Sinaijon, you're a complete loon. Not that we didn't know that already.

[Captain Carrot]

In this post, Sinaijon actually argues that if you tell someone that it's cold outside, them subsequently grabbing a coat is not a consequence of your action. I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility (i.e., taking responsibility for your words and, to some extent, how people react to them), or does that only apply when getting help from the government?

[Tom Tildrum]

To pick up the theme of the other thread, if someone reads your post and goes out and shoots Sinaijon, are you responsible?

[Fish]

If he's a liberal, yes.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

To pick up the theme of the other thread, if someone reads your post and goes out and shoots Sinaijon, are you responsible?

Clever, but I don't think that's really appropriate, even for the Pit.

(FTR, mods and others, I'm not junior modding or suggesting that TT should be warned or anything. Just saying I disapprove.)

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

To pick up the theme of the other thread, if someone reads your post and goes out and shoots Sinaijon, are you responsible?

If I were seriously saying that I thought Sinaijon was mentally ill, and someone proceeded to call the cops and have him taken to a mental hospital, I would bear some responsibility for that, yes.

[Rand Rover]

I am a fiscal conservative that is all about personal responsibility, by which I mean that people are responsible by and large for the outcomes in their life (not every little thing, of course, just the things that are controllable over the long term). The concept of being "morally responsible" for the actions of another person that could be conceivably linked to one's words or ideas is totally different than this concept of personal responsibility.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Clever, but I don't think that's really appropriate, even for the Pit.

How so? He's not saying that anyone should shoot him, or that he deserves to be shot, he's just making a clever extrapolation of the argument from the original thread.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I think it's a silly argument both ways. Of course it's a consequence; the question is so what. I doubt Sinaijon would contest the point that making a claim about the weather is a cause in fact of the subsequent action, or a contributory cause in fact; he'd just contest that this is a meaningful point.

In my opinion the real issue is with the statement made in the first place, not with the subsequent action taken by another party. In other words, Glenn Beck is no more or less responsible for what he's said because of what some lunatic did, because bullshit is bullshit even if nobody buys it, and you're primarily responsible for not saying bullshit, not not causing massacres.

Of course, as a result of that disconnect I think one side can argue no way is he responsible for what happened, while the other side argues what the fuck, the stuff he said was objectively irresponsible bullshit, and nobody ever has to concede anything because everybody's talking past the same point.

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

The concept of being "morally responsible" for the actions of another person that could be conceivably linked to one's words or ideas is totally different than this concept of personal responsibility.

Conceivably linked? The guy listened to Glenn Beck and was spouting talking points from his show! How much more of a link do you need?!

[CircleofWillis]

Fucking Beatles and their irresponsible lyrics

[Miller]

Originally Posted by CircleofWillis

Fucking Beatles and their irresponsible lyrics

That's not really the same thing, though, as there's no rational way to interpret "Helter Skelter" as an instruction to murder someone. There's a spectrum between a lunatic hallucinating instructions in something innocuous, and someone specifically saying, "Go kill that guy." Beck falls somewhere in the middle, although closer to the "hallucinating lunatic" side.

And the guy with the gun was pretty out there, too. <rimshot>

[CircleofWillis]

Originally Posted by Miller

That's not really the same thing, though, as there's no rational way to interpret "Helter Skelter" as an instruction to murder someone. There's a spectrum between a lunatic hallucinating instructions in something innocuous, and someone specifically saying, "Go kill that guy." Beck falls somewhere in the middle, although closer to the "hallucinating lunatic" side.

And the guy with the gun was pretty out there, too. <rimshot>

Sure it is.. rational interpretation is in the ear, eye of the beholder...To Charlie.. they WERE saying go out and kill that guy. But Charlie was nucking futs.. like this Poplawski lunatic... Beck is an asshole but is as responsible as Paul McCartney....

[Miller]

Originally Posted by CircleofWillis

Sure it is.. rational interpretation is in the ear, eye of the beholder...To Charlie.. they WERE saying go out and kill that guy.

Interpretation may be up to the individual, but rationality is defined by popular consensus.

But Charlie was nucking futs.. like this Poplawski lunatic... Beck is an asshole but is as responsible as Paul McCartney....

From what I've been reading, Poplawski doesn't seem to be legally insane. That is, he's not delusional, and his conclusions are not unreasonable extrapolations from what Beck has said on his show. I'm not sure that Beck bears any moral responsibility for the killings, though, not in the least because of Beck's apparent mental disability: he's clearly too stupid to realize the possible ramifications of what he's saying.

