You misread. I didn't say the *outcome* is a statistical certainty, I said the presence of insanity is a statistical certainty within the audience demographic. If 1 person in 1000 is insane in a potentially dangerous way, then with an audience of 1 million you have a statistical certainty that you have at least one potentially dangerous insane viewer, and I believe you have a *moral* responsibility to modulate the tone of your message appropriately.
Of course if your demographic has a higher concentration of the dangerously insane (for example pro-gun messages tend to be more attractive to the potentially violently insane than peace activists, who tend to attract a less violently dangerous type of insane people) then that also factors into how the message needs to be delivered.


No. However if you feel the need to bring up being heavilly armed in conversations that are not related to guns when it could be taken as a form of intimidation, that could make you a jerk. If you are more concerned with your right to own guns than with making sure they are stored safely so your children don't shoot themselves or their friends, that could make you a jerk. But simply owning lots of guns does not make you a jerk.

Possibly, but thats at a veyr low level based on teh fact that gunpowder (or more accurately nitrocellulose) does in fact break down over time, and ignoring that fact could, in extreemis, prove dangerous to the person using the gun.

 
Nope, I certainly not. Of course walking around the country recieveing the aid loudly voicing that opinion could make you a jerk. Irresponsibility would only be if it is a country prone to violence and you have your kids along.


yes, but in the field of being inaccurate more than reprehensible. Hitlers desire to actually fix the german economy is debateable at best (though he certainly did campaign on the promise). Making things affordable was certainly not a part of his program. wanting to bring pride to the country is a valid comparison though only if you are making a reasonable comparison- essentially that you believe the pride being generated is blind devotion and smug superiority- or perhaps based in a racist doctrine exluding some demographics of the country used as scapegoats rather than a unifying message of hope and pride.
But that's my opinion of the topic.

That doesn't change my opinion at all.  Your characterization of the pro-gun rights crowd as inherently violent flies in the face of the fact that peace marches and protests are inherently, and factually, more violent.  Legal gun owners actually have jobs and don't tend to congregate.  Take the riots in Europe for example.  I am quite comfortable around guns and those who carry them.  "Peace" and "social justice" and "anti-capitalist" are movements that are usually accompanied by riots.  I would put them up against any Second Amendment rally any day.  Prove me wrong if you can.

And again you misrepresent what I said. I *said* that the lunatics who are attracted to pro-gun propaganda (not just rallies) tend to be more violent than the lunatics drawn to peace movement propaganda.In either group the lunatics are a small minority, but I think it is inherantly obvious that a lunatic with a gun obsession is more dangerous than a lunatic with a feeling that the world should unite under the harmoiic resonance of Vega as channeled through Molybydium crystals. yes if you look at teh larger populations responsible gun owners are comfortable with and understand violence well enough to contain themselves while pacifists are inherantly uncomfortable with it and more prone to lose control to a mob mentality.
And those also factor in- a gun enthusiast addressing a crowd is actually safer to be more bombastic with their speach (if not being rebroadcast) than a peace activist, but outside of the crowd situation, (where the gun *lunatic* is more likely to be listening in whatever 'bunker' they have made for themselves) those advocating free gun possesion have a responsibility to make sure they are advocating a *responsible* form of gun ownership, wheras the peace activist can talk about Vega all they want without endangering anyone.
This is my point- the degree of responsibility is based on context, not just a hypothetical ideal rational person.

And this is a false premise and I doubt you have any facts to back up this statement.  I have seen many a "gun obsessed" person and many act the same way as "car obessed" people.  They buy guns/cars.  They read about guns/cars.  They go to gun/car shows.  And while car enthusiasts go to races, gun enthusiasts go to shooting competitions.  Your lonely lunatic with a gun does not reflect the second amendment community.

So, show me where a second amendment rally has broken out in a gun fight.  I can cite numerous examples of social justice and peace marches that go violent.

Gun owners have the responsibility to police their own actions.  The actions of a lunatic do not reflect on gun ownership.  The number of gun laws on the book, many unconstitutional, already restrict gun ownership just as the number of speech laws already restrict what you can say and print.

But you said

Hi, I'm Jarret.  Now you've met me.  While I don't believe it is the whole government who wants to disarm me, I do believe there are certain groups within that do wish to take firearms out of the hands of it's citizens (It's happened).  Am I a jerk because this http://www.usacarry.com/forums...s-away-citizens.html upsets me?  And if you are intimidated by the simple thought of a gun it's more you than me.

