[Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Wed Mar 17 21:08:05 PDT 2010
Sorry but I disagree on a few fronts. And I want to clear up some
misconceptions.
First, I think it is pretty clear it is not "Donovan." Second, I never
said "Donovan" is someone in particular. I'm just convinced that if he
isn't Dale, Dale knows who he is. I didn't say it was Dale and I've
been pretty clear, in fact, about the fact that I have no proof of who
it is. But I think there is a lot of circumstantial evidence
suggesting that it is Dale or someone he knows. I have evidence that I
am withholding. Why? I really don't have to explain that to you. I
have my reasons. I'm sorry I haven't keep you in the loop but I try to
stay clear of folks who don't get me.
Now you might feel less certain so you shouldn't say anything. But I
don't see how you can assess my level of awareness from your armchair.
This is not a newspaper, it is a local political blog. The idea that
my saying that Dale knows the fake "Donovan" is going to wreck his
reputation is absurd. It is a relatively mild accusation. It is
nothing at all on the level of the kinds of accusations that Crabtree
levels against me daily, nor the kinds of things that have been said
about me on Dale's blog. Moreover Dale has a problem, he can write me
himself and let me know. He doesn't need your help -- or Crabtree's.
He is not a child.
Joe
On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:09 PM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
> Look, I have wondered if the words we read these days from Donovan
> Arnold are, in fact, those of the Donovan J. Arnold with whom I
> sparred continuously and at enormous length during the 2005 bond
> campaign. I hope they are; it would be very wrong for someone to
> usurp his name without his OK, and incomprehensible to me that he'd
> let them do it to him. Either way, for someone to hide behind a
> pseudonym on this forum is, I believe, fundamentally dishonest and
> much worse than that if they commandeer someone's name without their
> approval.
>
> But we don't know that that's happening here. And one of many
> things I've learned this week is that it's better to discuss what
> we KNOW rather than what we don't. Yeah, we know of certain
> misdeeds on the part of a lot of people -- my own from Monday comes
> to mind here -- and if they were public in nature, then I say to
> call 'em out. I don't intend to pull my punches when I think Wilson
> or any of his allies does, says, or writes something bad. But since
> we don't know for sure that Donovan isn't Donovan, it seems unwise
> to conclude that it IS for a fact some other person whose identity
> we think we know.
>
> I can't tell you how much I regret the mudslinging that I started
> here, and I wish we'd stick to what we know. I don't mind one bit
> the abuse I've taken for my opinions and analysis -- but I deserve
> shit if I go public with what isn't, or claim to know something
> about someone that I maybe don't.
>
> Call me sanctimonious, call me a bitch, but please . . . let's move
> on.
>
> Keely
> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>
>
>
>
> From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:20:37 -0700
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)
>
> Once again, you seem to be all over the place. I'll try to play along.
>
> "I am not the only one to realize that Donovan is Dale, or Doug, or
> whomever."
>
> Because someone else shares your speculation, it must therefor be
> correct?
>
> "I'm not the only one to notice a sudden difference in style and
> content"
>
> Therefore, the only other person it could be is Courtney?
>
> "There is a lot more proof of this than most of the negative claims
> you've made about me."
>
> Then why is it you can't provide us with any? The only negative
> claim I've ever made about you is that you're an emotional dish rag,
> flapping in the breeze of the topic de jour. This requires no proof
> on my part as its plain to see every time you elect to inject
> yourself into a topic on which I post.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Crabtree dilemma (was...)
>
> Coward it is!
>
> Nothing to back it up? I am not the only one to realize that Donovan
> is Dale, or Doug, or whomever. I'm not the only one to notice a
> sudden difference in style and content. There is a lot more proof of
> this than most of the negative claims you've made about me. You're
> standards seem to shift.
