PDA

View Full Version : The Responsibility of an Individual Within a Chosen Group



Phrost
9th November 09, 09:13 PM
I'll to frame this neutrally since I'm involved in an argument about it.

A discussion on Bullshido came up in the middle of the Douchebag of the Month article on Malik Nadal Hassan. I made an offhand comment to someone who identified themselves as a Muslim, about doing the rest of us a favor and smacking a fellow Muslim who made Jihadist grumblings should he ever get an opportunity to do so.

The more general point I was making, and the question of the thread, is:

What, if any, responsibility does a self-identified member of a chosen group (religion, political/economic ideology, etc) have to the public perception of that group with regards to their own behavior and possibly the behavior of other members?

My position is this: if you make a choice to be a part of a group, you do have a responsibility to how that group is perceived by the public. This is because, assuming your choice to associate with that group is voluntary, and rational, you have an interest in ensuring that group is viewed positively.

Of course "positive" could be anything from well-thought of to feared. Regardless, if you care enough to label yourself as "X", then logically you should feel a sense of duty to the welfare of that group. It therefore follows that the public perception of that group/status of that group within society, would fall within the individual's rational interests.

Your thoughts?

SFGOON
9th November 09, 09:26 PM
I agree with what you're saying. I'd add though, that the larger and less homogeneous the group/organization, the less ability and responsibility an individual has over it's popular perception.

Small groups are identified by their constituents. Large groups identify their constituents.

Islam is a huge and extremely diverse segment of people. So much so that painting the whole with the actions of a single person is relentlessly irrational.

Many who are quick to vilify Muslims with Jihadist leanings are themselves tolerant of persons in their immediate social circles who advocate violent insurrection against the current US administration.

Zendetta
9th November 09, 09:33 PM
Yes.

I think you (Phrost) have an obligation to All White People and All Libertarians to disavow all mainstream republicanism- especially in regards to insane, jingoistic military adventurism - admit your errors, and seek atonement.


Seriously though: it doesn't square with your repeated appeals to Individualism to insist that other people shoulder Collectivist Guilt.

That being said, it is a good idea for any marginalized group to aggressively self-police.

Responsibility? Meh.
Good PR strategy? You betcha!

Phrost
9th November 09, 09:35 PM
I agree with what you're saying. I'd add though, that the larger and less homogeneous the group/organization, the less ability and responsibility an individual has over it's popular perception.

Small groups are identified by their constituents. Large groups identify their constituents.

Islam is a huge and extremely diverse segment of people. So much so that painting the whole with the actions of a single person is relentlessly irrational.

Many who are quick to vilify Muslims with Jihadist leanings are themselves tolerant of persons in their immediate social circles who advocate violent insurrection against the current US administration.

True, and while the context of Islam was partly the reason why the argument started, the point I was making was ideologically-neutral.

Phrost
9th November 09, 09:39 PM
Yes.

I think you (Phrost) have an obligation to All White People and All Libertarians to disavow all mainstream republicanism- especially in regards to insane, jingoistic military adventurism - admit your errors, and seek atonement.

I think mainstream Republicanism is generally idiotic, and the extreme ends of the party definitely so.



Seriously though: it doesn't square with youR repeated appeals to Individualism to insist that other people shoulder Collectivist Guilt.

It's not a matter of collective anything, it's about individual responsibility.



That being said, it is a good idea for any marginalized group to aggressively self-police.

Responsibility? Meh.
Good PR strategy? You betcha!

I also figured it was common sense, even if just for marketing purposes.

Zendetta
9th November 09, 09:43 PM
It's not a matter of collective anything, it's about individual responsibility.

Individual Responsibility... for other people's actions?

Is there something in the subtext I'm not getting?

mrblackmagic
9th November 09, 10:00 PM
I think he means an individuals' responsibility to a group...as representative.

Rationally, no. We should held accountable for our own actions and those we are directly responsible for: children. Unfortunately, perception is reality.

The radicals are ALWAYS the most outspoken element of any group and therefore the most likely to be the representational image of that group rather than the exception. The problem is dickheads like that don't care about anybody that's doesn't agree with them even people with the same ideological background, so I strongly doubt they would govern themselves with the group in mind. Usually, they think they are doing something for the group.

MrGalt
9th November 09, 10:00 PM
I've noticed that what media coverage I have seen seems to be playing up the jihad angle about Hassan now instead of going for the PTSD transference thing they talked about the first day. My American media consumption is limited to ABC, NBC, and CBS podcasts though.

I think within a chosen group your responsibility is more in the form of a responsibility to leave that group if its values and actions are no longer congruent with yours.

Also, I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but I can't really agree with calling Islam a chosen group. I know that I am completely and irrevocably incapable of belief in gods, religion, or the supernatural in general. They're just unreal to me. I imagine that belief in such things is just as much of a personality trait, steeped as it is in terms of revelation and enlightenment. Consequently I think people choose Islam to about the same extent they can be said to choose homosexuality.*

*no, not in prison

ICY
9th November 09, 10:21 PM
My position is this: if you make a choice to be a part of a group, you do have a responsibility to how that group is perceived by the public. This is because, assuming your choice to associate with that group is voluntary, and rational, you have an interest in ensuring that group is viewed positively.


That's a lot of assuming going on there.


Of course "positive" could be anything from well-thought of to feared. Regardless, if you care enough to label yourself as "X", then logically you should feel a sense of duty to the welfare of that group. It therefore follows that the public perception of that group/status of that group within society, would fall within the individual's rational interests.



It depends WHY they want to be part of the group. If, for example, they're a Muslim because they want to be favoured by Allah and not because they want to fit in with other Muslims or be part of the Muslim community, per se, then their interest in public perception of Muslims could be slim to none.

Anyway, I think it depends how specific the group in question is. Like Goon.

In my opinion, you should care what your friends and family do. Everyone else shouldn't really matter unless you choose to make them matter to you, and that shouldn't be the case just because you choose some loose form of association with them.


It's not a matter of collective anything, it's about individual responsibility.

...for the collective...