Bullets responsibly taken care of can last a very long time. (Just wanted to correct you)



What kinda "pro-gun propaganda" are you talking about?  I've seem more than my share but never any that incites violence.  Telling someone it's ok to own a gun is not telling them to go out an shoot people.

*sigh*
You know I get really tired and upset when people insist on arguing with the point they wanted me to make instead of the one I made.
I *never* said *anything* about violence breaking out at gun rallies. In fact I said the complete opposite, so asking me to prove the opposite of what I said only demonstrates a blind fanaticism that will disregard my actual points in favor of the argument you wish to make.
In addition to which the whole side-debate is a distraction from my actual point which is that the degree of responsibility is based upon the audience demographics rather than a hypothetical rational person.
However, while we are on the side topic- if I say a lunatic who obsesses about guns that doesn't just mean a person who really likes guns. it means a lunatic, live in their parents basement and make plans to shoot everyone who was mean to them *lunatic*.
as opposed to the 'I'm really an alien from vega here to investigate the earth' types.
The kind of lunatics who don't go to gun rallys (the government is probably documenting who goes you know) but will listen to talk radio. I mean a lunatic, not an enthusiast.
Who are, as I believe I mentioned earlier, something like .1% of the population (and that is an off the cuff estimate, not a scientific one).

And yes, gunpowder has a long shelf life. That isn't the same as no shelf life. Nitrcellulose, which is what is used in modern firearms, has a slightly shorter shelf life. Which won't make a huge difference unless you are buying weapons left over from WW1 and WW2.

Finally yes, there are people who would like to take away your guns. They aren't lurking arround every tree, however, and they are going up against one of the orriginal bill of rights rights. Not what I wuld describe as an immenant threat. In fact there are  people in the middle east with no Uranium who want to nuke the US that I would see as a more credible threat (as well as a good argument for letting the enthusiast keep their guns.)

I don't have a problem with guns, I'm just saying that it is a responsible use of free speach to recgnize that when you are dealing with an audience of millions that will include a certain number of the more unstable elements and try to adjust your word choice to avoid setting them off.

And I am saying that you have no responsibility to censor yourself on the wild chance that a loon might perform an action.

There.  That was easy.

Why is that problematic?  No one has said that they're talking only about legal things which are immoral.  They've only said they're talking about moral culpability, not about trying to change any laws.


It fits in as a counter to your statement.  You kept responding that such and such is illegal, so that's that, no need to consider it.  But illegal and immoral aren't the same, so don't dismiss something as outside the conversation because it's illegal.  You're trying to artificially limit the scope of the discussion, and ignore the reasoning by point out facts ("Its illegal!") which don't affect the logic.  That's what I was trying to get at.  Don't tell me "Oh, rape's illegal, so you can't use it as an example of something immoral!"


[emphasis added]
Yep, it's a far cry from that thing that I'm not talking about.  If you remember, I'm talking about things you say with either:
1. the INTENT to result in harm, or
2. a reasonable expectation that harm will result.
If by "some idiot" you mean a person who's actions you'd never expect, then yes, we both agree you can't really be faulted for saying something that unintentionally, and unexpectedly sets him off.  Let me stress that again, so it's not missed.  WE BOTH AGREE that that situations isn't your fault.  So, there's not a whole lot of need to keep bringing that situation up, okay.

In the case of libel and slander, we both seem to agree that it's wrong.  We both agree that it leads to material harm for the person, and we both agree that evidence can be found to shown that it's caused a person harm.  No real need to belabor those points further, I should think.  I know why I think libel's wrong (it causes an intended and predictable harm to someone), but I'm not sure why you do.  I know that you think it causes harm (and I agree), and I know that you think that harm can be proven (and I'd agree that in many cases it can).  But I'm not sure if that's what you consider to be sufficient justification of it being wrong.  If some other statement also causes harm, and can be proven to have caused harm, does that make it wrong as well?  If not, why?

This is important to get out there, because on the part we seem to disagree about (is a person bears any responsibility if they don't intend something to happen, but do expect it to happen as a result of their words) will hinge on what makes it wrong to say something.  What makes it wrong to libel someone?  Is it just causing provable harm?  If so, anything that causes provable harm to someone would also be wrong, no?  If not, then there must be more to the libel issue than you've expressed so far.  And that's what I'm trying to figure out.

The libel example is important because it's an example that we both consider wrong, and which involves other people reacting to your words to cause harm to someone.  It's a very clear example of you being responsible for the effect of your words on other people, even though you don't cause those effects directly yourself, other people, with their own free will, do.