>
> And you cherry picked the claims I made. Notice you didn't ask for
> proof that Doug Wilson tried to get two people FIRED for their
> CRITICISM of his pro-slavery book. That letter has been on Tom's
> website for years. One claim I made I can't back up -- because
> victims don't want their cars smeared with feces again! Note also
> that neither you nor Dale DENIED any of the allegations. That is odd.
>
> Best, Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:29 PM, "the lockshop"
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
> Or a third thing completely. Spreading malicious rumors of wrong
> doing with absolutely nothing to back up the accusation than your
> fevered imagination is contemptible.
>
> To speculate as to whether a candidate will re-run for office is the
> workaday, run of the mill grist for op-ed pages and blogs everywhere
> with a local example being Vera White and her Inkster coloum in the
> Daily News. Speculation becomes even more valid when, as Ms.
> Ringo attested, there were legitimate health issues which are
> recently and happily, resolved.
>
> The first is vicious rumor, stated as fact, that was designed to
> smear the reputation of a private person or group with no basis in
> reality whatever.
>
> The second is valid speculation, stated as such, about the
> intentions of a public figure based on real and valid concerns. A
> couple of prime examples of this would be the sorts of comments that
> were all too common around 5 years ago concerning Dick Cheney and
> whether a man with his heart problems would be on the ticket again
> as GWB's second or, considering McCains bouts with melanoma, could
> be possibly consider a run as CIC? Was discussion of those concerns
> fair game or vicious rumor mongering?
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:21 PM
> Subject: Crabtree dilemma (was...)
>
> By the way, you never clarified your own inconsistency. You called
> me out for not proving my on-line accusations about your "friend"
> Dale but said NOTHING about his unsupported rumors -- which (unlike
> mine) turned out to be false. Now I know why you didn't call Dale
> out -- look what happened to Metzler when he publically questioned
> Wilson. So I'm not asking for the impossible.
>
> But either you agree with Dale that rumor is enough for proof
> of accusations -- in which case your criticism of me was
> bogus -- OR you think that spreading unsupported rumors is wrong and
> thus Dale is as wrong as I was and should appologize. Which is it?
> Liar or coward?
>
> Best, Joe
>
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:32 PM, "the lockshop"
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
> Wow, that was perhaps the rudest and most dismissive reply I think
> I've ever read on this forum and that's saying quite a bit.
>
> Bravo!
>
> I realize perfectly well that my opinion means little to those of
> you going back and forth on this topic and that my lack of formal
> instruction in seraphic pin prancing leaves me ill prepared for the
> rarified realms this topic aspires to, however I do agree with Mr.
> Fox that there is a place in the world for a death penalty even if
> we would likely disagree with its application. I would definately
> not apply such a sentance for larcenous greed no matter how
> extreme. I believe a more fitting punishment would be six months
> amongst the general population of a maximum security
> federal penitentiary followed by a parole which stipulates prompt
> and total restitution and payment of burdensome fine at a vigorous
> pace. ANY lollygagging in making said restitution being grounds for
> reincarceration. I suspect that Mr. Antonucci would be quite
> diligent in working to keep his tender backside from having to
> endure a return to sharing a cell block at Florence ADX or Tamms.
>
> On the other hand, I very much agree that Joseph Duncan IS the
> perfect justification for the existance of a death penalty. Heinous
> crime, unquestioned guilt, total lack of remorse, extreme likelyhood
> of being an ongoing danger to other prisoners, gaurds, and the
> general public, all combined with a total disregard for his own life
> should all combine to make him the modern poster child for the
> necessity of capital punishment.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: Art Deco
> Cc: Vision 2020
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the
> death penalty
>
> Forget it. I don't have time to read this more carefully. Joe
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:30 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> Before you waste time commenting on something I didn't say, please
> take the time to read very carefully what I did say.
>
> W.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: Art Deco
> Cc: Vision 2020
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> It might be a while before I get to this but until I do I just want
> to point out that putting something in boldface and asserting that
> it is a FACT and not a philosophical point does not
> MAKE it an empirical fact. It might still be a philosophical point.