I also figured it was common sense, even if just for marketing purposes.

You can care about the main goals of some group without caring about the people involved, and especially without caring about what each little peon involved is doing. That would take a huge time and energy investment. Only the most motivated losers who have no life outside of said group are gonna do that. And they do. Just not the normal members. And they never will.


I think within a chosen group your responsibility is more in the form of a responsibility to leave that group if its values and actions are no longer congruent with yours.


Agreed.


Also, I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but I can't really agree with calling Islam a chosen group. I know that I am completely and irrevocably incapable of belief in gods, religion, or the supernatural in general. They're just unreal to me. I imagine that belief in such things is just as much of a personality trait, steeped as it is in terms of revelation and enlightenment. Consequently I think people choose Islam to about the same extent they can be said to choose homosexuality.*


You are a huge fag, and the no not in prison thing should also apply to anyone raised as a (insert-irrational-belief-system-here).

danno
9th November 09, 10:59 PM
It's not a matter of collective anything, it's about individual responsibility.

individual responsibility... for the collective?

EDIT - ok, just read roid monkeys post...

EuropIan
9th November 09, 11:04 PM
Phrost is trying to wrap his head around his cognitive dissonance.

danno
9th November 09, 11:12 PM
my opinion is exactly what goon said.


Many who are quick to vilify Muslims with Jihadist leanings are themselves tolerant of persons in their immediate social circles who advocate violent insurrection against the current US administration.

but i'd change that to "any and all kinds of dickery".

HappyOldGuy
9th November 09, 11:27 PM
It depends. If you care about the group, you should avoid behaviors that would hurt it. That's why major douchebag is a bad muslim. If somebody who is part of your group happens to do something bad it is not your responsibility in any way shape or form.

Any more than you phrost are personally responsible for every crime committed by every atheist.

mike321
10th November 09, 12:03 AM
Old Guy,

If the Major claims he is a good Muslim does it change the dynamic of the situation?

EuropIan
10th November 09, 12:09 AM
No.

danno
10th November 09, 12:11 AM
Old Guy,

If the Major claims he is a good Muslim does it change the dynamic of the situation?

if he claims he's a good american soldier does that change anything?

EuropIan
10th November 09, 12:13 AM
^"But that's different because it is a group I myself identify with"

EuropIan
10th November 09, 12:16 AM
The problem with these statements are closely tied to the"no true scotsmen fallacy".

People are dicks, especially to those outside their particular group, just because it is easier to vilify the "other". So, if you belong to a certain socioeconomic group doesn't mean you are absolved of all dickery by virtue of the status perceived from that group. However, people will try so for themselves because of the need to justify ones actions of dickery


and thus cognitive dissonance is born.


Edit: now with less blablablas and more confusing sentence structure.

MrGalt
10th November 09, 12:39 AM
You are a huge fag,

I've never even sat on a Harley.


and the no not in prison thing should also apply to anyone raised as a (insert-irrational-belief-system-here).

Absolutely it does. I remember a thread where you talked a little about your experience growing up JW, and it makes me glad my family was much more mellow about whether you chose to opt into family church time or not. Religion tends to happen to people in childhood, or during crises in their lives, times when critical thinking skills are not at their peak.

That's not me saying that religious people can't think or are stupid or anything, but just that I don't know of anyone who sat down and compared all the merits and disadvantages of each religion, then picked one with no feeling behind the decision at all. A person might choose to pay lip service to a given religion for that reason, but that's not a believer.

Are we counting pretenders to Islam/Christianity/etc as part of the group for this particular discussion or not?

socratic
10th November 09, 12:58 AM
You'd have to interview a lot of people in private to figure out who's only displaying the external signs of belonging to a religious community.

socratic
10th November 09, 12:59 AM
Yes.

I think you (Phrost) have an obligation to All White People and All Libertarians to disavow all mainstream republicanism- especially in regards to insane, jingoistic military adventurism - admit your errors, and seek atonement.


Seriously though: it doesn't square with your repeated appeals to Individualism to insist that other people shoulder Collectivist Guilt.

That being said, it is a good idea for any marginalized group to aggressively self-police.

Responsibility? Meh.
Good PR strategy? You betcha!

+ Rep Motherfucker!

elipson
10th November 09, 01:56 AM
If you have an individual responsibility to police others of your social group, then you will shoulder individual blame for not intervening in the actions of others and not fulfilling your responsibility. This is BS. I don't feel guilty for other peoples actions, not unless I can actually do something to stop it, in which case my social group becomes irrelevant. If I fail to stop something from happening, I will feel guilt not because I might belong to his religion, but because I feel a responsibility to stop those things period.

What about our responsibility not to label a group based on individual actions? Shouldn't we feel guilty if we automatically think less of muslims when an individual one goes nuts? I think we all have a responsibility not to let xenophobia, misconceptions, and ignorance cloud our judgement.

Cullion
10th November 09, 03:34 AM
Your thoughts?

I agree with your view and I think you're a coward for not assassinating George W Bush when all this mess could've been prevented.

honesty
10th November 09, 03:46 AM
I am not part of a group. I just do things. If you then associate me with a group it is your problem not mine. It is your view that I have to take responsibility for that group, not mine. I am not the one sticking people in groups and labelling them, you are and it is your ideologies that you then want that group to play out. Not mine.

Steve
10th November 09, 04:20 AM
I'll to frame this neutrally since I'm involved in an argument about it.

What do you mean "neutral?" You didn't even hint to the opposing point by the poster on Bullshido.

AAAAAA
10th November 09, 05:52 AM
What everybody said.

Also, the "group" label will be useful to understand why and how somebody does action X, as it's a factor in defining the individual identity of the actor; but it doesn't work the other way around, because it will be just one of the many factors at play in the individual. The OP perception of group identity would make sense if there were a strict causation "group -> individual actions".

As it is, it's in the realm of PR and not of cogent responsibility IMHO. "OMG he did X because he's Y" will always be tried and it should be always opposed.

bob
10th November 09, 05:55 AM
I'll to frame this neutrally since I'm involved in an argument about it.

