Mmm, Patriotism. In Action. And maybe reverse.

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

Archmage144
 

Re: .. okay angry at me fine but...

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:19 pm

Quote:
In America, you generally get more respect for resisting without the use of violence.

See the long chapter of American history that we like to call "the Civil Rights Movement." <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

Rube
 

Re: .. okay angry at me fine but...

Unread postby Rube » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:20 pm

Quote:
I don't normally acknowledge repeated ad hominem attacks...


No attack, son. It's humor. You remember that, don't ya? The funny jokes with the ha hahing?

I swear to god... one them... One of them...

On a more serious note, I really don't think anyone here is saying: 'HELL YEAH, FRY THAT BITCH'. The main thing we seem to be arguing about is why what happened happened. Some of us are arguing in favor of the cops, some (okay, most) are arguing in favor of student rights.

(Whats coming up is my opinion and might offend some of ya'll, but you're used to that by now so I'll go ahead and say it anyhow. Just thought I'd give you a heads up.)

In my honest opinion, most of the people saying "They shouldn't have shocked him" are saying it because they relate more to the student. They have that "Holy shit, this could happen to me and I gotta stop it" mentality.

Yes, I know most of you aren't going to do much outside of the thread, just work with me as you know what I mean.

Me, I'm arguing more in a hollistic manner. As I feel the cops reacted one way to try to prevent another thing from happening. They made a judgement call, and it was a poor one. However, it's probably not as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. Or rather, it wouldn't have been if both parties didn't make boneheaded calls on this.

Overall though, my major thought on this whole deal is though it doesn't affect me personally, I'm arguing on the internets and I will be proven right, or I'll stay up all night arguing with you so help me god.


User avatar
Kai
Fighting the Iron Law of Oligarchy Since 2006
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: .. okay angry at me fine but...

Unread postby Kai » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:24 pm

In my honest opinion, most of the people saying "They shouldn't have shocked him" are saying it because they relate more to the student. They have that "Holy shit, this could happen to me and I gotta stop it" mentality.

This is a valid and interesting point. There's more to it than which parties I identify with, and I'm sure you're aware of that. There are many of us (and you should feel free to point us out on your own) who have brought in logical discourse and justification for what we believe aside from, "Hey man, I'm sick of the Establishment holding down our college students!" <p>-------------------------
<span style="font-size:xx-small;">I've always followed my father's advice: he told me, first to always keep my word and, second, to never insult anybody unintentionally. If I insult you, you can be goddamn sure I intend to. And, third, he told me not to go around looking for trouble. --John Wayne</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=kai@rpgww60462>Kai</A]&nbsp; Image at: 11/17/06 18:26

Archmage144
 

Re: .. okay angry at me fine but...

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:31 pm

Quote:
No attack, son. It's humor. You remember that, don't ya? The funny jokes with the ha hahing?

Sure I do, but funny jokes aren't a valid rhetorical device in structured discussion. You can be funny and make me laugh, but it doesn't change the philosophical content of your argument. Hell, I did think it was funny. But it's not pertinent to the philosophy being pitched back and forth here.

It's pretty silly to worry about "an argument on the internet," and I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep over any of this, but words are words. I'm inclined to think that most of the people who post to this forum are intelligent enough to be capable of rational discourse.

Quote:
Some of us are arguing in favor of the cops, some (okay, most) are arguing in favor of student rights.

It seems important to me to highlight the word you chose to use there. Student rights? I couldn't care less whether the guy was a student or a 40-year-old businessman or a 75-year-old WWII veteran. Civil rights, please. Don't read bias here where there is none.

Quote:
They have that "Holy shit, this could happen to me and I gotta stop it" mentality.

You're right. The cops made a poor judgment call using what they considered, at the time, to be the best information that they had. It's now being regarded as a poor decision by quite a few people.