> In my experience, most people who criticize philosophy HAVE a
> philosophy. What they are really criticizing is OTHER philosophies
> than there own. If you are going to dogmatically assert that
> empiricism is true and that it can be SHOWN to be true by empirical
> methods all I can do is laugh and note that you are begging the
> question.
>
> Consider this. I'm a rationalist, that is, I think that SOME claims
> are established by a priori insight or something like that. Others
> think that some knowledge is gained by faith. I'm not trying to
> convince you of these views. I'm just noting that there are views
> that are contrary to yours. And how do we decide which is correct?
> Obviously if we prejudge that are method is to be empiricism, your
> view will emerge as the victor. But I hope you can see that this
> begs the question. Note that I didn't say you couldn't tell a fancy
> story to support your view I only claimed in the end it would beg
> the question.
>
> Now on the face of it, this looks like a philosophical dispute. You
> claim that all knowledge comes from experience (or mathematical
> proof), I claim some knowledge is a product of rational insight, and
> others that some knowledge is a product of faith. And there doesn't
> appear to be a way of settling the issue without begging the
> question. Which was what I said.
>
> I'll comment on the specifics later.
>
> Thanks! Joe
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Joe, (& Andreas, Sunil),
>
> I have included Joe's second post below so that I can respond to
> both posts at the same time. I hope that others not interested in a
> technical discussion will not be too bored, or if so, they will find
> other things to do which they will find a more productive use of
> their time.
>
> To avoid repeating material, here are two comments which I will
> refer to by names, below.
>
>
> Pigtails: A statement of the form "All X is Y" is refuted by
> finding a single X that is not Y.
>
> Example:
>
> To refute the statement: "All pigs have curly tails" all that is
> necessary is a single counterexample like pointing to pig whose tail
> sticks straight out like a certain part of the anatomy of a certain
> church elder does at a certain topless/bottomless bar.
>
> It doesn't matter if there are a billion pigs with curly tails and
> only one with a straight tail, the exception refutes the truth of
> the general statement.
>
>
> Stones: Dick and Jane are in the middle of a football field. Jane
> is a carrying a 100 pound stone. Jane asserts: "If I throw this
> stone, it will land on the football field." Dick disagrees. What
> method do you use to determine the truth of the knowledge claim at
> issue? Obviously, let Jane throw the stone, an empirical method
> where observation will determine if the knowledge claim is true.
> Also note that the probability that the stone will land in the
> football field is infinitesimally close to 1.00.
>
> I hope that neither Joe, Andreas, nor Sunil will be in disagreement
> with the above. If either are, then the argument can proceed no
> further.
>
>
> Knowledge Claims
>
> From my perspective statements of the form "X is Y" are generally
> knowledge claims. There are some instances of such statements in
> poetry, for example, that are not. However, statements like the
> following are knowledge claims:
>
> 1. "The Klein-4 group is an Abelian group."
>
> 2. "The current through a conductor between two points is
> directly proportional to the potential difference or voltage across
> the two points, and inversely proportional to the resistance between
> them, provided that the temperature remains constant."
>
> 3. "Sheep reproduce asexually."
>
> 4. "Bartok is the greatest composer ever."
>
> 5. "You should never kill another human being."
>
> 6. "Every human being is more valuable than every other animal."
>
> Given that statements of the form "X is Y" are knowledge claims, the
> problem then becomes what agreed upon methods can be successfully
> used to determine the truth of the various kinds of knowledge claims.
>
> Statement 1. above is a statement is an axiomatic system called
> Group Theory. It's truth is determined by logical/deductive
> methods. However, the axioms of the system were not chosen blindly,
> but were chosen to be true of certain aspects of the language that
> is used to describe the physical world, hence the truth of the
> axioms is a matter of observation.
