[Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?

[Saundra Lund]

Then I don't see why the same argument couldn't be made for speeders and all
kinds of other behaviors where there's a chance, however slim, that behavior
may result in another's death.

IOW, "Say a speeder has the intent of getting home as quickly as possible
knowing there is a chance, however slim, that someone could be killed and
still goes through with the action.  The knowledge that someone may be
killed is implicit, whatever the intent, and shows a wanton disregard for
human life, hence a willingness to kill."

Nope, sorry, not buying it:  it seems to me you're guilty of using
hypothetical extremes (perhaps making Dawkins' point while arguing against
it) to try to make a value judgment with which you're comfortable *without*
regard to the slippery slope you've started yourself down.


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Kai Eiselein, editor
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:26 PM
To: Sunil Ramalingam
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?

Even if the chance of someone being killed is 1/1000 of 1 percent, that 
chance still must be factored into the action.
Say an arsonist has the intent of burning something knowing there is a 
chance, however slim, that someone could be killed and still goes through 
with the action.
The knowledge that someone may be killed is implicit, whatever the intent, 
and shows a wanton disregard for human life, hence a willingness to kill.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?


> When someone is killed in an arson fire, yes, the arsonist can be charged
> with muder, not because they intended to kill, but because their separate
> criminal crime resulted in death.  That still doesn't mean the arsonist 
> had
> the intent to kill.
>
> You're playing What If, not me.  You want to say they have the intent to
> kill, fine.  That doesn't make it so.  You started by talking about 
> intent,
> and now have moved to outcomes.  I don't have a problem with someone being
> on the hook for the outcome of their actions.  But that's a separate 
> matter
> from their intent.
>
> Someone can do something wrong-headed and illegal without having the 
> intent
> to kill.  If you want to say that 'ecoterrorists' are willing to kill, 
> seems
> to me that's because you want to put them in that box for your own 
> reasons.
>
> Sunil
>
>
>>From: "Kai Eiselein, editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
>>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>>CC: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?
>>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:39:06 -0700
>>
>>So we go into the "what ifs"
>>What if a custodian or another employee had been working late?
>>Sure, maybe someone scouted the place out before hand, recorded the times
>>people came and left. But there is always that chance that someone inside
>>had a change of plans.
>>Then again, there are the firefighters, you know, the people that go 
>>inside
>>a burning building to make sure no one is inside. What if the building
>>collapses on them?
>>Firefighters have been killed at intentionaly set fires, Sunil. Even if no
>>one was inside the building at the time the fire was set, there is still a
>>chance that a firefighter could be killed. If one is willing to burn a
>>building, one is willing to kill.
> Anyone who is willing to torch a building is willing to kill anyone 
> inside.
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunil Ramalingam"
>><sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:17 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?
>>
>>
>>>Kai,
>>>
>>>If my memory serves, most of those arsons took place at night, when the
>>>buildings were unoccupied.  You make a big leap when you say "Anyone who
>>>is
>>>willing to torch a building is willing to kill anyone inside."  If that
>>>were
>>>the case, wouldn't they burn them down in the daytime when labs and
>>>businesses were occupied?
>>>
>>>I'm not condoning or defending arson or the tactics you describe below. 
>>>I
>>>just don't agree with your premise.  Just because someone commits some 
>>>bad
>>>acts does not mean they're willing to kill.
>>>
>>>Sunil
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Kai Eiselein, editor" <editor at lataheagle.com>
>>>>To: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
>>>>CC: Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?
>>>>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:16:47 -0700
>>>>
>>>>Ted,
>>>>I can't believe you've never heard of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
>>>>or
>>>>the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), both of which engage in attacks 
>>>>against
>>>>entities they disagree with.  Perhaps you've forgotten the string of
>>>>arsons
>>>>that took place from the 90's and into 2001 in Oregon and Washington in
>>>>which the ELF claimed responsibility? Or the arrests in 2006 of several
>>>>members of ELF in connection with those arsons? Anyone who is willing to
>>>>torch a building is willing to kill anyone inside.
>>>>I must have struck a nerve, since you are making demands rather than
>>>>engaging in debate. From your posts about global warming, typhoons and
>>>>such, I know you are perfectly capable of finding information on the 
>>>>web.
>>>>Quit feigning ignorance/stupidity, it doesn't become you.
>>>>I'll not waste my time digging up information that has been well
>>>>publicized
>>>>and is readily available  just because you demand it.
>>>>Debate is the art of point-counter point, Ted. Not demand, counter
>>>>demand.
>>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>>   From: Ted Moffett
>>>>   To: Kai Eiselein, editor
>>>>   Cc: Andreas Schou ; Paul Rumelhart ; Vision2020
>>>>   Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:19 PM
>>>>   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Kai et. al.
>>>>
>>>>   Will you please offer examples of what you call "eco-terrorism,"
>>>>engaged
>>>>in by what you described as "on the left are extremist environmental
>>>>groups," that have resulted in deliberately caused deaths by "fanatics
>>>>willing to kill," as you phrased it, such as a terrorist bombing (a road
>>>>side IED, or a car bomb, truck bomb, or bombing of a train or bus, etc.)
>>>>of
>>>>civilians would inflict?  This is a very serious charge, that should not
>>>>be
>>>>made casually..  I am not saying there are not examples of this, just
>>>>asking you to provide well founded empirical documentation.  Please
>>>>provide
>>>>the name of the environmental group, document their affiliation with 
>>>>what
>>>>you termed "the left" (please explain how you define "the left," and why
>>>>they represent "the left," rather than just "left field"), and the date
>>>>and
>>>>details of the terrorist attack.
>>>>
>>>>   Ted Moffett
>>>>   ----
>>>>   Kai wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      Most notably on the left are
>>>>     extremist environmental groups that engage in eco-terrorism. Using
>>>>Dawkins
>>>>     line of reasoning, anyone who is environmentaly friendly could be
>>>>seen
>>>>as
>>>>     supportive of eco-terrorism.
>>>>     Any belief, taken too far, can result in fanatical zealots willing
>>>>to
>>>>kill
>>>>     anyone opposed to their viewpoint.