Some further questions that might be useful to get out of the way:
Do you consider libel to be wrong, even if the person doesn't intend to cause harm to anyone?  If they just think it's funny to say false things about you, but by doing so end up causing you to lose your job, are they still responsible for their words?  If I never take you to court over your libel of me, does that mean you did nothing wrong?  Say you make your statements anonymously, so I have no idea who made them, and thus don't know who to take to court, does that make what you did okay?  I'm hoping I know the answers to these questions, but I just want to be sure that we're on the same page, so please answer them.


Libel seems to be a case of holding someone accountable for the "actions of another," as you put it (though, as I've said over and over, I'd say it's holding someone accountable for their own actions of making false statements).  It seems that there are times when you consider it acceptable to hold people accountable for how their words affect other peoples actions.  I'm trying to figure out when those times are, and why.


Actually, we're talking about morality.  You claimed that morality is entirely in ones own mind, so that if someone has a clear conscious, then we can't say otherwise.  If that's true, it applies to rape, murder, theft, etc., as well as anything we bring up here.  If it doesn't apply to those things, then your statements are overly general, and need more information to back them up.  Or are simply wrong.  I'm happy to believe it's the former, but I'm asking you to give the further information that makes the statements true.  If you make a general statement, and I provide a counter example, even if its not something directly related to the discussion, it proves your statement false.  You need to explain why your statement applies to one thing, but not the other.


Not really, no.  You can be morally culpable of things that other people can't prove about you.  Proof is for legality, not morality.  If you did the crime, and no one can prove it, you should go free, but you're still morally guilty of having done it.


All the bad things in the world do bring me down, but I feel guilt over the ones that I feel I can change, or led to.


Facts, yes, proof no.  Very few things can be proven in this world, even in the looser legal sense of the word.  If I put poison into food in a grocery store, and never get caught, I'm still guilty of killing the people who ate it.  I don't feel that anyone else needs to prove the link for me to be responsible for the action.

There are times when I won't know whether I'm responsible for something or not, then I have to go with the best estimate the facts available allow.  But I don't just say, "Well, it's 99.9% likely I did this, but there's always a chance someone else is actually at fault, so I'm not gonna let it bother me."  If I think (even without perfect knowledge or proof) that I caused something, then I consider myself responsible for it.


Exactly!  Now we're getting somewhere.  Whether anyone can prove it or not, I'm still guilty.  I might go free and never be punished due to that lack of proof, but I'm not innocent of it.


If your words cause someone else to die, then you're guilty, not of murder, but of saying things that led to their death.  Doesn't matter (morally) if anyone can prove it, any more than it matters if anyone can prove that I shot the sheriff.  IF my words led to their death, THEN I bear some responsibility for it.  The amount of responsibility depends on my intent, and what one could reasonably expect to be the effect of my words.  Again, even if no one can prove my intent.

I think perhaps where we're getting stuck, is that you're comfortable imagining a hypothetical case, in which someone is murder but no one can prove who did it.  In that case, the murder is a fact, even if we can't prove that the butler did it.  On the other hand, you seem to feel that if we can't prove that someone's words led to some unwanted effect, then the person who said them is completely innocent.  You don't seem to be able to imagine a hypothetical situation in which someone's words did indeed lead to a bad outcome, but in which we're not able to prove it.  Why does one require proof to be true, but the other you can imagine being true without proof?


No, not necessarily.  But you'd probably answer my questions, rather than insulting me for asking them. ;)


Yep, all those things. All of which are "ideas," with the possible exception of money, but the supreme court seems to think money is a type of speech these days, so that seems to be covered too.  We seem to agree that OBL bears responsibility for giving the 9/11 hijackers those things.  I've explained why I think that (intent and expected result).  Will you please explain why you do?


I would say training is and planning are very, very much an exchange of ideas.  Hard to think of a better example of it, really.  Money, I'll grant, is more problematic.  But I'd say even if OBL didn't fund the hijackers, but instead only trained, indoctrinated, and planned with them, he'd still bear a whole lot of blame for 9/11.  But tell me, why do you feel training and planning don't fall under the category of exchanging ideas?


Doesn't sound crazy, just sounds like two contradictory statements.  If we really could say whatever we want, then we could train, support, plan, indoctrinate, and all manner of other things, with terrorists.  The fact that you think planning a terrorist attack is wrong, shows that you think some forms of exchanging ideas are wrong (and I agree).  The question is what determines when an exchange of ideas is wrong, and why?  Is it the end effect?  Is it the intent?  Is it the expected outcome?  Would OBL not have been wrong to train and plot with the hijackers if they had got caught and stopped before they could carry out their plot?  I would argue that yes, he would be.  And that implies that it's not just the end result that matters.  Intent and expected outcome seem like good candidates for me.  What do you think?  And please, give these questions an honest answer.  Don't just dismiss them because they're not what you want to focus on.