>
> Logical methods are used to determine the truth of such mathematical
> statements given the truth of the axioms. This is not an infallible
> method, however. In the 19th Century, George Boole found an error
> in the up-to-that-point-thought-infallible system of Aristotelian
> Logic. The advent in the 19th Century of Non-Euclidean Geometry(s)
> and the subsequent theories of Einstein (now partially confirmed)
> showed that at least one of once-worshiped-as-irrevocably-true
> axioms of Euclidean Geometry were not true of the universe writ in
> large.
>
> Statements 2. and 3. are knowledge claims whose truth or falsity are
> determined by empirical methods -- combinations of logical and
> observation methods. Using such methods, humankind has sent persons
> to the moon and back while transmitting parts of this event in real-
> time to millions of people. The empirical method succeeds in part
> because precise definitions are required.
>
> Empirical methods are not infallible either. Mistakes can be made
> -- many of which are self-correcting in time; some
> problems at present are not completely amenable to empirical methods
> because of their practical complexity -- issues in the social
> sciences, for example. The best that can be said that knowledge
> claims that can be tested empirically is that they have truth that
> is at best probable, not absolute. Some of the probabilities are
> infinitesimally close to 1.00 such as Ohm's Law, at least in the
> terrestrial environment, but there is always that possibility of a
> counterexample being discovered.
>
> It is a fact, not a philosophical position, that certain kinds of
> knowledge claims are successfully resolved by empirical methods,
> notwithstanding the problem of induction.
>
> Statements 4., 5., and 6. are commonly called value statements.
>
> The three that were chosen each illustrate that in our present state
> of knowledge there is not a generally accepted method to establish
> their truth. It is not a simple matter like the stones example
> above. The phrase "in our present state of knowledge" is included
> so as to not preclude the discovery of such a method in the future.
>
> Musicians, musicologists, ordinary people argue, so far without
> resolution, about who is the greatest composer. Even expertly
> trained musicians who are thoroughly knowledgeable about all factual
> matters with respect to a composition's structure
> and live sound, and agree upon such, will still
> disagree about who is the greatest composer.
>
> There are many who assert quite apodictically that it is never
> justified to kill another human being even in self-defense. The
> truth of these kind of assertions are not demonstrable by empirical
> methods like the in stones example. One cannot produce observations
> that demonstrate the truth of such a knowledge claim.
>
> That is not to say that facts or probabilities established by
> empirical methods are not useful or necessary in resolving certain
> value or ethical disputes. They are very important; but not
> completely definitive. Further, many of us reject as fanciful,
> unsupported speculation the use of alleged supernatural beings and
> their alleged dicta as relevant in such resolutions.
>
> In a nutshell, if we want to establish the truth of a knowledge
> claim then first we must define the terms of that claim
> unambiguously; then we must agree upon a method to test its truth.
> So far, in our present state of Knowledge we have not established a
> generally agreed upon method to establish the truth of knowledge
> claims which are value statements of the kind given as examples (4.
> - 6.) above.
>
>
> Applications
>
> Restating the argument against capital punishment given by Andreas/
> Joe:
>
> 1. There is no situation where the judicially-sanctioned murder
> of an innocent person is justified.
> 2. Regimes which allow the death penalty result
> in the execution of innocent people.
> __________________________________________________________________________________
> 3. Therefore, the death penalty is never justified.
>
> Premise 2. is highly likely true at this time. There probably isn't
> a regime with the death penalty the result of whose judicial system
> hasn't caused the execution of an innocent person. This premise is
> not a value knowledge claim, but a matter that can
> be determined to be true by empirical methods.
>
>
> However, premise 1. is a knowledge claim about values. Notice that
> it is a "all X is Y" statement. Hence, referring to the pigtails
> example above, it is only necessary to find one counterexample that
> at least some observers might cite.
>
> During WWI and WWII when very strategic ground battles were to be
> fought with the expectation of very high casualties and there were
> the probabilities of massive troop desertions, the following has
> been alleged: An officer would chose a particularly inept soldier,
> one whose ineptness threatened harm to the unit, and accuse him of
> being caught deserting. A summary court-martial would held, the
> accused though innocent would be convicted, and then executed.