A discussion on Bullshido came up in the middle of the Douchebag of the Month article on Malik Nadal Hassan. I made an offhand comment to someone who identified themselves as a Muslim, about doing the rest of us a favor and smacking a fellow Muslim who made Jihadist grumblings should he ever get an opportunity to do so.

The more general point I was making, and the question of the thread, is:

What, if any, responsibility does a self-identified member of a chosen group (religion, political/economic ideology, etc) have to the public perception of that group with regards to their own behavior and possibly the behavior of other members?

My position is this: if you make a choice to be a part of a group, you do have a responsibility to how that group is perceived by the public. This is because, assuming your choice to associate with that group is voluntary, and rational, you have an interest in ensuring that group is viewed positively.

Of course "positive" could be anything from well-thought of to feared. Regardless, if you care enough to label yourself as "X", then logically you should feel a sense of duty to the welfare of that group. It therefore follows that the public perception of that group/status of that group within society, would fall within the individual's rational interests.

Your thoughts?

Sometimes you really sound as if you believe in freedom of thought and action, provided everyone thinks and acts like you.

mike321
10th November 09, 08:55 AM
if he claims he's a good american soldier does that change anything?

I'm not sure, I'm still reading this thread and thinking about the issues. As far as groups that he is part of, the Army certainly has as much to answer for as any group. He was definitely in the army, he was in a position of authority, and his views were already raising questions. Of course a military institution is different than a religion, but the group/individuals dynamic is there.

Vieux Normand
10th November 09, 10:14 AM
I almost misread the title. "Chosen group" doesn't mean the person chose to be in it.

In terms of muslims, the vast majority I've met belong to that group because--and only because--their parents do. I've only met a few converts.

So...if the group you belong to is only that due to your birth--and you aren't really a practising member--what does that do to your "responsibility"?

Phrost
10th November 09, 11:24 AM
What do you mean "neutral?" You didn't even hint to the opposing point by the poster on Bullshido.

Not my place. If I had, I most likely would have ended up framing his argument in a way that unconsciously undermined it. He was invited to come post here.

Phrost
10th November 09, 11:29 AM
Any more than you phrost are personally responsible for every crime committed by every atheist.

You're broadening the scope of responsibility beyond what I'm claiming. As someone identifies himself as more-or-less atheist (I'd totally fucking love if the Norse mythology was real), it is definitely my obligation to say "that guy was an asshole" should the subject of conversation come around to Stalin, for example.

And if I ever attended a meeting of Atheists in Action (or whatever Atheists call their meetings, wouldn't know, never been to one) and some asshole started ranting about how we should violently attack Christians, it would also be my duty to tell him to shut the fuck up at the very least, if not report him to the cops, if not kick his ass myself.

Phrost
10th November 09, 11:32 AM
Sometimes you really sound as if you believe in freedom of thought and action, provided everyone thinks and acts like you.

No, I put my ideas out there so you can shoot them full of holes, if possible, because my commitment to being right is more important than my commitment to those ideas.

Phrost
10th November 09, 11:34 AM
I almost misread the title. "Chosen group" doesn't mean the person chose to be in it.

In terms of muslims, the vast majority I've met belong to that group because--and only because--their parents do. I've only met a few converts.

So...if the group you belong to is only that due to your birth--and you aren't really a practising member--what does that do to your "responsibility"?

Religion, in the United States, is 100% a choice.

I was born Catholic, raised quasi-fundamentalist.

HappyOldGuy
10th November 09, 11:44 AM
You're broadening the scope of responsibility beyond what I'm claiming. As someone identifies himself as more-or-less atheist (I'd totally fucking love if the Norse mythology was real), it is definitely my obligation to say "that guy was an asshole" should the subject of conversation come around to Stalin, for example.

And if I ever attended a meeting of Atheists in Action (or whatever Atheists call their meetings, wouldn't know, never been to one) and some asshole started ranting about how we should violently attack Christians, it would also be my duty to tell him to shut the fuck up at the very least, if not report him to the cops, if not kick his ass myself.
Of course, if people I personally come in contact with say stuff I disagree with I tell them they are full of shit.

Like you, in this thread.

That is something totally different than saying I am responsible for stormfront because I am a message board poster on the internet.

FickleFingerOfFate
10th November 09, 11:53 AM
You'd have to interview a lot of people in private to figure out who's only displaying the external signs of belonging to a religious community.


Like most any group,

the superficial ones proclaim the loudest, and do the bare minimum.

Phrost
10th November 09, 04:28 PM
Of course, if people I personally come in contact with say stuff I disagree with I tell them they are full of shit.

Like you, in this thread.

That is something totally different than saying I am responsible for stormfront because I am a message board poster on the internet.

Unless you identify yourself as a member-in-good-standing of Stormfront, why would you be responsible?

HappyOldGuy
10th November 09, 04:40 PM
Unless you identify yourself as a member-in-good-standing of Stormfront, why would you be responsible?

Because I'm a member of the group 'message board posters' which includes the subgroup 'stormfront message board posters.' I hate and despise everything they stand for, so I don't feel the tiniest sense of obligation to apologize for their behavior, even though we are technically part of the same group.

EuropIan
10th November 09, 04:51 PM
I think Phrost has a problem with identifying the parallel between this example and his opinions towards Muslims.

But I'm not sure.

Phrost
10th November 09, 05:05 PM
Then you'd be thinking incorrectly. I don't hold Muslims in any more contempt than I do the subscribers of any other religion.

EuropIan
10th November 09, 05:09 PM
So say, US G.I.s wandering around the Middle East spouting crusader rhetoric is comparable?

Phrost
10th November 09, 05:18 PM
So say, US G.I.s wandering around the Middle East spouting crusader rhetoric is comparable?

Are you talking about the Infidel t-shirts?

http://www.uscav.com/prodinfo/enlarged/33405L.jpg

I think in a certain context there may be some humor there, but it's still a bit of an asshole move.

EuropIan
10th November 09, 05:28 PM
Wow that is a dick move.

Albeit funny.

