quote:

Originally posted by rdevito That is, they are smart asses, yes Welcome to Chill-Out Room, had been a while since I saw another Brazilian here.

Ah, coolness. How close is Brazilian to Spanish and Rican? As far as formal and as far as slang. Where I live people do speak Spanish but most of it is what is now coined as "Tex-MEX" It sounds very ghetto and do you have a term used for people that live in Brazil that speak it completely awkward, like a mix of formal with added made up words and phrases.

___________________

But the subsequent collision of fools...
Well versed in the subtle art of slavery.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You can't hold an idea responsible, even in part. You can't hold a book responsible, even in part. Kapital is not liable for the purging of the generals in the USSR, The White Man's Burden is not responsible for The Residential Schools abuse of Natives in Canada, The Catcher and the Rye did not lead directly to the murder of John Lennon, The Bible is not responsible for the hollocaust. Any attempt to argue to the contrary is absolute folly. Certainly, books can inspire deeds but you cannot credibly argue that a book is responsible for the deeds of a person.

Such nonsense.

If a person said to another "You must go out and kill a lot of people", and the other person did it, then we would rightfully hold the first person partially responsible for it. Your actually saying, if the person had written it down instead of saying it, then he would suddenly be completely free from responsibility? Nonsense.

We have of course no direct access to the Bible's writers and visualizers, so it's hard to hold them accountable, but that does not change the fact that the Bible actually commands some bad deeds, and that people take it seriously - and that's all i mean. I hope your not thinking that I mean the actual physical book of paper and color is responsible and must be punished.

Its true that descriptive ideas can not be held responsible for anything, but the Bible is not descriptive, its normative. It tells people what they should do, and thus it can - or the instigators of it, which includes churches who propagate it - be kept partially responsible for people doing what they are told.

Last edited by Znack on Jul-21-2011 at 00:14

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Such nonsense. If a person said to another "You must go out and kill a lot of people", and the other person did it, then we would rightfully hold the first person partially responsible for it. Your actually saying, if the person had written it down instead of saying it, then he would suddenly be completely free from responsibility? Nonsense. We have of course no direct access to the Bible's writers and visualizers, so it's hard to hold them accountable, but that does not change the fact that the Bible actually commands some bad deeds, and that people take it seriously - and that's all i mean. I hope your not thinking that I mean the actual physical book of paper and color is responsible and must be punished. Its true that descriptive ideas can not be held responsible for anything, but the Bible is not descriptive, its normative. It tells people what they should do, and thus it can - or the instigators of it, which includes churches who propagate it - be kept partially responsible for people doing what they are told.

Sorry, I'm not buying it... ultimately someone has to make a choice to act on what they believe the command is or not. The interpretation of the meaning and the decision to act thereon is all on the individual. Should Salanger have been imprisoned because of Mark David Chapman? The clear answer is no, and the law would not allow for such a thing because books/authors cannot be held accountable for the actions of people.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Sorry, I'm not buying it... ultimately someone has to make a choice to act on what they believe the command is or not. The interpretation of the meaning and the decision to act thereon is all on the individual. Should Salanger have been imprisoned because of Mark David Chapman? The clear answer is no, and the law would not allow for such a thing because books/authors cannot be held accountable for the actions of people.

So you don't think there is such a thing as war crimes? A General is not responsible for what his troops do after they have been ordered? Hitler did nothing wrong as he personally did not murder a single jew?

Fortunately, most people disagree with you there, as well as almost all jurisdictions.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack So you don't think there is such a thing as war crimes? A General is not responsible for what his troops do after they have been ordered? Hitler did nothing wrong as he personally did not murder a single jew? Fortunately, most people disagree with you there, as well as almost all jurisdictions.

Let's try another drastic misinterpretation of a famous piece of work, so that you can start making distinctions about where blame may be assessed and where it shouldn't. Charles Manson believed "Helter Skelter" was a call to start a race war. He then ordered his followers to "Get witchy with it" when, in two separate home invasions, they slaughtered white families and attempted to stage the crimes as though black people had done them.





By your logic, the Beatles should have been brought up on murder charges.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

quote:

Originally posted by Znack So you don't think there is such a thing as war crimes? A General is not responsible for what his troops do after they have been ordered? Hitler did nothing wrong as he personally did not murder a single jew? Fortunately, most people disagree with you there, as well as almost all jurisdictions.

That is an entirely different thing. Good try though.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard That is an entirely different thing. Good try though.

What is your assertion then? Can you or can you not be held responsible for what you ask others to do?

What is the difference between commands in writing and commands in speech?

quote:

Originally posted by Znack What is the difference between commands in writing and commands in speech?

For instance, your mother could communicate that she is a whore easily on paper with no breakdown in communications at all. She couldn't tell you herself because of the cocks in her mouth.

Get it?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Oh, preese, so sorree for intorrerance fwum esss russer. He maka fun of you because you tarking in racial stereotype. I aporogize for heem. He not know how behave. Preeze accept aporogee. Ching chang chow yun fat, Mr. Roboto.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack What is your assertion then? Can you or can you not be held responsible for what you ask others to do? What is the difference between commands in writing and commands in speech?

You actually think in fallacies of composition, don't you?

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

my phallus is pretty composed as well.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Oh, preese, so sorree for intorrerance fwum esss russer. He maka fun of you because you tarking in racial stereotype. I aporogize for heem. He not know how behave. Preeze accept aporogee. Ching chang chow yun fat, Mr. Roboto.

My girlfriend still won't let me root my droid.

___________________

Now with extra singles!
my old stuff, not quite up to snuff - but I still dig it - UPDATED 9/23/2012

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Let's try another drastic misinterpretation of a famous piece of work, so that you can start making distinctions about where blame may be assessed and where it shouldn't. Charles Manson believed "Helter Skelter" was a call to start a race war. He then ordered his followers to "Get witchy with it" when, in two separate home invasions, they slaughtered white families and attempted to stage the crimes as though black people had done them. By your logic, the Beatles should have been brought up on murder charges.

Here we are talking again about the difference between normative and descriptive. It is actually quite simple: It is the same as the difference between giving an order and saying "this could be done."

When a general tells his soldiers' It is possible to kill people ", he is not responsible if they kill someone. If the same general says "Go out and kill people", he is responsible.

An author of a book (or song) about a murder is not responsible of the fact that some people are copying it - or even misinterpret it as an order, but an author of a book that tells readers what to do and where the author is aware that people will take it at face value, he is indeed responsible.

The Bible is not a historical narrative., At least not only. It is a collection of commands to the readers and the authors knew very well that it would be understood in this way, it was their intention.