>
> The argument of the upper command was this: executing what the
> other troops saw as a deserter would prevent some of the other
> potential deserters from deserting and thus increase the probability
> of a military victory of sorts in the oncoming battle. The argument
> was that by killing one innocent person, many other lives would be
> saved in battle, and perhaps the course of the war changed
> so that millions of lives would be saved.
>
> The ethical principle invoked was that saving many lives justified
> killing one innocent person. Notice the context is a judicial
> system, albeit a military one.
>
> Obviously, many would find this alleged principle repugnant; others
> would agree with the principle. By what generally accepted method
> would you resolve this dispute? I do not know of one. Hence, this
> example certainly seems to raise a legitimate question about the
> truth of premise 1. above.
>
>
> If the knowledge claim is that there is not a single case where
> capital punishment is justified, therefore capital punishment ought
> be abolished, then referring to the pigtails example above there is
> another counterexample, as mentioned earlier: The cases where the
> evidence is overwhelming, a confession is made and is overwhelmingly
> supported by evidence, and the convicted demands to be executed.
> The issue of executing an innocent man does not arise here.
>
> I chose statement 6. ("Every human being is more valuable than every
> other animal.") above for a purpose. I have a good friend who is
> vehemently against capital punishment when we discuss it as a
> subject per se. However, when we discuss people who poison pets or
> off-roaders who chase/harass wildlife, this friend asserts that they
> would have no hesitation in shooting these offenders, dead.
>
> Joe argues that convictions are only probabilities. Almost all
> knowledge claims are only probabilities, even Ohm's
> Law, for example. It is the strength of the probability that
> counts. The very, very high probability of the guilt and the
> enormity of the crime of Joseph Duncan justify his execution for me;
> obviously it does not for Sunil, Andreas, and Joe. I am always open
> to advances in methods of determining the truth of
> value knowledge claims and open to hearing persuasive arguments on
> ethical matters. At one time I too was against the death penalty.
> But facts learned and very serious consideration changed my mind, as
> it has, and continues to do on an assortment of ethical issues.
>
> This whole dispute is about determining the truth of knowledge
> claims. If there is a generally accepted method of determining the
> truth of knowledge claims about values with the same degree of
> certainty in the stones example above, it has escaped the notice of
> most of the world's population so far. If either Joe or Andreas is
> claiming that there is such a method, perhaps they could submit
> persuasive evidence of such. The problem as has been discussed ad
> nauseam by philosophers is that value knowledge claims include an
> emotive element which depends on an individual's inner mental/
> physical sate, not just on exterior reality.
>
> There is hardly an ethical principle that is agreed upon
> universally. If there were presently such a method of determining
> the truth of value knowledge claims, one would expect substantial
> agreement on many such principles.
>
> Joe claims that he knows that slavery is always wrong. Some people
> disagree. For example, they cite the results of some slave efforts
> to justify the slavery that produced them -- the seven wonders of
> the world, for example.
>
> In the early to middle part of the 20th century in some areas of the
> west able-bodied men were forced at gunpoint, threat of great bodily
> harm, or imprisonment to help fight a flood or forest fire
> threatening a town. This was involuntary servitude or slavery. The
> authorities invoked the principle that the short sentence of slavery
> (they called it helping your neighbors) was justified by the
> circumstances -- saving the town. What generally accepted method is
> there to resolve the truth of the value knowledge claims here?
>
> If you have an adventurous/curious/not-easily-shocked mind venture
> onto www.collarme.com. You will find that slavery is alive and well
> today, even in Idaho, and that there are slaves that appear to
> thrive in that environment, and are at least as happy or happier in
> that environment as any other.