But you're also right about the reactionary end of this. Is that really so wrong, though? I'm not going to argue that this is the same as the civil rights movement, and I'm not really even going to argue that the dude got "racially profiled" or whatever because I frankly don't care who he was, the point is that dumb shit happened that shouldn't have. But do you really want there to be a precedent that it's okay for police to use force against non-violent protestors?

(Startling revelation: I'm aware that force gets used against non-violent protestors with some frequency because the cops just can't think of anything else to do, so this really isn't a precedent per se in the sense that it's never happened before. That doesn't mean I think it's always right, or that it should be the "rule.")

If people are going to be charged with the authority to protect the law, they should protect the fucking law, and that means knowing how to handle situations like this appropriately. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to be angry that some stupid cops decided to abuse their authority; it's true that outrage is often more effective than logic in influencing large groups of people, and the laws that are in place to protect citizens can't just be flouted because some prick is in uniform and has a taser. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>Edited by: Archmage144&nbsp; Image at: 11/17/06 18:34

SupperRudes
 

.. okay angry at me fine but...

Unread postby SupperRudes » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:31 pm

Quote:
There's more to it than which parties I identify with, and I'm sure you're aware of that. There are many of us (and you should feel free to point us out on your own) who have brought in logical discourse and justification for what we believe aside from, "Hey man, I'm sick of the Establishment holding down our college students!"


Well, yeah, but that's not as fun to mock.


Choark
 

Re: .. okay angry at me fine but...

Unread postby Choark » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:34 pm

Quote:
You know, we recently banned two people for this. Should I ban you?

Honestly I was totally prepaired for that if it deemed nessusary then yeah, you should do what is right. I was purposfully being an a-hole after all. I'm not even making excuses here. I kinda thought some people would pick up on the tone of the first post - and I assumed Capntastic did.

and Kai:
Yeah, thats what I said in the final one. Its pretty obvious tasering someone for sitting in a libary is wrong. But I can't make complete judgement if it was wrong to taser him The First Time because as far as I know he could of swung at the cop or anything, its very unclear and biased on this point right now: However I do know after that the repeated tasering was defiantly uncalled for.

And as it came up earlier:
In England (as far as I understand only) by the way we don't have tasers but we tend to do things more civially. Generally. (As they probably do in America. The remove by force would of been bending arms backwards and leading him out of the building - to actually restraining him and just arresting him depending on what he does while being escorted out.

I do know and have seen guard physically hit people: They are told to do so first if they are alone - which guards tend to be and the situation calls for it. I know this only because of my long hours spent talking to Guards were I worked. So obviously this sometimes calls up grey areas.

I also know that while escorting them out should they resist you're not in too much trouble, to none at all, should you so happen to break a bone.

Of course when race, gender and so on play parts in it all it becomes very grey and lawers rub there hands together.

: And thanks. And now I know. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> </div></p>

Rube is awesome
 

Stuff

Unread postby Rube is awesome » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:35 pm

Honestly, Brian, I agree with you for the most part. I just was hoping to shock you out of using reactionary bullshit posts like "If you think he deserved this, I hope you get RAPED by cops. RAPED IN THE FACE."

I mean, hell son. That's just embarrassing. I thought I raised you better then that.


Archmage144
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:37 pm

*laughing*

Yeah, I did overreact a little, and I'm cooler now than I was. I was just initially horrified that people would say "that stupid prick of a guy deserved police brutality. Isn't this video a riot! HAW HAW!"

And you're not my real daddy! *runs away crying* <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

MC Daddy Rube
 

Tah dah

Unread postby MC Daddy Rube » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:40 pm

Excellent. I have awoken the masses and made a young man question his parentage. My work here is done.

*Flies away while heroic music plays.*


Choark
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Choark » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:40 pm

Quote:
I was just initially horrified that people would say "that stupid prick of a guy deserved police brutality. Isn't this video a riot! HAW HAW!"

My fault! <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> </div></p>

User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Jak Snide » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:40 pm

Quote:
In England (as far as I understand only) by the way we don't have tasers but we tend to do things more civially.