However, I was talking about the heavy proselytizing with a convenient anti-muslim spin

Phrost
10th November 09, 05:30 PM
Oh, the Christian soldiers who are passing out bibles in Afghanistan?

Also assholes.

EuropIan
10th November 09, 05:45 PM
Did you know Ft. Hood has a very high degree of proselytizing related harassment suits?


Edit: ok ok I'm trolling and this is a tangent

Kein Haar
10th November 09, 06:10 PM
I think Cat Stevens is the appropriate go-to guy.

HappyOldGuy
10th November 09, 06:34 PM
I think Cat Stevens is the appropriate go-to guy.
As in you'd have to go-to him cause he can't come here.

Amirite?

I know, they let him back in recently.

danno
10th November 09, 07:40 PM
i always found the infidel shirt strange because "infidel" is:


an English word meaning "a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own"

and it's also used by xtians. so technically a muslim could wear the same shirt to piss off xtians.

a more appropriate word might be "kafir"?


the term refers to a person who does not recognize God (Allah) or the prophethood of Muhammad (i.e., any non-Muslim) or who hides, denies, or covers the "truth".

which is nowadays considered more derogatory i think, even though:


Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.

Phrost
10th November 09, 10:00 PM
Because I'm a member of the group 'message board posters' which includes the subgroup 'stormfront message board posters.' I hate and despise everything they stand for, so I don't feel the tiniest sense of obligation to apologize for their behavior, even though we are technically part of the same group.

"Message Board Posters" isn't a publicly recognized group, much less an organized one. Neither is it a label people use to identify themselves to said public to express an identity or belief system.

Phrost
10th November 09, 10:02 PM
Did you know Ft. Hood has a very high degree of proselytizing related harassment suits?


Edit: ok ok I'm trolling and this is a tangent

Dude, you're talking to someone who was ordered to bow his head in a group prayer during the graduation ceremony for the course you need to become a Sergeant.

I'd handed in my paperwork, and even the award I'd received from the Sergeant Major, and was in the process of quitting over it after having already completed the course. A practical argument by an instructor I suspect was a closet atheist, combined with a moment of moral weakness, resulted in me sucking it up and graduating.

I still regret that choice.

HappyOldGuy
10th November 09, 10:11 PM
"Message Board Posters" isn't a publicly recognized group, much less an organized one. Neither is it a label people use to identify themselves to said public to express an identity or belief system.

Moving goal posts much?

As pointed out by any number of posters, Republicans is all of the above.

As is Americans. You have never posted any apologies for any actions undertaken by either until your hypocricy was pointed out in this thread, and even then it's been half assed and evasive.

Stop dancing. You got no rhythm.

socratic
10th November 09, 10:16 PM
I agree with your view and I think you're a coward for not assassinating George W Bush when all this mess could've been prevented.
Rest assured I'm doing pushups for you, dear Cullion.


You're broadening the scope of responsibility beyond what I'm claiming. As someone identifies himself as more-or-less atheist (I'd totally fucking love if the Norse mythology was real), it is definitely my obligation to say "that guy was an asshole" should the subject of conversation come around to Stalin, for example. No, it really fucking isn't. Are you crazy? Americans butchered the Phillippinos, should I expect you to apologise right here and now?


And if I ever attended a meeting of Atheists in Action (or whatever Atheists call their meetings, wouldn't know, never been to one) and some asshole started ranting about how we should violently attack Christians, it would also be my duty to tell him to shut the fuck up at the very least, if not report him to the cops, if not kick his ass myself.
No, it really isn't your obligation AT ALL. A good idea? Yes. Your obligation? No. You're just trying to find a way to say "Muslims should police extremism better, those jerks."


Religion, in the United States, is 100% a choice.

I was born Catholic, raised quasi-fundamentalist.
Bullshit. Freedom of religion on a piece of paper does NOT always play out that way and you're being deliberately obtuse or just fucking dumb if you think otherwise.


Then you'd be thinking incorrectly. I don't hold Muslims in any more contempt than I do the subscribers of any other religion.
Then why are you trying to point the blame at American Muslims for one crazy shooter? This whole thread is you trying to get support for the insane idea that it's the Muslims' fault for one guy losing his shit because he didn't want to do a second tour in Iraq.

socratic
10th November 09, 10:17 PM
You're free to choose your own religion but your parents will teach you their views and probably heavily oppose any attempts to think otherwise.

SFGOON
10th November 09, 11:47 PM
Dude, you're talking to someone who was ordered to bow his head in a group prayer during the graduation ceremony for the course you need to become a Sergeant.

I'd handed in my paperwork, and even the award I'd received from the Sergeant Major, and was in the process of quitting over it after having already completed the course. A practical argument by an instructor I suspect was a closet atheist, combined with a moment of moral weakness, resulted in me sucking it up and graduating.

I still regret that choice.

Though not an atheist myself, the Army needs atheist chaplains. It would be a good role for philosophy doctorates who don't get professorial jobs.

The moment I decided to hate my fellow officers was when I got in an argument with my XO over whether or not the soldiers had to pray during a dining out. A few of my Privates had come to me personally and asked if they could be exempted from prayer, something my squad leaders had declined to pass along. In the end I won, but only after talking about it to the chaplain, which of course pissed off my whole command.

The Army is like some sort of massive Christian fundamentalist conspiracy.

ICY
11th November 09, 12:06 AM
I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
- Robert A. Heinlein

LOL

Phrost
11th November 09, 12:09 AM
Moving goal posts much?

As pointed out by any number of posters, Republicans is all of the above.

As is Americans. You have never posted any apologies for any actions undertaken by either until your hypocricy was pointed out in this thread, and even then it's been half assed and evasive.

Stop dancing. You got no rhythm.

Apologize for what? I agree with the invasion of Iraq and don't care if the reasons they presented to the public were about illegal WMDs or bootleg DVDs. Of course, I don't appreciate being lied to, but I'm one of the people they could have told the truth.

EuropIan
11th November 09, 12:10 AM
Wait corperatist hegemony is a legitimate reason?