I agree there's a big difference, and I've stated it multiple times: intent and expected result.  Do you agree that's what the difference is, or do you think there's some other result?


Yes, that's very clear.  But it doesn't explain why, and it doesn't explain exceptions that you yourself have provided (such as libel).

I think a big part of the problem is that you're assuming that I'm arguing about sarah palin or conservatives on Fox or whatever, and think anything else I say is off topic.  Let me be clear:  I am NOT saying that people are responsible for the unintended and unpredictable actions others take in reaction to their words.  Clear?  So no need to argue against that position, since no one is taking it.  Where the real disagreement seems to come, is over how much responsibility one holds for unintended but predicted actions of others in response to ones words.  I hope we agree that they bear plenty of responsibility for intended and predictable consequences.  The issue of intended by unpredictable consequences seems moot, since how could you intend for a result you didn't expect to happen.

A couple other points from your discussion with Silveroak


[emphasis added]
That seems to fall under the category of unpredictable.  I think both silveroak and I are talking about times when it's not just a "wild chance" to a rather significant chance.  If you actually expect a loon to perform some action in response to your words, then I'd argue you do, indeed, have a responsibility not to say them (or at least need to weigh up that cost as part of your decision on whether to say it or not).



[emphasis added]
No, not however small, but when it becomes not just a small chance.  Again, it's about reasonable expectations.  If a reasonable person would expect someone to react in a certain way, then they should probably consider their words much more carefully.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:19, Thu 27 Jan 2011.

At war with immigrants?!  Drug cartels, sure, but you feel your state is at war with immigrants?


Just quoting this for reference a bit later...



Yes, indeed!  I wouldn't call fear magical, per se, but it's certainly an influence you have over your kids.  And other people's kids.  And (and here's the important bit) over adults as well.  All to different degrees, granted, but you (or at least some people) can scare an adult into taking an action just like you can scare your kids into taking (or not taking) one.  You have more influence over your kids than you do over your neighbors, but you still have some influence over them.  The difference is one of degree, not category.


All well and good, and all closely related to how people try to control adults as well.  Fear is probably one of the primary tools people use to control other adults, actually.  Listen during campaign time, and you'll hear thousands of adds that if so-and-so gets elected, all manner of hell is going to break loose, everythings going to go completely wrong, the world will end, etc.  And it works, to a large degree, because, as you say, fear is powerful.  But it's not limited kids.


If you do nothing, then yes, I'd say you have some responsibility.  You didn't rape, or steal, or mug, or whatever, but you did make a decision not to do anything at all, and I'd say that if you're witnessing someone getting raped, and just shrug and think "hey, it's not my wife, what do I care," then that's an immoral decision.  What you actually do depends on what you expect to happen in response to any given action you could take, so if you're worried you'd get killed if you ran over there to stop it, then calling the cops would seem a reasonable decision.  But simply shrugging and turning the TV on seems like an immoral act to me.  And, judging by the statement you made above, it seems like you'd actually feel it was too.  That statement implies that you do feel some responsibility to not just let other people do whatever they like in your community, as long as its not you that gets hurt.

and I agree. But what about when the chance isn't wild?
If one person in a million is the dangerous sort who I might ant to tone my message down for and I'm talking to 20 or 100 people, no problem. Sure they might be in that crowd, but I can't be expected to anticipate tehir being there.
But if it is 1 in a million and I have an audience of 40 million? A reasonable anticipation in that case is that I am reaching 40 loons who might perform an action. Does that carry *no* responsibility in your version of what it means to be a responsible human being?

I immediately throw out your math.  But I do agree that as long as no one breaks the laws of the land, libel and slander, and merely speaks his opinions then he has no responsibility for the actions of others.  If the person feels morally responsible for the actions of another then that is between that person and their sence of morality.

I would also state that does not stop others from findng you morally responsible and voicing their opinion on that matter.

Are we clear now?  Tycho can answer as well.  I don't have time currently for a blow by blow on your post.

To be honest, not really.  You haven't really answered the questions I've asked, or explained why you think what you do.  We know what you think, but we're trying to understand the reasoning behind it.  We're not just asking you to repeat what you've said, but to explain it, and consider the reasoning critically (ie, answering questions that challenge it).


Why does the law matter?  If we stop making libel and slander a crime, do they become morally acceptable?  What if you break the law, but don't get caught?  If you're never found guilty of libel in a court of law, does that affect how responsible you are?