Tangent: Dunno if this is actually the case over here or not, but I heard it's illegal to pin someone down who's broken into your home while waiting for the cops to arrive. Unless you have a "good" cause to (like he's a loony with a knife).


Choark
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Choark » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:43 pm

Thats if ya a civilian where you have very little right to defend yourself. A cop or guard is allowed to, not you.

Case to point: If a robber entered your home armless looking for stuff to steal and you, say, stabbed them to get them out, then you are in the wrong for using an excess of force considering what the threat is and will be sued and maybe arrested.
If you pin them down, to the point of beating, and or breaking a limb somewhere or do damage, then you may also be sued or arrested - hopefully depending on your size in relation to the thief but normally depending if a lawer feels lucky in court or not.

See? Thats fucked up. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> </div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=choark>Choark</A]&nbsp; Image at: 11/17/06 18:46

Archmage144
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:46 pm

Quote:
Tangent: Dunno if this is actually the case over here or not, but I heard it's illegal to pin someone down who's broken into your home while waiting for the cops to arrive. Unless you have a "good" cause to (like he's a loony with a knife).

It's exceedingly rare that I say this, but thank God that I live in America.

We have George W. Bush running our country, fundamentalists trying so hard to make the laws of the Bible as they see them the laws of the state, and psychotic citizens who think we should have cars race 500 laps in a circle but still bitch about the price of gasoline. But thank God that I can shoot some fucker who breaks into my house and explain it to the police later if he threatens me or my family. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image

RPGWW Wiki!</div></p>

Choark
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Choark » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:48 pm

Quote:
if he threatens me or my family.

Ah thats another point. It is hazy IF they threaten you or the family but the general act OF breaking in isn't automatically considered threatening you, you see. If he held ya kid at knife point, sure, but just coming in? You're actually expected to ring for the cops if you can and hold up until they go. You tackle them then you could be in violation of the law depending. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> </div></p>

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Stuff

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:49 pm

Bzzrnt!

If someone trespasses on your property, you are allowed to administer lethal force to them in order to protect your land and possessions. There are multiple legal precedents for this.

If someone is threatening your life, or you feel that they are, then you have the right to defend yourself. Fisticuffs, laceratives, firearms--whatever it is that you feel that you need to use to get yourself out of that threat. There are numerous legal statutes declaring this specifically. There have been activitsts at airports handing out leaflets to travelers warning them not to start arguments with locals, because they might end up seeing the business end of a pistol.

Personal property is God in America.

Edit: Oh, wait, you guys were talking about Great Britain. Well, I guess this is irrelevant, but nonetheless it stays because it's fun information. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=priamnevhausten>PriamNevhausten</A]&nbsp; Image at: 11/17/06 18:50

Choark
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Choark » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:50 pm

I'm on about in England here, as me and Jak were talking about it.

Edit:
Ya edit came 1 second to late for my crappy reply! Damn! <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> </div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=choark>Choark</A]&nbsp; Image at: 11/17/06 18:51

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Stuff

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:52 pm

It also bears mentioning that in the USA (see my edit above) it's quite illegal to trap someone in your home or any other building. Entrapment is the charge. Not sure how that works with the self-defense clause or any of that. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Jak Snide » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:54 pm

I'm curious how it works in England. If someone breaks into your house and you call the cops are you then allowed to try and keep them there till the police show up?


Seethe347
 

Re: .

Unread postby Seethe347 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:59 pm

Nobody has actually attacked my earlier statement about property rights. It's really the whole basis of my position: that, if I controlled the government, I would allow anybody who owns property to do whatever they want on it as long as they let everyone who may be involved know ahead of time and get their consent. This argument has so far been dealt with by a lack of response.

I also seem to think that it's okay to cause serious harm to somebody for being annoying without due process of law if the legal system allows it and if you warn them beforehand. The only argument I've heard against this idea is that it violates due process of law, it's bad because it hurts a lot, and I'd better not think it or else.