Dark Helmet
11th November 09, 12:13 AM
Apologize for what? I agree with the invasion of Iraq and don't care if the reasons they presented to the public were about illegal WMDs or bootleg DVDs. Of course, I don't appreciate being lied to, but I'm one of the people they could have told the truth.
You supported the invasion on solely moral grounds because you hated that they killed the Iraqi soccer team?

Dark Helmet
11th November 09, 12:14 AM
"I feel very good about what we did. I think it was the right thing to do. If I was faced with those circumstances again, I'd do exactly the same thing." – Dick Cheney

Phrost
11th November 09, 12:18 AM
You supported the invasion on solely moral grounds because you hated that they killed the Iraqi soccer team?

No, but I would have.

Iraq needed to be invaded.

EuropIan
11th November 09, 12:22 AM
Just like Jamie Leigh Jones needed to be raped.

Phrost
11th November 09, 12:23 AM
Is that the Haliburton employee?

EuropIan
11th November 09, 12:24 AM
KBR..

However both the rape and the invasion were for the good of the company.

Phrost
11th November 09, 12:27 AM
The latter, sure. Was an absolute pillaging of the public coffers.

The former, well that's just stupid. Rape isn't even funny when Family Guy jokes about it.

George Carlin, on the other hand...

danno
11th November 09, 12:30 AM
do you think we should invade north korea?

Phrost
11th November 09, 12:32 AM
It should be an option on the table, but at the moment, no.

EuropIan
11th November 09, 12:35 AM
Goofy raping Mickey Mouse does produce a funny image in my head.


However, I'm sure you did followup on the fallout of this case, right? How KBR tried to block her rights through arbitration and how Republicans (whom you do not represent) tried to block the amendment that would prevent bullshit like this from happening again?

danno
11th November 09, 12:38 AM
It should be an option on the table, but at the moment, no.

because of the costs involved (including money being spent on other fronts, and the human cost)?

elipson
11th November 09, 04:27 AM
For what its worth, History would remember the Iraq invasion much differently if it hadn't been technically fucked up by the politicians running it. The sheer number of facepalms in the first several years of the occupation is what made the thing such a political suicide pill, to say nothing of the US military casualties that could have been avoided by a better planned occupation.

A successful invasion/occupation would have painted Bush in a positive light, instead of the bumbling idiot he is. Invading Iraq may have been stupid, but the way they ran the aftermath was criminal.

Phrost
11th November 09, 08:49 AM
because of the costs involved (including money being spent on other fronts, and the human cost)?

Mainly because it'd create a humanitarian clusterfuck.

Lebell
11th November 09, 09:00 AM
i agree with the op.
its a difficult question because if you look at it from person X's perspective person X can say: ' but where does it end? why should people asume i share those ideals?'

in Lolland there's a lot of dicussions about this whenever a dude gets murdered by a muslim.
The thing that bothers me most is that whenever a muslim does anything, the community spokespeople always come up with the same apthic ramblings such as: Isam is peace and tolerant laadeedaa.

they never REALLY show some compassion about the people who died, they keep their main focus to damage control the perception of their precious religion instead on the human drama.

very cold and worrysome in my opinion.

Shawarma
11th November 09, 11:39 AM
This debate started on Bullshido and was ended on Bullshido.

You are not your brother's keeper. Ever.

Wounded Ronin
11th November 09, 11:42 AM
I'm an athiest, but for the sake of argument, if I were a self-identified Christian of some kind, would it be my responsibility to chastise Southern Baptists whenever they said something that a lot of other Americans would consider extreme about gays or what have you? In day to day life I have nothing to do with those folks, I don't see them, I don't talk to them, and I've never attended their services.

HappyOldGuy
11th November 09, 11:43 AM
i agree with the op.
its a difficult question because if you look at it from person X's perspective person X can say: ' but where does it end? why should people asume i share those ideals?'

in Lolland there's a lot of dicussions about this whenever a dude gets murdered by a muslim.
The thing that bothers me most is that whenever a muslim does anything, the community spokespeople always come up with the same apthic ramblings such as: Isam is peace and tolerant laadeedaa.

they never REALLY show some compassion about the people who died, they keep their main focus to damage control the perception of their precious religion instead on the human drama.

very cold and worrysome in my opinion.

Lebell agrees with you Phrost.

Let that one sink in for a minute.

Wounded Ronin
11th November 09, 11:44 AM
Mainly because it'd create a humanitarian clusterfuck.

I'd be for an invasion of North Korea only if we had all the military sound systems belting out Vietnam-era music so we could get our humanitarian clusterfuck on in proper fashion.

M-43tlrBoRk

Wounded Ronin
11th November 09, 11:46 AM
Though not an atheist myself, the Army needs atheist chaplains. It would be a good role for philosophy doctorates who don't get professorial jobs.


Dude, that would kick ass. Someone could get a PhD in Philosophy, THEN join the military, and THEN actually apply philosophy to help people deal with their real problems.

Oh my god, you should totally promote this with the best philosophy departments across the US.

taijiamn
11th November 09, 11:03 PM
... In day to day life I have nothing to do with those folks, I don't see them, I don't talk to them, and I've never attended their services.

Would your feelings about it change if you did see them/attend services frequently? Do you feel any responsibility to try to prevent family/friends from doing harm to themselves or other family or friends, and if so what determines how far that circle of influence extends?

And for Shawarma, where does not my brother's keeper end and criminal negligence begin?

Phrost
12th November 09, 12:06 AM
If you prance around wearing your Christianity on your sleeve and someone mentions the murder of George Tiller, I'd probably expect you to at least make a token effort to ideologically distance yourself from the murderer.

Or the Westboro Baptist Church.

Or Liberty University.

ICY
12th November 09, 01:27 AM
What if you just don't give a flying fuck how your group is percieved publicly? For instance, I don't care how MMA is percieved. If people like it, cool, if they don't, don't care, if they think fighters are thugs, don't care, if I'm instructing criminals, don't care, if people think it's barbaric...I DON'T CARE. I do it because I enjoy it, not to satisfy other people's idea of what it should be. Fuck those people.

honesty
12th November 09, 03:35 AM
Its ok to take responsibility for a group you are in, it is another thing for someone external to your group to demand you take it. We cant demand a muslim takes responsibility for all muslims and tell them "to cut that shit out". A person my decide as part of their personal ideals to take responsibility for a group though and say that.