[CircleofWillis]

Originally Posted by Miller

Interpretation may be up to the individual, but rationality is defined by popular consensus.

Are saying as Poplawski's interpretation of Beck can be viewed as rational?

Originally Posted by Miller

From what I've been reading, Poplawski doesn't seem to be legally insane. That is, he's not delusional, and his conclusions are not unreasonable extrapolations from what Beck has said on his show.

How are his extrapolations any less unreasonable? I have heard Beck from time to time.. and he is another blowhard political pundit. No different than Coulter or Limbaugh or Rhodes.

Originally Posted by Miller

I'm not sure that Beck bears any moral responsibility for the killings, though, not in the least because of Beck's apparent mental disability: he's clearly too stupid to realize the possible ramifications of what he's saying.

The stupidity I completely agree with

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

Conceivably linked? The guy listened to Glenn Beck and was spouting talking points from his show! How much more of a link do you need?!

Well, as I made clear in that thread, I don't care how close the link is, I find the whole concept of someone being "morally responsible" for the actions pof someone else totally meaningless.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Well, as I made clear in that thread, I don't care how close the link is, I find the whole concept of someone being "morally responsible" for the actions pof someone else totally meaningless.

Glad to know I can yell fire in Cinema Cliche and, though I may receive some detention, never have to worry about moral approbation. Same goes for hiring a hit man, or lying to some drunken galoot that someone else said his mother smelled funny.

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by CircleofWillis

Are saying as Poplawski's interpretation of Beck can be viewed as rational?

When somebody says that Democrats are all evil communist unAmerican socialists and they're coming to take all your guns and put your kids in reeducation camps, saying that you're worried about a gun ban and mandatory national service is not an unreasonable summation.
How are his extrapolations any less unreasonable? I have heard Beck from time to time.. and he is another blowhard political pundit. No different than Coulter or Limbaugh or Rhodes.[/quote]And isn't that a ringing endorsement. The woman who said that women shouldn't have the right to vote (among many other odious things) and the man who said he hoped Obama would fail, and that every other Republican in the country agreed with him (again, among many other odious things), and Randi Rhodes. Um, what?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by CircleofWillis

Are saying as Poplawski's interpretation of Beck can be viewed as rational?

His interpretation, yes. His actions, no. Beck has been painting the Obama administration as a direct and immediate threat to our most cherished freedoms, and that we need a revolution to counter him. Beck's never called for an armed revolution, but I don't think it's an unreasonable leap to make that, if Obama is as bad as Beck claims, that one is justified in using deadly force to oppose him.

How are his extrapolations any less unreasonable? I have heard Beck from time to time.. and he is another blowhard political pundit. No different than Coulter or Limbaugh or Rhodes.

Beck, Coulter, and so forth are talking about the government, and saying that the government is doing bad things. Even if you disagree that it's rational to hear, "The government is evil," and interpret that as, "I've got to defend myself from the government by any means necessary," at least there is some tenuous connection. Charles Manson heard a song about playing on a slide and interpreted it as an instruction to kill people at random. That's a whole 'nother order of crazy altogether.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Glad to know I can yell fire in Cinema Cliche and, though I may receive some detention, never have to worry about moral approbation. Same goes for hiring a hit man, or lying to some drunken galoot that someone else said his mother smelled funny.

I agree that you would not be "morally responsible" if you did any of those things. You know why? The whole idea of "moral responsibility is a meaningless concept.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

I agree that you would not be "morally responsible" if you did any of those things. You know why? The whole idea of "moral responsibility is a meaningless concept.

Nuh uh.

(I figure if all you have to do is blithely assert a point, all I have to do is blithely deny it).

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Nuh uh.

(I figure if all you have to do is blithely assert a point, all I have to do is blithely deny it).

True enough, but I don't think I'm just blithely asserting. The OP is using a term as if it means something without demonstrating any meaning. That's a blithe assertion if I've ever seen one.

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

True enough, but I don't think I'm just blithely asserting. The OP is using a term as if it means something without demonstrating any meaning. That's a blithe assertion if I've ever seen one.

Given that almost everyone in the other thread understood what it meant, or at least had pretty close to the same idea, I assert that you're full of shit. No, that's not fair, but you are wrong.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

In this post, Sinaijon actually argues that if you tell someone that it's cold outside, them subsequently grabbing a coat is not a consequence of your action.

Actually, his point was about moral responsibility, as far as I can tell. It's one thing to say that you are not morally responsible for someone grabbing a coat. It's another to say that the coat grabbing is not a consequence of your statement.

