[Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)

keely emerinemix kjajmix1 at msn.com
Wed Mar 17 21:30:17 PDT 2010


Believe me, Joe, I'm well aware that Dale doesn't need my help, on this or on anything else.  

Do what you want with whatever you know, or think, or suspect.  I really don't care, and you're absolutely right that you don't owe me an explanation.  We likely even have similar ideas of what might be going on.  But since I can only speak for myself, I just would rather not deal with speculation or hear a whole lot about it.  My feeling that way, though, isn't a mandate for you to break this thread.  

Have at it.

Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com




From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:08:05 -0400
CC: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com; vision2020 at moscow.com

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.
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100317/3a71c35a/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list