Or, coming at it from another direction, why are you responsible for the actions of others in the case of libel and slander?  What makes them specific exceptions?

Yet another way of asking it:  Is libel bad because it's illegal, or is it illegal because it's bad?  I'd argue the latter.  Would you agree?  If so, what makes it bad?


Again, is this generally applicable to all things, or just this specific case?  If the later, why?

so in short "What am I, my brother's keeper?"

Of course you realize you are 'agreeing' to the opposite of what I stated here, right? So long as tehy do not break the law they bear no *legal* responsibility. If you consider legal responsibility to be the sole definition of responsibility however you are, in technical terms, morally bankrupt (moral resposnibility has no value to you, only legal responsibility)

Do you you really mean to say that if you shouted out to a crowd of people that someone should be shot down in the street like the dog they are, then someone from that crowd actually shot the person in question, you wouldn't feel the slightest twinge of anything about it?

I would say that not forcing my morality upon another for actions they have no reposibility for to be a very moral stance.  No where do I say that legal responsbility is the only definition of responsibility.  One is responsible for their personal actions and not the actions of another.

Keep twisting it though until you torture it into the definition that fits your personal definitions.



Ask Al Sharpton that question.

Anway, I would say that this particular example falls under various incitement laws and could possibly be taken to criminal or civil court.  This is a better example than rape, murder, mathematics, or any other bad examples where you KNOW that a person is morally and legally in the wrong.

Personally, since you asked, I would never call for anyone to be gunned down in the street.  It's not how I roll.  That is me using my morality so I would never face that issue.  I would hope that someone who did call for that would feel a responsibility but, once again, that is up to them to actually feel that responsibility.

In reply to Tycho (msg #67):

To clarify the purpose of this thread: We are discussing the concept of a person being morally responsible for another's actions based on them voicing their opinion.  Am I correct in that?  Because the defining of morality is not the original concept by my understanding.

Of course you can be morally responsible for another's actions by giving them your opinion.  It merely depends on the context.  I give people my opinions and tell them what to do for a living...and I'm held to a very high moral/ethical standard of responsibility if they listen to my opinions.

In reply to Heath (msg #71):

And that is your personal choice.

I don't understand your point there.  Please elaborate.

In reply to Heath (msg #73):

Easy.  Never do I say that people can't hold you morally responsible.  Never do I say a person can't hold themselves morally responsible.  In both cases it is up to that person.

Your profession, a consultant perhaps, calls for you to stand by your word and your opinions so you consider your words carefully.  Your livelihood depends on a well thought-out opinion and you want to do the best for those who come to you.  You see it as your duty to do the best for them.  That is a moral position to take and one I would look for in a person whose opinions I would be acting on.

But should one of your customers go and shoot a competitor because you talked about their "targeting" the competition I would not hold you responsible.  You might hold yourself responsible but that is your choice.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:58, Thu 27 Jan 2011.

Your analogy doesn't work with me.  I'm a lawyer.  If I tell people to do things "as their lawyer," and they do them, I am absolutely held accountable.

A moral lawyer?  *stifles laughter*

Anyway.  Is your morality dictated by law?  You said you were morally responsible, which you are, but you seem to be saying that the legal and professional aspects require you to be.  I would disagree.

I am ethically, morally, legally, and administerially responsible.  If I tell someone, for example, that it's okay to commit a fraud, and they do it, I can be stripped of my license, thrown in jail, and excommunicated from my church.  How much more "responsible" do you need than that?

That was teh defined purpose of this thread. some people decided to use it as a stage to defend being bombastic in legal terms and looking tos core poloitical points in terms of sides instead of trying to use general concepts that would apply to anyone.

As I've said before, I prefer to phrase it as being morally responsible for our own actions, including the action of speech.


If we're discussing if people are morally responsible for something, then how we define morally responsible seems pretty closely linked to the topic.

These boards are, broadly speaking, for the discussion of ideas, not just statement of them (though people are free to simply state their beliefs without wanting to discuss them further if they like).  It's certainly not out of line to try to dig deeper and look at the underlying reasoning behind someone's position, test assumptions, etc.  To be honest, that's more or less why I find the forum interesting.

Really, though, I think we'd make more progress if you answered the questions I asked, rather than coming up with reasons to avoid doing so.  Or if you just prefer to state your position and aren't interested in having others explore the thinking behind it, that's fine too, just say so.

While I don't approve of T.V. in kids bedrooms, I agree with the rest of this statement.  Just wanted to let people know.