What your saying though is your ideology needs to be applied to those groups and people should be forced to take responsibility for actions that are not their own.

socratic
12th November 09, 04:29 AM
in Lolland there's a lot of dicussions about this whenever a dude gets murdered by a muslim.
The thing that bothers me most is that whenever a muslim does anything, the community spokespeople always come up with the same apthic ramblings such as: Isam is peace and tolerant laadeedaa.

they never REALLY show some compassion about the people who died, they keep their main focus to damage control the perception of their precious religion instead on the human drama.

very cold and worrysome in my opinion.When are you going to apologise for your fellow Lollanders selling out their own people to the Nazis?

I think it's ludicrous double-standard that Muslims everywhere have to apologise for crazy Wahabi Islamists but, say, the Catholic church doesn't have to apologise for the Westboro Baptist Church's picketing of funerals and other dickishness.

socratic
12th November 09, 04:32 AM
If you prance around wearing your Christianity on your sleeve and someone mentions the murder of George Tiller, I'd probably expect you to at least make a token effort to ideologically distance yourself from the murderer.

Or the Westboro Baptist Church.

Or Liberty University.That's completely stupid. You should apologise right now for the Klu Klux Klan. RIGHT NOW. You're an American and so are they, you should keep them in line better. APOLOGISE.

Can't you see how fucking crazy this is, or do you really want to finger the Muslim American community that badly?

Lebell
12th November 09, 06:11 AM
When are you going to apologise for your fellow Lollanders selling out their own people to the Nazis?

I think it's ludicrous double-standard that Muslims everywhere have to apologise for crazy Wahabi Islamists but, say, the Catholic church doesn't have to apologise for the Westboro Baptist Church's picketing of funerals and other dickishness.
Shows what you know about religion.

Anyway, we are all dancing around the main point.
The enormous difference between the Christian worldview and that of Islam is Forgiveness/redemption vs vengeance/fear.

Let's say a fellow christian would empty his gun on an abortion clinic, a christian can easily say: i distance myself, for Christ himself has said that he is without sins should cast the first stone, and he has always clearly instructed us to forgive sinner, not to kill them.

When a muslim empties his gun on an army base of american soldiers who wage war in an islamic country the quran actually encourages that.
hence the impossible awkward position of many muslims, they want to please CNN but they're also aware their own are listening too and they dont want to come of as bad muslims.

Phrost
12th November 09, 10:25 AM
That's completely stupid. You should apologise right now for the Klu Klux Klan. RIGHT NOW. You're an American and so are they, you should keep them in line better. APOLOGISE.

Can't you see how fucking crazy this is, or do you really want to finger the Muslim American community that badly?
You're taking my point about self-applied labels to a ridiculously broad level of inclusion.

YOU'RE A LIVING CREATURE APOLOGIZE FOR ALL DEAD CREATURES EVERYWHERE.

It's like an argument by reductio ad absurdum done in inverse and you're missing a key, defining action: the voluntary waving of the flag of said group.

If you're a Christian, good for you. But if you wander around in Jesus Jeans and one of these fucking t-shirts:

http://www.c28.com/productimages/guys_EternalLife_MAIN_200.jpg

you're no longer entitled to be outraged when someone asks you if you're a baby-killer-killer or makes fun of your P.O.D's Greatest Hits CD.

Likewise, if you drive around with a Darwin Fish on your car, you shouldn't bitch about dealing with derisive sneers and haughty glances in the Walmart parking lot.

That's just how society works.

EuropIan
12th November 09, 10:32 AM
And you're applying a "no true Scotsman" fallacy

Phrost
12th November 09, 10:39 AM
How?

Spade: The Real Snake
12th November 09, 10:55 AM
The evening of the shooting, our local Fox affiliate ran a story, complete with interview, from Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democray, in Phoenix.

During this interview Dr. Jasser called for all American Muslims to denounce "radical Islam" and these types of attacks.

This isn't the first time Dr. Jasser has spoken out (http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/honor_killings_denounced_11_04_2009), however I can find absolutely NO copy of the Ft. Hood shooting story on the Fox site.......

but the AFID site has a YouTube link

ctvUF_KneVw

EuropIan
12th November 09, 11:46 AM
How?
all people of a group must show dissent of the groups actions if you perceive them to be in conflict your morals. If they do not it is a sign of consent

HappyOldGuy
12th November 09, 11:52 AM
That's just how society works.

No, it isn't. I repeat. The only person on either board who hasn't completely disagreed with you is Lebell. And he only agrees to the extent that you are bashing muslims. That really should tell you something.

Lebell
12th November 09, 11:54 AM
No, it isn't. I repeat. The only person on either board who hasn't completely disagreed with you is Lebell. And he only agrees to the extent that you are bashing muslims. That really should tell you something.

oi stfu why don't you.
i agreed because the man has a point.

FickleFingerOfFate
12th November 09, 11:56 AM
oi stfu why don't you.
i agreed because the man has a point.


How would you know?

:deadhorse:

HappyOldGuy
12th November 09, 11:56 AM
oi stfu why don't you.
i agreed because the man has a point.

You didn't even agree with his point. His point is universal. You only agree when it applies to muslims.

Phrost
12th November 09, 01:02 PM
No, it isn't. I repeat. The only person on either board who hasn't completely disagreed with you is Lebell. And he only agrees to the extent that you are bashing muslims. That really should tell you something.

I wouldn't know since I don't read any of his posts.

EuropIan
12th November 09, 01:14 PM
Oh, snap.

bob
12th November 09, 03:43 PM
It's not that I disagree with Phrost (although mostly I do). It's that what he's proposing runs completely counter to his own stridently stated philosophy.

Phrost
12th November 09, 03:53 PM
How so? It's about an individual's responsibility to a group they've chosen to affiliate themselves with, a label they've chosen to affix to themselves, or a flag they've chosen to fly.