>
> As Joe is a professional philosopher who has studied ethics and
> probably taught it, he knows in his heart-of-hearts that there is no
> agreement today among all professional philosophers of
> a single non-metalinguistic ethical principle, or
> of a system/method to produce such.
>
>
> Some may rue this situation. It would be nice to have ethical
> principles clearly and irrevocably established whose truth could be
> demonstrated in a manner like in the stones example above. Such is
> not the case. If, or until such a method is discovered, we will
> have inevitable conflict like we have had since the beginning of
> humankind over these matters.
>
> W.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: Art Deco
> Cc: Vision 2020
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about
> ethics below is a BAD argument.
>
> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through empirical
> test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should be just as
> unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The view is self-
> refuting.
>
> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as empirical
> claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I am that my hand
> exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery is wrong but it
> can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong" is unknowable. It is
> a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY evidence can be
> rejected if one is willing to accept the consequences and revise
> enough of their beliefs. If you think that dispute means lack of
> knowledge it is easy to show that no one knows anything.
>
> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What you
> can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe it (given
> it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical claims. Or so I
> think.
>
> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your argument
> asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But this won't
> even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once you show me why
> it is that you are entitled to believe that you have a hand, I'm
> pretty confident I can duplicate the story for at least one moral
> claim. Again, if you push the view you are holding, skepticism
> follows. But then ethical principles are no longer unique.
>
> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is really
> something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the abortion
> issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent persons.
> They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what is a person?
> (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the point.)
>
> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are irresolveable
> and, for that reason there will always be disagreement about
> abortion. But you should be careful about drawing similar
> conclusions about ethics.
>
> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn from
> this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>
> Best, Joe
>
> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about
> ethics below is a BAD argument.
>
> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through empirical
> test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should be just as
> unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The view is self-
> refuting.
>
> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as empirical
> claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I am that my hand
> exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery is wrong but it
> can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong" is unknowable. It is
> a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis that ANY evidence can be
> rejected if one is willing to accept the consequences and revise
> enough of their beliefs. If you think that dispute means lack of
> knowledge it is easy to show that no one knows anything.
>
> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What you
> can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe it (given
> it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical claims. Or so I
> think.
>
> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your argument
> asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But this won't
> even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once you show me why
> it is that you are entitled to believe that you have a hand, I'm
> pretty confident I can duplicate the story for at least one moral
> claim. Again, if you push the view you are holding, skepticism
> follows. But then ethical principles are no longer unique.
>
> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is really
> something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the abortion
> issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent persons.
> They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what is a person?
> (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the point.)
>
> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are irresolveable
> and, for that reason there will always be disagreement about
> abortion. But you should be careful about drawing similar
> conclusions about ethics.
>
> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn from
> this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>
> Best, Joe
>
> On Mar 15, 2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be resolved given
> our current state of knowledge:
>
> Ethical principles are not completely amenable to resolution by
> evidence or testing. If they were, we wouldn't have such a wide
> diversity of opinion on ethical matters held by decent, reasonable
> people. It's not like establishing Ohm's law or the Theory of
> Conditioned Reflexes. Facts count, but even when people agree on
> the facts, they may not agree on an underlying ethical principle.
>
> It appears you are arguing for the principle that capital is never
> justified, or equivalently there is not a single case where capital
> punishment is justified.
>
> How would you empirically establish the truth of such a broad
> statement? What observations would render the probability of such a
> statement being 1.00?
>
> The best we can do in our current state of knowledge (the absence of
> an agreed method to establish ethical principles without doubt) is
> to attempt to persuade others by citing facts or other ethical
> principles which they may agree upon.
>
> In order to refute the statement "There is not a single case where
> capital punishment is justified." only a single
> case need be shown.
