THE MORALITY OF ANTICIPATORY DEFENSE

@MontereyJack,

Hay, Jack:
Are you enuf of a man
to stand up for what u believe in,
to say YES or NO ??

I 'll ask u my question again:

if u were able to go back in time
and rescue Lincoln and Kennedy from getting shot,
what woud u do ?

Woud u accept that opportunity?

David

0 Replies

Sure. With a baseball bat.

1 Reply

And I'd be waiting with my baseball bat to take you out when you started your ideological murder time trips.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Sure. With a baseball bat.

OK; u can have your weapon of choice.
Far be it from me to influence u.
Give Booth and Oswald a sporting chance, right ?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And I'd be waiting with my baseball bat
to take you out when you started your ideological murder time trips.

That 's good too.
If I need to confront in combat a defender of communism and nazism
I 'll prefer that he has only a wooden club.

For my part, I believe I 'll take a submachinegun.
Maybe an H & K MP5 or a mini Uzi or micro Uzi.
On the other hand, I might like to really get into it
with a full .45 Thompson SMG for Marx & Engels,
with a 200 round drum magazine.

U can defend them with your club.

David

0 Replies

I'm still at a loss to understand why the only way to stop someone from killing someone is to kill them first.

Concrete thinkers give me the shits.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

dickheaddave wrote:

It does not matter what a murderer thinks.
What matters is what he DOES.

But you are proposing his execution for what he is thinking, not for what he has done.

1 Reply

Putting aside the question of time-loops, for the moment,
taking out Marx n Engels before thay caused any trouble woud be
very nice for the millions of victims of communism and nazism
who suffered terror, slavery, torture and murder, BUT
doing that might cost me my giant High Definition TV, computers,
etc., in that without the terror of communism to motivate R & D,
the basic research that resulted in the knowledge underlying them
might yet be undiscovered. Woud we and shoud we be willing
to let Marx n Engels live, intact, in order to acquire the modern fruits
of Research & Development, tho we know that millions of folks
will be enslaved and murdered by nazim and communism ?

Opinions about whether we shoud DO that or not ?

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Quote:

I'm still at a loss to understand why the only way to stop someone
from killing someone is to kill them first.

Y is that a problem ?
We know that Richard Speck and Richard Davis
were rapists and murderers. If we coud go back
in time to intercept them b4 thay raped and killed,
it seems to me that we shoud DO it.
I have a hunch that their victims & families woud agree.
Is there something rong with killing the murderers ?

We know that communism n nazism terrorized, enslaved,
tortured and murdered many millions of innocent people.
By killing the fathers of communism and the resultant nazism,
we 'd rescue them, tho we might sacrifice our present modern
conveniences that resulted from the R & D of World War Three.

hingehead wrote:

Quote:

Concrete thinkers give me the shits.

Does that mean
that u prefer abstract theoreticians who are fuzzy thinkers, not precise?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

dickheaddave wrote:

It does not matter what a murderer thinks.
What matters is what he DOES.

hingehead wrote:

Quote:

But you are proposing his execution for what he is thinking, not for what he has done.

That is factually incorrect.

I used to live next door to some communists in the 1940s n early 50s.
Thay advocated Stalin and communism a lot,
but thay did nothing about it, unlike the Rosenbergs.
I did not injure my neighbors.
I do not regret my tolerance of them, because what thay THAWT
had no effect.

If we were able to go back in time and to intercepted murderers, etc.
we 'd do so because of WHAT THAY DID, not what thay thawt.

Note that I did not propose executing them.
I proposed killing them.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David you are proposing killing them before they have committed the actions you want to kill them for. Therefore you are killing them for what they are thinking of doing not for what they have done - or do you not experience the arrow of time?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Concrete thinkers give me the shits.

Does that mean
that u prefer abstract theoreticians who are fuzzy thinkers, not precise?

Concrete thinkers are far from precise. They are unable to perceive anything beyond face value and see every problem as a binary yes/no proposition.

0 Replies

David, you claim you are going to murder people not for what they thought, but what they did. But Marx and Engels, to take your example, did not do anything. They did not advocate murdering people. That's what others, who in some instances claimed they were acting on what they learned from Marx, did. You don't like what OTHERS, not Marx or Engels, did, and for that you are going to kill Marx. Which means someone is perfectly justified for killing Jesus, say, because of the atrocities others committed in his name. I don't like your political ideas, I don't like the NRAs political ideas, so by your lights, since people take those ideas about guns and go out and kill with guns, I would be perfectly justified in killing you and all the NRA honchos through the last century. As I say, your ideas can be used to justify killing damned near anybody. You, David, are a danger to humanity.

1 Reply

Not to mention the fact that since I have the time machine, I will know precisely when and where you kill Marx and Engels, and I will appear two and a half feet behind you, the night before, as you are stripping down and cleaning your Thompson, and the rest will not be history.