It's got fuck-all to do with the group collectively.

EuropIan
12th November 09, 04:07 PM
Just like other libertarians should denounce your Heinleinian meritocratic fantasies.

Zendetta
12th November 09, 04:09 PM
Phrost: Do you, as a hooah, pro-army war hawk, feel the need to apologize for the Lt Calleys, the Gitmos, and the Abu Ghabasses of the world?

No doubt, when pinned down you will renounce those actions, but do you go out of your way to apologize for them? That seems to be what you are demanding.

Phrost
12th November 09, 04:43 PM
Just like other libertarians should denounce your Heinleinian meritocratic fantasies.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

Phrost
12th November 09, 04:49 PM
Phrost: Do you, as a hooah, pro-army war hawk, feel the need to apologize for the Lt Calleys, the Gitmos, and the Abu Ghabasses of the world?

No doubt, when pinned down you will renounce those actions, but do you go out of your way to apologize for them? That seems to be what you are demanding.

Of course I would.

I'm not asking for people to go out of their way. I just expect that when asked about it, the person wearing the "SAVED BY CHRISTŪ" T-shirt should express some view on murdering abortion providers or how the Pope told African priests to preach against condom use.

Just like you'd expect someone walking around in a Full Contact Fighter shirt to at least have had a single Full Contact Fight.

socratic
12th November 09, 05:17 PM
You're taking my point about self-applied labels to a ridiculously broad level of inclusion

YOU'RE A LIVING CREATURE APOLOGIZE FOR ALL DEAD CREATURES EVERYWHERE.

It's like an argument by reductio ad absurdum done in inverse and you're missing a key, defining action: the voluntary waving of the flag of said group. What you don't realise is that whether or not you identify with a group STILL MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. And I chose a group you willingly identify. You're an American, aren't you? So are the KKK.


If you're a Christian, good for you. But if you wander around in Jesus Jeans and one of these fucking t-shirts:

you're no longer entitled to be outraged when someone asks you if you're a baby-killer-killer or makes fun of your P.O.D's Greatest Hits CD. Yes you are, to the first one. Just because you identify with a group doesn't mean you hold any responsibility to how the group is percieved nor the activities of radicals within that group, whom you have no possible way of controlling.


Likewise, if you drive around with a Darwin Fish on your car, you shouldn't bitch about dealing with derisive sneers and haughty glances in the Walmart parking lot.

That's just how society works. Yes, you should bitch, because you shouldn't be getting derisive sneers. You don't fucking get it, do you? I don't have to take your point to absurdity to show it's insane because it's already absurd. You REALLY just want to point at Muslim and say "You should control yourselves better." You honestly would never approach a Catholic and say "Thanks for West Boro Baptist Church, assholes" but you'd definitely expect some kind of apology from every Muslim everywhere for the activities of Wahhabists, wouldn't you?

socratic
12th November 09, 05:19 PM
Just because you say "It totally isn't collectivism" doesn't mean it isn't collectivism Phrost. You are asking an individual to react to the actions of the collective as a moral duty. That's collectivism by definition. It doesn't matter who or how the individual in question identifies, he should never have to answer for the activities of other members of the collective.

Zendetta
12th November 09, 06:00 PM
Yeah, so this:


What, if any, responsibility does a self-identified member of a chosen group (religion, political/economic ideology, etc) have to the public perception of that group with regards to their own behavior and possibly the behavior of other members?

My position is this: if you make a choice to be a part of a group, you do have a responsibility to how that group is perceived by the public. This is because, assuming your choice to associate with that group is voluntary, and rational, you have an interest in ensuring that group is viewed positively.

seems quite different from this:


I'm not asking for people to go out of their way. I just expect that when asked about it, the person wearing the "SAVED BY CHRISTŪ" T-shirt should express some view on murdering abortion providers or how the Pope told African priests to preach against condom use.

'Cuz most Muslems, if asked, will tell you that this jihadi bullshit sucks balls. But you seem to be implying that, yes, they do need to go out of their way to apologize for the acts of people that they don't know and don't agree with.

Seriously, most of the middle east has much more experience with the shenanigans of violent, ideologically-driven dickheads than we ever will. Most of them hate it.


Just like you'd expect someone walking around in a Full Contact Fighter shirt to at least have had a single Full Contact Fight.

*sigh*. Yeah, that would be nice...

I do want to give you MAD PROPZ for running your opinion downrange for us to plink at. That is cool as fuck to me. It is extremely rare for me to meet someone who has the sack to earnestly subject his opinions and biases to a live-fire test.

The Fightin' Buddha would be proud of you! :bull3nc:

Wounded Ronin
12th November 09, 07:28 PM
Would your feelings about it change if you did see them/attend services frequently? Do you feel any responsibility to try to prevent family/friends from doing harm to themselves or other family or friends, and if so what determines how far that circle of influence extends?

And for Shawarma, where does not my brother's keeper end and criminal negligence begin?

Interesting question. I would probably only get into a debate about values in actions with them if they were actually a friend or close acquaintance. In the past I debated religion and the existence of god, basically citing Hume, with a friend of mine who was Methodist or something. He was open enough to consider my points.

But, I wouldn't even attempt something like that who was a casual acquaintance or a stranger because I know they would probably auto-reject whatever I was saying and I would have hurt my cause instead of furthering it. I like to think that I'm pragmatic.

I guess I do believe in trying to change the way people think or act, but only when their relationship to me is such that I think I have a decent chance.

Phrost
12th November 09, 09:36 PM
I do want to give you MAD PROPZ for running your opinion downrange for us to plink at. That is cool as fuck to me. It is extremely rare for me to meet someone who has the sack to earnestly subject his opinions and biases to a live-fire test.

If the views don't stand up to a merciless beating they're not worth having. Maybe I was born without the gene that makes some people mistake their viewpoints for their identities, or maybe I've just been hit in the head too much.