>
> I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a counter-example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III
> )
>
> "Joseph Edward Duncan (born February 25, 1963) is an American
> convicted serial killer and sex offender who received national
> attention after being arrested in connection with the kidnapping of
> Shasta Groene,[1] aged 8, and her brother Dylan,[2] 9, and being
> featured on America's Most Wanted.[3] He pled guilty in December
> 2007 to 10 federal counts involving the kidnapping and torture of
> the children and the murder of Dylan at a remote campsite west of
> the Rocky Mountain Front, and was sentenced to death under federal
> laws for kidnapping resulting in death (he had already pleaded
> guilty in state court) on August 27, 2008. As of October 27, 2009,
> Duncan was being tried in Riverside County, California for the 1997
> murder of Anthony Michael Martinez."
>
> There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic, sickening more.
>
> I could have also cited a number of confessed serial murderers or
> used those old favorites Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
>
> Given your belief in the statement "There is not a single case where
> capital punishment is justified." such counterexamples would not be
> persuasive to you. You would still hold the above ethical principle
> to be true despite the lack of a method to demonstrate it's truth.
> However, some people might be persuaded that Duncan should be
> executed and make his case an exception to their general opposition
> to capital punishment. In fact, I know of at
> least one such person.
>
> Until there is a method to establish the truth of general ethical
> principles differences of opinion like ours are not likely to be
> resolved. We may persuade each other about certain cases or classes
> of cases (like those where guilt is questionable), but in general we
> have no way to come to agreement like we might if we were arguing
> about the cause of diabetes or whether syphilis is caused by
> urinating in the moonlight.
>
>
> W.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sunil Ramalingam
> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> Not even him, and you want to kill for less than that.
>
> From: deco at moscow.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> Joseph E. Duncan III
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sunil Ramalingam
> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty from you, Wayne.
>
> Sunil
>
> From: deco at moscow.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700
> Subject: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>
> Another good argument for the death penalty:
>
> Updated March 15, 2010
>
> Ex-Bank President Arrested for Allegedly
> Lying to Get TARP Money
>
> AP
>
>
> The former president of a small community bank was arrested on
> charges that he lied to the federal government to get a piece of the
> bailout program, authorities said Monday.
> NEW YORK -- The former president of a small community bank was
> arrested on charges that he lied to the federal government to get a
> piece of the bailout program, authorities said Monday.
> Charles Antonucci Sr. was charged in a criminal complaint filed in
> U.S. District Court in Manhattan with self-
> dealing, bank bribery, embezzlement and fraud.
> Authorities said the rip-off targeted the New York State Banking
> Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Troubled
> Asset Relief Program.
> Antonucci resigned last year as president of The Park Avenue Bank,
> which is headquartered in Manhattan with four retail branches in
> Manhattan and Brooklyn.
> Among other allegations, Antonucci was accused of using false
> information to request $11 million from the federal government's
> TARP bank bailout program.
> The complaint accused him of lying to banking authorities in late
> 2008 and early 2009 to make them believe he had invested $6.5
> million of his own money in the bank when the money actually
> belonged to the bank.
> After the application for TARP money was rejected, Antonucci did a
> media interview in which he said the bank withdrew its application
> because of "issues" with the TARP program and a desire to avoid
> "market perception" that bad banks take TARP money, the complaint
> said.
> Federal authorities say Antonucci actually wanted to obtain millions
> of dollars for his own use, in part so he could obtain a controlling
> interest in the bank.
> They said he also permitted a former administrative assistant to
> obtain $400,000 of loans the assistant was not qualified for. The
> complaint said the former assistant is now cooperating.
> The complaint alleged that Antonucci later used the former bank
> employee's private plane on 10 or more occasions, including trips to
> Phoenix to attend the Super Bowl, to Augusta, Ga., to watch the
> Master's golf tournament, a flight to Florida to visit a relative
> and a flight to Panama.
> Antonucci's lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a copy
> of the charges. He declined immediate comment.
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date:
> 03/17/10 00:33:00
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date:
> 03/17/10 00:33:00
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date:
> 03/17/10 00:33:00
>
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from
> your inbox. Learn More.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100318/abd7930f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list