Explain to me why I shouldn't give private individuals near-sovereign rights over their personal property, why I should allow people the due process of law (aside from "because I want due process of law"), or why it's intrinsically bad to physically hurt people if they're being annoying. This shouldn't be too hard to do, and if someone does it at this point I will give in since I'm not really extremely attached to my position. The one stipulation is that we must avoid those "is vs aught" logical fallacies and those appeals to emotion.

Or maybe someone has countered these points and I've missed it. In that case, tell me where to find the argument.

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seethe347>Seethe347</A] at: 11/17/06 19:02

User avatar
Ganonfro
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 9:25 pm

Re: Re: .. okay angry at me fine but...

Unread postby Ganonfro » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:59 pm

...I'd have thought that with 5 cops there, they could have literally picked the guy up and removed him from the premises after being shocked with the taser the first time. I mean, seriously. This kid was at most 300 pounds, in a very depressing/obese scenario, but still... 5 trained cops should be able to lift about 60 pounds each. If he was lighter, two could likely subdue him and three if he was flailing.

...But what do I know? I'm just a college student that sees this as retarded because there are rights that kids like that WANT infringed to make a bad situation worse. Who cares if the cops were in the wrong or if the kid deserved it? They both did, and nothing we say can do something about it. What WILL say is our legal system and evidence with testimony against or for one side or the other. The end.




Choark
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Choark » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:00 pm

Quote:
I'm curious how it works in England. If someone breaks into your house and you call the cops are you then allowed to try and keep them there till the police show up?


No.
Well.. Kinda.

I mean if you can without harming them in anyway then fine but how often do you think that'll happen? You risk being charged for assult depending on how much you harm them. Put it this way someone was sued because they tripped the burgaler up while they were trying to escape and the dude broke his nose.

Cops are good or bad for it though. I mean some won't arrest you unless the guy is a bloody pulp. Others will at the sight of a bruise.

Its just possible you dragged someone in ya house, I suppose, messed it up and beat the guy up, and they'll be no proof otherwise. Plus I think its meant to stop people taking the law into there own hands as thats very frowned upon in England. <p><div style="text-align:center"> </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> Image </div>
<div style="text-align:center"> </div></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=choark>Choark</A]&nbsp; Image at: 11/17/06 19:00

User avatar
Kai
Fighting the Iron Law of Oligarchy Since 2006
 
Posts: 2408
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Kai » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:31 pm

This is my "Smurfette doesn't fuck," post. Let's see if anybody involved really wants to discuss ethics.

For Seethe's convenience, so that it's not necessary to read the other posts in this thread:

From Brian:

Quote:
It's a good thing that you aren't king of the US, Seethe, and that no one else is, either, because a lot of the reforms that have been put in place in the last century exist to do things like prevent employers from intimidating their workers. UCLA's campus might be private property, but would you stand up for mall cops if they tasered some guy who wasn't being violent if he refused to leave because the mall was closing?


To further elaborate and address the point so exhaustively I can't possibly be accused of ignoring it:

Quote:
why I should allow people the due process of law (aside from "because I want due process of law"), or why it's intrinsically bad to physically hurt people if they're being annoying. This shouldn't be too hard to do, and if someone does it at this point I will give in since I'm not really extremely attached to my position.


Due process of law exists to ensure that the authorities we've allowed to govern us do not abuse that power. And actually, "because I want due process of law" has a lot of philosophical precedent. Reciprocity has often been a criterion of justice, a way in which to define justice and apply it to a specific situation.

I can describe these precedents and why they're valuable! Right now we'll discuss deontology, the idea that the morality/ethicality of an action can often be determined before you even start in on the potential consequences. Also called "duty ethics," in which you can call something unethical simply because it violates acknowledged duties. In essence, some things simply are right or are wrong. The main value of these measures is that they are intended to be logically-consistent.