Depending on the context, Sinaijon may be incorrect (in my opinion). Nevertheless, it looks to me like you have misrepresented his position.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

True enough, but I don't think I'm just blithely asserting. The OP is using a term as if it means something without demonstrating any meaning.

Really, Rand? Do YOU demonstrate the meaning of any term that you use in a post, and if you don't, does that count as a blithe assertion? Because just in the bit I quoted here, I count 25 terms you used (counting stingily) without demonstrating their meaning. Is that 25 blithe assertions in a partial quote of a post?

Or maybe, just maybe, are co-speakers of a language allowed to use terms from that language without "demonstrating meaning" each time they use a term?

Yes, yes, yes, I get that you're a big special Randian, and you think morality is for the little people (or whatever--I couldn't possibly care less about the details of your philosophy). Plenty of people understand what the term means, though, and for plenty of people, including plenty of the most profound thinkers who have ever lived, the term is full of meaning. To dismiss that via blithe assertion is moronic.

The last time I saw such silly definitional handwaving was in an undergrad class when one of my classmates sincerely argued that the definition of capitalism (not the summation--literally the definition we ought to use when talking about capitalism) was "greed." You're on his level.

Daniel

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Actually, his point was about moral responsibility, as far as I can tell. It's one thing to say that you are not morally responsible for someone grabbing a coat. It's another to say that the coat grabbing is not a consequence of your statement.

Depending on the context, Sinaijon may be incorrect (in my opinion). Nevertheless, it looks to me like you have misrepresented his position.

Not intentionally. I don't see a difference between the two, in the context of human interaction. Although obviously Sinaijon and I don't see eye-to-eye on this anyway, so you have a point.

[Rand Rover]

OK LHOD, point me to a philisopher discussing the circumstances under which one person is "morally responsible" for another's actions.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility...

Anyone who can say that with a straight face after 8 years of Bush is severely retarded.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

I agree that you would not be "morally responsible" if you did any of those things. You know why? The whole idea of "moral responsibility is a meaningless concept.

Randian... Rand Rover .... as in Ayn Rand? Sorry, just kidding.

Anyway, what do you mean "meaningless concept"? With intent to cause harm, I purposely start a panic in a crowded area, with full knowledge that in doing so, several people are likely to suffer injury. Or with full intent, knowledge, and anticipation of benefit, I enter into an agreement with a hit man to kill a rival (or rich relative), fully knowing that the person is likely to act on my words.

Or are you one of those people who will take any abstract concept and, since it can't be concretely defined or firmly established, decide that it is a "meaningless concept" and go on pretending that things like moral responsibility, love, loyalty, envy, greed, excess, piety, and a rather large list of concepts don't exist? Quaint, really.

[Richard Parker]

Rand Rover, you don't believe in moral responsibility. Fine. You don't think Osama Bin Laden was morally responsible for 9/11. You don't think Hitler was a bad guy because of the concentration camps. We get it. But since 99% of the rest of the world believes in and generally understands the contours of the concept of moral responsibility, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to come into all of these threads acting like someone is proposing some crazy concept?

[Isamu]

Schenck v. United States, Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater - isn't that case kind of similar to what happened here (I'm not familiar with exactly what was said by the radio announcer though)

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Squink

Anyone who can say that with a straight face after 8 years of Bush is severely retarded.

What makes you think I had a straight face?

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

What makes you think I had a straight face?

Oh not you, but there are some who try to say that with a straight face. Most are priobably America haters of one stripe or another.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

OK LHOD, point me to a philisopher discussing the circumstances under which one person is "morally responsible" for another's actions.

Waitaminute. You just moved the goalposts, Bucky. No fair. Watch this:

Post 19:

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

I agree that you would not be "morally responsible" if you did any of those things. You know why? The whole idea of "moral responsibility is a meaningless concept.

That's you, staking out a position. The position being that the concept of moral responsibility is meaningless.

Post 20:

Originally Posted by LeftHandofDorkness

Nuh uh.

(I figure if all you have to do is blithely assert a point, all I have to do is blithely deny it).

That's LHOD denying the truth of that position.

Post 21:

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

True enough, but I don't think I'm just blithely asserting. The OP is using a term as if it means something without demonstrating any meaning. That's a blithe assertion if I've ever seen one.

That's you again, reiterating that your position is valid (is not merely a "blithe assertion"), and tacking on an addendum about the OP using the term without "demonstrating any meaning."

