of their own accord; ergo, not a threat.
Firstly, both free will and responsibility are not black and white, and there is no definite dividing line between responsible and not. It is situation dependent. The other person had free will not to kill Spike, just as you had free will not to tell him or her to kill Spike. Therefore, responsibility is equal. And you're a bad dog owner, not fit to own a dog, just as the man is bad at caring for his people, and not fit to hold power.
Secondly, whether responsible or not the man could not have known if the group would attack their enemy before he provoked them. He must have had another reason to suspect them or else he would not bother, so why not give that reason? Why instead rely on provoking an attack from them unless he's being untruthful?
Thirdly, it does not prove that the whole group is dangerous; only the small minority of volatile members of the group. Every group has its extreme fringes, but not every group is dangerous as a whole.
Your last point I agree with. I'm shocked that you're the only one to bring it up.
Just because one Industrialist makes an assault on a leader doesn't mean all Industrialists should be punished. Although it certainly does put them in a tenuous position should the leader they try to kill be very popular.
Anyway, I have to go out to eat so while I disagree that showing someone's true nature somehow makes you liable, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
Justice outside the moral good
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
If it wasn't for the man's actions nothing would have happened either. At least, there is no proof it would have.
I'll put what I said before another way. If he needed to tempt them into making an attack, that means they would not have done it of their own accord; ergo, not a threat.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So you're saying that if I get someone riled up and they kill my sweet old grandma, then they're not a threat?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm saying that it was your intention for them to kill your sweet old grandma. So you must be at least an equal threat to them.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Okay that's a decent point, I'll give you that.
But let me rephrase.
If you rile someone up and give them a rubber knife and say, "Go kill my dog Spike!" and he tries it...doesn't that make him a threat?
How are we to take responsibility for the actions of others?
He had free will. No ifs ands or buts.
I just can't see how you showing the world that that person wanted to kill your dog Spike makes you as bad as him.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Firstly, both free will and responsibility are not black and white, and there is no definite dividing line between responsible and not. It is situation dependent. The other person had free will not to kill Spike, just as you had free will not to tell him or her to kill Spike. Therefore, responsibility is equal. And you're a bad dog owner, not fit to own a dog, just as the man is bad at caring for his people, and not fit to hold power.
Secondly, whether responsible or not the man could not have known if the group would attack their enemy before he provoked them. He must have had another reason to suspect them or else he would not bother, so why not give that reason? Why instead rely on provoking an attack from them unless he's being untruthful?
Thirdly, it does not prove that the whole group is dangerous; only the small minority of volatile members of the group. Every group has its extreme fringes, but not every group is dangerous as a whole.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your last point I agree with. I'm shocked that you're the only one to bring it up.
Just because one Industrialist makes an assault on a leader doesn't mean all Industrialists should be punished. Although it certainly does put them in a tenuous position should the leader they try to kill be very popular.
Anyway, I have to go out to eat so while I disagree that showing someone's true nature somehow makes you liable, I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.
Good discussion.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I agree, and it's been a good while since I've had a good discussion here. Enjoy your food :)