Take Rawls' Veil of Ignorance. If you have to decide the ethicality/morality of a particular decision, you must do so as if you had no idea where you'd fit in. If you would make a decision to avoid being tased, you ought to avoid decisions that involve other people being tased in the same situation. If you would rather be asked to leave or face a subpoena, you cannot ethically advocate use of force before that.

Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." If you wouldn't want everyone behaving in a certain manner, you do not have special ethical license to do it either.

Now, we'll move on to teleological ethics. This is where we discuss the outcome of an action, for those of you who didn't waste years of high school debating philosophy. One teleological measure is used more than any other, near as I can tell.

Utilitarianism: Usually summarized as valuing the search for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You do admittedly have a conflict here in that the first choice they had to make was between the safety of one student and the safety of many students. However, they violate this criterion when they ignore an option that neither harms this student nor ignores the threat he may pose. They ignored normal legal recourse.

Brian brought up legal recourse, and if we're going to talk about utilitarianism, then we should discuss avenues that would have caused harm to fewer people. If the kid is on campus without an ID, he's trespassing. Prosecute him for it. Happens all the time without the need for electrical coercion. The law is still enforced, and nobody looks crazy. Sure, the instant gratification of tasing the obnoxious little git is lost, but I repeat. The law is still enforced, and nobody looks crazy.

The advantage to deontological ethics is that you already have all the information. You can decide before you act whether or not you should. You don't have to rely on a Gods-eye-view of all potential consequences. The advantage to teleological analysis is that you are taking into account the potential effects of your actions.

However, both of these perspectives are leading me to say that the officers' actions, while understandable, are not in the least justifiable.

"Damn it, Donnie. Why do you have to get all smart on us?" <p>-------------------------
<span style="font-size:xx-small;">I've always followed my father's advice: he told me, first to always keep my word and, second, to never insult anybody unintentionally. If I insult you, you can be goddamn sure I intend to. And, third, he told me not to go around looking for trouble. --John Wayne</span></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=kai@rpgww60462>Kai</A]&nbsp; Image at: 11/17/06 19:33

Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:41 pm

Priam, you've got your terminology a bit confused. Entrapment is an officer of the law forcing a person to commit a crime they wouldn't otherwise have committed without the presence of the officer. What you're talking about would be false imprisonment. <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>

Seethe347
 

Re: Stuff

Unread postby Seethe347 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:16 pm

Quote:
It's a good thing that you aren't king of the US, Seethe, and that no one else is, either, because a lot of the reforms that have been put in place in the last century exist to do things like prevent employers from intimidating their workers. UCLA's campus might be private property, but would you stand up for mall cops if they tasered some guy who wasn't being violent if he refused to leave because the mall was closing?


There, I wish I had noticed that earlier. That does attack my idea on property rights. But there is an "is vs aught" fallacy at the beginning. Just because the reforms have been put in place doesn't mean they should have been put in place. Also, if I want to maintain my position, the answer to the question is pretty obvious: yes I would stand up for the mall cops if my laws were in place, if the mall had posted clear warning that people refusing to leave after closing time would be tased, and if the people being tased were mentally capable of understanding the warning. The quote provides no reason why I shouldn't.

Quote:
Take Rawls' Veil of Ignorance. If you have to decide the ethicality/morality of a particular decision, you must do so as if you had no idea where you'd fit in. If you would make a decision to avoid being tased, you ought to avoid decisions that involve other people being tased in the same situation. If you would rather be asked to leave or face a subpoena, you cannot ethically advocate use of force before that.