Post 24:

Originally Posted by LeftHandofDorkness

Really, Rand? Do YOU demonstrate the meaning of any term that you use in a post, and if you don't, does that count as a blithe assertion? Because just in the bit I quoted here, I count 25 terms you used (counting stingily) without demonstrating their meaning. Is that 25 blithe assertions in a partial quote of a post?

Or maybe, just maybe, are co-speakers of a language allowed to use terms from that language without "demonstrating meaning" each time they use a term?

Yes, yes, yes, I get that you're a big special Randian, and you think morality is for the little people (or whatever--I couldn't possibly care less about the details of your philosophy). Plenty of people understand what the term means, though, and for plenty of people, including plenty of the most profound thinkers who have ever lived, the term is full of meaning. To dismiss that via blithe assertion is moronic.

And that's LHOD again, making the case that the OP's failure to "demonstrate meaning" in the term "moral responsibility" is irrelevant to the validity of your assertion that such meaning does not exist. By my calculations, the topic of contention is still your assertion that "moral responsibility" is a meaningless concept.

If you want to argue against what LHOD called you out on, you can challenge him to cite a profound thinker or two who advocates for the concept of "moral responsibility" having a demonstrable meaning. You don't get to challenge him to produce a philosopher who makes the OP's argument for him.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Captain Carrot

Not intentionally. I don't see a difference between the two, in the context of human interaction.

Well you should, in my opinion. For example, suppose it's the day before Thanksgiving and I say "Happy Turkey!" to my co-worker, Jack. Unbeknownst to me, Jack is an Al Qaeda sleeper agent with strict instructions: When he hears the phrase "happy turkey," he must set fire to the nearest Jack-in-the-Box. Which he does.

Is Jack's arson a consequence of my statement? Of course. Am I morally responsible? Of course not.

What matters is my state of mind when I make the statement, it seem to me.

, so you have a point.

Thank you.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Rand Rover, you don't believe in moral responsibility. Fine. You don't think Osama Bin Laden was morally responsible for 9/11. You don't think Hitler was a bad guy because of the concentration camps. We get it. But since 99% of the rest of the world believes in and generally understands the contours of the concept of moral responsibility, don't you think it's a little disingenuous to come into all of these threads acting like someone is proposing some crazy concept?

I don't agree with his point but I can see the dishonesty in this post. Someone who is the direct cause of something isn't morally responsible, they are just plain responsible. Moral responsibility is reserved for those who are not the direct cause. Unless you are arguing that Glen Beck is ordering people to go out and kill for him this is a ridiculous post. Rand is arguing that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Hitler is responsible for ordering the holocaust. Those that came before him who helped shape his twisted view would have some measure of moral responsibility. That is the concept.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Waitaminute. You just moved the goalposts, Bucky. No fair. Watch this:

Thanks! I'm glad I read the whole thread before responding: you said what I was going to say, only in much more detail.

Rover, either you deliberately and dishonestly moved the goalposts hoping nobody would notice, or it was a mistake. YOu've already been called out if it was the former. If it was an accident--if you really meant to ask me to point you to profound thinkers who wrote about moral responsibility--you can start with Aristotle, Augustine, and John Stuart Mill. This article is an excellent overview of how moral responsibility is seen by many profound thinkers.

Note especially the deterministic folks: moral responsibility is a meaningful concept even when a person cannot freely choose between good and bad. The point of MR is to change a person's behavior to something more desirable. If the murderer was a can of gasoline, and Beck's rants were the match (a match that goes into millions of homes, eventually finding that gasoline), we can prevent the murders by removing the match, and maybe we can do that by shaming Beck.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

This quote by Aristotle seems peculiarly relevant:

Originally Posted by Aristototle

Revolutions in democracies are generally caused by the intemperance of demagogues.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by CircleofWillis

Sure it is.. rational interpretation is in the ear, eye of the beholder...To Charlie.. they WERE saying go out and kill that guy. But Charlie was nucking futs.. like this Poplawski lunatic... Beck is an asshole but is as responsible as Paul McCartney....

How was he fucking nuts? He was very violent, but there's no evidence that he was suffering from a formal thought disorder. Rather, he seems to have bought what the right is selling, and acted accordingly.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Loach

I don't agree with his point but I can see the dishonesty in this post. Someone who is the direct cause of something isn't morally responsible, they are just plain responsible. Moral responsibility is reserved for those who are not the direct cause. Unless you are arguing that Glen Beck is ordering people to go out and kill for him this is a ridiculous post. Rand is arguing that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Hitler is responsible for ordering the holocaust. Those that came before him who helped shape his twisted view would have some measure of moral responsibility. That is the concept.