Phrost
12th November 09, 09:37 PM
Just because you say "It totally isn't collectivism" doesn't mean it isn't collectivism Phrost. You are asking an individual to react to the actions of the collective as a moral duty. That's collectivism by definition. It doesn't matter who or how the individual in question identifies, he should never have to answer for the activities of other members of the collective.

I still don't get it. Why would you join a collective if you expect to be treated individually?

And yes, I consider labeling yourself, to some extent, joining a collective.

Sun Wukong
12th November 09, 11:21 PM
That's completely stupid. You should apologise right now for the Klu Klux Klan. RIGHT NOW. You're an American and so are they, you should keep them in line better. APOLOGISE.

Can't you see how fucking crazy this is, or do you really want to finger the Muslim American community that badly?

To be fair, I don't think Phrost want's them to apologize for them so much as wanting people to self police their own society.

Also, there are a lot of organizations supported by W.A.S.P. Americans that actively oppose such hate groups; additionally, I would argue that Americans in general do engage frequently in meaningful attempts to apologize and make amends for our ugly history of discrimination.

socratic
13th November 09, 01:42 AM
I still don't get it. Why would you join a collective if you expect to be treated individually?

And yes, I consider labeling yourself, to some extent, joining a collective.So what you're saying is that you're a collectivist, not an individualist. Gotcha.


To be fair, I don't think Phrost want's them to apologize for them so much as wanting people to self police their own society. Which is still an unfair demand.


Also, there are a lot of organizations supported by W.A.S.P. Americans that actively oppose such hate groups; additionally, I would argue that Americans in general do engage frequently in meaningful attempts to apologize and make amends for our ugly history of discrimination.I know. I was just singling that out as an example. I'm not saying Americans are more racist than anyone else or something.

Lebell
14th November 09, 04:11 AM
And yes, I consider labeling yourself, to some extent, joining a collective.

^^^
Whoever doesnt get this is a moron.
there are usually two reasons for joining a collective: labelling and/or self interest, usually intwined.

there's a ton of books out there about grouppsychology etc.

anyway, funny story, i used to live in a student dorm and around August the newbies would come, beginning of the academic year and all.
they came in with a northern accent, or with eastern peasat accents or the freakish ' limburg' accent.

now the ones who joined certain ivy leagueish sororoties/fraterneties all spoke in the same type of language within 2 weeks.
you couldnt hear any accent whatso-ever.
groups of people scare me, you only need one wrong monkey on the rock and bad things happen.

socratic
14th November 09, 06:06 AM
Does "Humans are social animals and are usually happier and healthier emotionally and psychologically in groups than by themselves" count as 'labelling' or 'self interest'?

Kiko
14th November 09, 06:32 AM
I cringe inside when I see what folks like the WBC or even extreme Catholics do. There are subsets of every group and sorry, we're not all responsible for one another. Now the LEADERS of groups can speak up and condone/support or condemn/distance. That's their role and responsibility.

Seems religion and politics have got tangled up in that respect whether it's a good or bad thing. What I mean is they have to play the diplomacy game right along with leaders of nations, don't they?

socratic
14th November 09, 06:38 AM
Religious communities basically are nations, if they're particularly cohesive. Catholicism is a great example. It even has its own state- the Catholic Church, which has a bureaucracy, administers laws, controls membership of the nation, recieves taxation (lawl, sort of) and judges and punishes. All they need to do is start issuing passports and they'd have every sign of a nation-state available.

Cullion
14th November 09, 09:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_passport

taijiamn
14th November 09, 09:32 AM
I cringe inside when I see what folks like the WBC or even extreme Catholics do. There are subsets of every group and sorry, we're not all responsible for one another. Now the LEADERS of groups can speak up and condone/support or condemn/distance. That's their role and responsibility.

Seems religion and politics have got tangled up in that respect whether it's a good or bad thing. What I mean is they have to play the diplomacy game right along with leaders of nations, don't they?

So if the leaders have this responsibility, what, if any, responsibilities do you think the members of the group have?

Kein Haar
14th November 09, 09:57 AM
Does "Humans are social animals and are usually happier and healthier emotionally and psychologically in groups than by themselves" count as 'labelling' or 'self interest'?

If by "groups", you mean Anders' gang-bangs...

If if by "happier" you mean the lulz we get from Dagon crying about said gang-gangs...

Then...wait, what was the question?

Kiko
14th November 09, 10:00 AM
So if the leaders have this responsibility, what, if any, responsibilities do you think the members of the group have?

I believe that's what the OP was asking. I can only speak for myself. My influence extends mostly to my children and in time even that will be replaced by their decisions as adults.

taijiamn
14th November 09, 10:11 AM
So you believe that members of a group have abosolutely no responsibility towards the group at all?

Kiko
14th November 09, 10:31 AM
It would depend on the nature of the group, but I don't think that's the focus of the thread. I don't believe it's my responsibility to police the actions or beliefs of others.

What do YOU think?

FickleFingerOfFate
14th November 09, 11:31 AM
So you believe that members of a group have abosolutely no responsibility towards the group at all?


Nope,

screw you guys...

taijiamn
14th November 09, 01:28 PM
It would depend on the nature of the group, but I don't think that's the focus of the thread. I don't believe it's my responsibility to police the actions or beliefs of others.

What do YOU think?

I think that members of a group do have responsibilities to the group, at the very least to support the group. I think that, like Goon said the size and distribution of the group matter, but a group with members that don't hold minor responsibilities at the least towards the group won't survive very well.

Ajamil
14th November 09, 02:18 PM
So you believe that members of a group have abosolutely no responsibility towards the group at all?

I'm out there apologizing for Sociocide every day.

Kiko
14th November 09, 02:54 PM
Responsibilities, yes - to support and set example. However, I can't take credit for the actions of saints, nor be held accountable for the actions of sinners, can I?

Stepping away from religion towards politics....
Support is a fine thing, but it's also my duty to vote my conscience or entirely leave a party when it no longer supports me as a constituent, right?

taijiamn
14th November 09, 05:41 PM
Absolutely. But I don't see how asking those who do not fullfill those obligations to support and set and example to shape up or GTFO is a bad thing.