But what if I like tasing people or would rather deal with annoying people in a way that doesn't require me to spend money? Or what if I just especially don't like annoying people? In that case, it might be more important to me to make sure that annoying people are tased even if it does mean that I would risk being tased. The downside to preventing myself from being tased if I emerge from the veil as an annoying person is that I will also prevent myself from being allowed to tase someone if I emerge as the annoyed cop, security guard, or property owner. Furthermore, I also ensure that, if I emerge as the annoyed individual and go through with the tasing anyway, my ass is going to be in trouble. If I would rather get away with tasing someone than deal with a ruined career and other legal ramifications, then I cannot ethically advocate restricting the use of violence against people who refuse to comply with the directives of authorities. Plus, if I especially didn't like stubborn people, I might be willing to accept the possibility of being tased if I turned out to be a stubborn person.

Quote:
Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." If you wouldn't want everyone behaving in a certain manner, you do not have special ethical license to do it either.


This seems to be what Brian's quote was aiming at. So I basically dealt with it above. When did I ever indicate that I wouldn't want the tasing of people who refused to leave property after being warned that they would be tased if they didn't leave to become universal law? In fact, in my first post I said that the policy of tasing people multiple times for refusing to leave should be the standard policy required by law. If everybody tased people for refusing to leave libraries, I might not mind at all.

Quote:
Utilitarianism: Usually summarized as valuing the search for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You do admittedly have a conflict here in that the first choice they had to make was between the safety of one student and the safety of many students. However, they violate this criterion when they ignore an option that neither harms this student nor ignores the threat he may pose. They ignored normal legal recourse.

Brian brought up legal recourse, and if we're going to talk about utilitarianism, then we should discuss avenues that would have caused harm to fewer people. If the kid is on campus without an ID, he's trespassing. Prosecute him for it. Happens all the time without the need for electrical coercion. The law is still enforced, and nobody looks crazy. Sure, the instant gratification of tasing the obnoxious little git is lost, but I repeat. The law is still enforced, and nobody looks crazy.


You might have me on this one, but you're talking about considering options for proceeding when Utilitarianism deals only with the outcome of an action after the option has been chosen and carried out. By considering this way, it could be argued strongly that the outcome was not the best. As it turns out, the kid was not carrying any kind of dangerous weapon as far I understand it, so the rest of the students were not saved from being shot by a sword that shoots bombs. Instead, they were subjected to the trauma of seeing someone brutalized in front of them. And clearly, the student himself was subjected to unnecessary trauma as well. This point is pretty solid, but I'll take a shot at it with a couple of arguments.

The first argument I have basically states that the students actually benefitted from seeing the traumatic event. It built character.The student who was tased possibly learned to avoid being a cuss towards authorities and he also gained hero status in the eyes of quite a few people. Plus, it gave him the opportunity to sue somebody for money. It also benefitted the students who were not tased by helping them to appreciate the fact that they hadn't been tased and it may have helped them to realize that they needed to take steps to prevent themselves from being tased in the future. The cops, on the other hand, were brought to harm through the likely ruination of their career, but this repurcussion will be eliminated if no action is taken against them. And they gained the benefit of gratification while they were tasing the person.

For my next argument to work, I will have to have been king of North America for some time. In this time, I will have transformed the United States from a society of overall decent and upright individuals to a crew of corrupt, vile, and bloodthirsty savages. With that being done, the only person who will be harmed by the action of the police is the student himself. Everyone else in the room and all the people watching on the internet, though, will be quite entertained. Even though the student will probably face an even worse fate in the world I have created that he did in the real world, the extreme level of twisted gratification granted to the rest of the empire could vastly outweigh the trauma the one individual experiences.


By the way, if people can't figure out that I'm playing devil's advocate by now, I don't know what I'm going to do with them.

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=seethe347>Seethe347</A] at: 11/17/06 22:21

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: Stuff

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:17 pm

I'm going to push aside all this collegiate-level stuff for a moment just to say that Shini just came in and said that he (remember, this is Shini) said to himself, "Holy shit these guys are being way too violent."

Neb, on the other hand says, "If that guy was a bear, then none of this would have ever happened."

My apologies for the spamesque entry! Back to the discourse. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

Previous

Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron

Yalogank