0 Replies

So, since you're bent on this murder spree, David, will you take out the greatest mass murderer (or possibly if we are going to be very, very pedantic, mass manslaughterer) in history? The man who was fairly directly responsible for the deaths of 80 to 90 million people? I refer of course to Christopher Columbus. The dieseases he introduced (inadvertently, to be sure, but introduced nonetheless) to the New World wiped out an estimated 90+ percent of the population, and he started the process of virtual enslavement of the rest, which continued for centuries. You gonna kill him?

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

David you are proposing killing them before they have committed the actions you want to kill them for.
Therefore you are killing them for what they are thinking of doing not for what they have done - or
do you not experience the arrow of time?

I have no interest in what thay r thinking about.
I care about what thay did and we KNOW that thay did.

The whole point of going back in time is to intercept their crimes
thereby to rescue the victims. Maybe (if u hate the victims) u 'd
prefer that I wait until thay finish perpetration of the crimes,
for instance, until Richard Speck finishes raping and stabbing to death the 8 nurses
and wait for Richard Davis to finish raping and stabbing to death 12-year-old Polly Klass,
before avenging Polly and the 8 nurses.

I surmise that your objection is that according to my strategy,
Polly and the 8 nurses remain unraped and remain unmurdered.

I wonder whether thay and their families will join
in your objection.

In vu of the fact that we went back in time
to prevent crimes that we know were committed,
that renders specious and of no merit your argument
that thay had not yet committed the crimes for whose prevention thay are killed,
based upon their KNOWN CONDUCT, not on their thoughts.

We knew what was about to happen.

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

David, you claim you are going to murder people not for what they thought, but what they did.

No, because that rescue program cannot succeed without a time machine and I don 't have one.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

But Marx and Engels, to take your example, did not do anything.

I know what your reasoning IS, but I reject it.
Thay caused the terror, slavery, tortures and murders of millions of people.
I was in a state of mild terror since and including the days of Stalin.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

They did not advocate murdering people.
That's what others, who in some instances claimed they were acting on
what they learned from Marx, did. You don't like what OTHERS,
not Marx or Engels, did, and for that you are going to kill Marx.

See above.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

Which means someone is perfectly justified for killing Jesus, say,
because of the atrocities others committed in his name.
I don't like your political ideas, I don't like the NRAs political ideas,
so by your lights, since people take those ideas about guns and go
out and kill with guns, I would be perfectly justified in killing you
and all the NRA honchos through the last century.

As I said earlier, that is a function of predatory power.
Right or rong, good or bad has nothing to do with it.

If Jesus can turn water into wine,
then I guess he can defend himself from u, if that 's what he wants.
He said that if u don 't have a sword, u better buy one.
I believe that extrapolates to a .44 revolver in modern times.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

As I say, your ideas can be used to justify killing damned near anybody. You, David, are a danger to humanity.

The accuracy of your reasoning is terrible; wacky.
In the history of the world NO ONE has rivalled Marx n Engels
in causing the terrorizing, torturing, murdering of so many
innocent people as THAY did, yet u claim that thay are like
"damn near anybody." That blows my mind.

According to U,
whether thay write the commie books
or thay don t; whether communism and nazism come into being
and cause the Second and Third World Wars is trivial and negligible.
U appear to believe that the millions of casualties are trivial.
We shoud ignore and forget them.

Right ??

`

0 Replies

It was the mood of the times. If Marx had not written a word, they would have siezed on some other body of writing to justify their acts. You cannot know in advance whose writing will start mass murders. The Beatles did not write Helter Skelter with a thought to Charles Manson.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

So, since you're bent on this murder spree, David, will you take out the greatest mass murderer (or possibly if we are going to be very, very pedantic, mass manslaughterer) in history? The man who was fairly directly responsible for the deaths of 80 to 90 million people? I refer of course to Christopher Columbus. The dieseases he introduced (inadvertently, to be sure, but introduced nonetheless) to the New World wiped out an estimated 90+ percent of the population, and he started the process of virtual enslavement of the rest, which continued for centuries. You gonna kill him?

I believe that it 'd ineffective to confer with Richard Speck,
Richard Davis, Marx n Engels, Hitler, Mao, but I don 't include Columbus
in that category. Between the commies n the nazis, including
the Red Chinese, Red Cambodians, etc.,
I believe that thay have killed n enslaved much more
than anything resulting from Columbus.
I 'd research your facts.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Can't wait to see you go back and kill Jesus. I mean christianity directly led to a virtual wiping out of the USA's original indigenous inhabitants (ie the pilgrims leaving England to escape religious persecution of their brand of god, then a few years later they're giving the indians blankets with cholera).

You keep talking about 'what they did' in the past tense when the point you kill them is before they've done what you are killing them for. Sloppy thinking. I'd call it immoral. And you still haven't told me why you have to kill them to stop them.

I can only hope you go back and kill someone who's continued existence predicates your own. And I tend to think the further back you go the more likely that is to happen - we are all at the end of a long stream of accidents and coincidences.

1 Reply

THE MORALITY OF ANTICIPATORY DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know