I don't think you and Rand are arguing the same thing. Could you clarify your point, because it sounds like you're saying that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Holocaust, just for ordering it. What does that really make him responsible for?

My interpretation of what you are saying is consistent with what I, and several others were arguing in the original thread, and what my point about telling someone it's raining outside means in terms of responsibility. That is, Beck has some level of responsibility for how people react to his whipping up of their level of fear.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I don't think you and Rand are arguing the same thing. Could you clarify your point, because it sounds like you're saying that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Holocaust, just for ordering it. What does that really make him responsible for?

My interpretation of what you are saying is consistent with what I, and several others were arguing in the original thread, and what my point about telling someone it's raining outside means in terms of responsibility. That is, Beck has some level of responsibility for how people react to his whipping up of their level of fear.

I'm not arguing anything. I just had a problem with the post I quoted. RR has a problem with moral responsibility. Not with personal responsibility. In his world everyone is responsible for only his own actions but no one else has any other responsibility for anything they do to influence others. I don't agree with this. But this is ridiculous:You don't think Osama Bin Laden was morally responsible for 9/11. You don't think Hitler was a bad guy because of the concentration camps. We get it. Those are two ridiculous examples. In those cases we are talking about people who are directly responsible due to their actions. Moral responsibility doesn't enter into it. I don't remember RR ever saying anything like OBL or Hitler were great guys and did nothing wrong. As much as I disagree with him I don't believe he thinks this way. The post I quoted was stupid and didn't feel like letting it slide by.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Loach

But this is ridiculous:You don't think Osama Bin Laden was morally responsible for 9/11. You don't think Hitler was a bad guy because of the concentration camps. We get it. Those are two ridiculous examples. In those cases we are talking about people who are directly responsible due to their actions.

My point is neither stupid nor dishonest, you just don't understand it. You apparently think there's a relevant distinction between "directly responsible due to their actions" and "morally responsible." You'll find that if you really think about that distinction, it doesn't exist. If I tell my brother to kill someone, and he does, am I "morally responsible" or am I "directly responsible due to my actions?" If I lie to my unstable brother and persuade him that bullets don't kill people--in fact they like being shot--and he kills a bunch of people, am I "morally responsible" or am I "directly responsible due to my actions?"

The examples offered were both well-known and obvious examples of people who persuaded others to do terrible things. If you don't believe that a person is ever morally responsible for what another person does, then you cannot say that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths on 9/11 because his only causative effect was to persuade others to take certain actions.

[Fish]

Stripping out the volatile subjects of Osama bin Laden and Hitler, the general question is, "Are leaders bear any responsibility for actions taken by people who follow them?"

In an even more general sense, we might ask, "Does a liar bear any responsibility for actions taken by people who believe them?"

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Fish

Stripping out the volatile subjects of Osama bin Laden and Hitler, the general question is, "Are leaders bear any responsibility for actions taken by people who follow them?"

In an even more general sense, we might ask, "Does a liar bear any responsibility for actions taken by people who believe them?"

The point was a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, since most people start from the premise that Hitler is morally responsible for the Holocaust.

And it isn't exclusively about whether speech can cause moral responsibility. It need not be that narrow. Rand Rover denies the existence of the concept of moral responsibility altogether, regardless of the nature of the relationship between the subject in question and the ultimate actor. I suspect Loach did not understand the extremeness of Rand's position, which is why he thought the statement was unfair.

[Fish]

Right. But aside from the reductio, there is a legitimate debate in there, which would be obscured by an unnecessary "I'll see your Osama and raise you one Hitler."

[Richard Parker]

Fine. I just wanted to be clear that I chose the examples precisely because they are morally unambiguous, as opposed to an effort to inject some kind of emotional appeal.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Fine. I just wanted to be clear that I chose the examples precisely because they are morally unambiguous, as opposed to an effort to inject some kind of emotional appeal.

I struggle with these ideas, and I don't think they're as unambiguous as you seem to.

Let's talk Hitler. I find him rather easy to understand in the sense that he was a total wacko spouting insanity. I find it much more difficult to understand why so many others, apparently more rational, bought into his dieased rantings.

If you accept that Hitler was insane, and you probably don't and I'm not even sure I do, then it's arguable he had less moral responsibility than those to took his ideas and ran with them.

[Richard Parker]

Yeah, Ok. I meant that there was no ambiguity relevant to the point Rover was making (i.e. whether the ultimate actions were immoral, whether the actor intended those results, whether the actor was a proximate cause those actions, etc.).