Another bad analogy…A soldier’s job and duty is to protect his country’s interests and knows up front when enlisting that the job is dangerous, but is given the tools to defend himself and the orders to carry out the job. Corrie is by no means a soldier; she is merely a protestor and she did not have any orders from her country to stand in front of the D-9; that was her own tactics and could abandon her “post” (which she did earlier, btw) at her own discretion and no one else’s.
I never gave my definition of suicidal…but playing chicken with a D-9 without any protection is could be viewed by many as borderline suicidal.
I never said that she intended to die. I said that in her last few seconds of life that if she still thought that her actions justified saving (or failing to save) her friends house at the expense of her life, then she would have been considered suicidal. Note: My comment is AFTER the event took place, not BEFORE.
Cite?!? If you do any activity that requires the use of muscles, you do get tired, right? Something you learn in Life Biology class and even when you exercise for any period of time (anywhere from a few seconds to an hour(s))…do you really want a cite for that, or have you really not been to a Biology class or exercised in your entire life?
Better than ANY of your analogies…If I was doing the same thing Corrie was here in the “comfy” confines of my country, playing chicken with a dozer, I wouldn’t be getting much sympathy either, my house or not. Compensation…yes, sympathy…no.
If Corrie was a soldier doing what she did, the IDF would have shot her instead of tear gassing her, and the D-9 would have been used instead to dig a grave and dump 7 “soldiers” bodies in it…but it didn’t happen that way, did it? AGAIN - BAD ANALOGY.
Did the Palestinians actually declare war on the Israelis here? Did Corrie actually enlist in the Palestinian Army? Which tabloids are you subscribing to here? Stop playing up the IDF as an invading force. Corrie was not authorized by anyone but herself to be in harm’s way.
Princhester, I notice that your parting insults are your bread and butter…and this is Great Debates, not the Pit…careful.
Sooooo!
If they had used tanks to knock everything down, then used bulldozers, it would of been okay?
The Caterpiller company would not have had one shred of responsibility one way or another.
You are responsible for what you do.
You are not responsibile for what others do.
This is the basis for all Western Law, Ethics & Morality.
So you accept my point then, I take it? You agree that what you percieve to be the illegitimacy of Corrie’s aims is relevant to a consideration of whether or not she carries all the blame for her own death?
Yeah, right. So if your home country is invaded and its regular military defeated, the citizenry should give up if the occupiers declare the country a military zone, because it would just be quite improper for any citizenry to go there, dontcha know. Not the done thing at all, old chap.
You may be right. But Kimstu understands the point, and as I have said, has expounded it more eloquently than I. msmith537 makes a similar point. Giles seems to be coming from the same angle I am. Polerious likewise at post #63, although I disagree with him/her about Caterpillar’s culpability. So maybe the problem is not mine.
You’re just ignoring part of my analogy, which is where I say that the homeowner has had but not taken the opportunity to walk away. Sure, that may have been reckless but would you say the burglar bears none of the blame?
Yes or no?
Hooey. Are you saying that the only situation in which it is appropriate to stand up for anything is when you are ordered to do so as a soldier, and that standing up for anything else is illegitimate? Are you saying that unless you are ordered to do something heroic, then if you die in doing so your enemy is not to blame? Does that make sense to you, because that’s what you’re saying.
Now you’re just getting silly. I said that you had no evidence she was desperately tired or otherwise impaired. You would now appear to be seeking to argue that since she had done some exercise, that constitutes evidence she was desperately tired.
If you think that, it’s you who I can only assume must be extraordinarily unfit.
So you accept my point then, I take it? You agree that what you percieve to be the illegitimacy of Corrie’s aims is relevant to a consideration of whether or not she carries all the blame for her own death?
Surely you’re not referring to the case of the Arabs in the “occupied territories” here. Otherwise I’d ask you to specify the contiguous ‘country’ in question, its borders, its currency and furthermore what regular military you speak of.
It was the Arab world, which outnumbered tiny Israel 600 to 1, who greedily attacked the Jews in Israel with the intention of destroying them in accordance with their well-ingrained Nazi sympathy (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was personal friends with Hitler and the Arabs proudly flew swastika flags during WWII and continue to do so today.) Israel did not “invade” a nation of “Palestine” and defeat any regular military of said people to occupy that land.
I was lampooning, in the abstract, a silly comment made in the abstract. I was not referring to anything in particular.
See, this is my point. It would have cost you nothing to clearly and unambiguously restate your argument here. Instead, you refer us to three other posts, from which we’d have to tweeze out your particular point of view, somehow distinguishing it from the view of the posters in question. And I * still * have no idea which side(s) of the argument you’re on – the only thing I’m fairly sure of is that it’s fairly irrelevant to the actual OP which was discussing Caterpillar’s moral responsibility, and not the culpability of the bulldozer operator or Corrie herself.
Bosda: The Caterpiller company would not have had one shred of responsibility one way or another.
AFAICT, nobody’s yet responded to my post quoting Caterpillar’s own statements about its commitment to “socially responsible” policies.
IF Israel is in fact using Caterpillar bulldozers in an illegitimate way—and I am not asserting that, I’m just supposing it in order to get to what I think is the interesting part of this debate—
AND if Caterpillar is aware of that illegitimate and socially irresponsible misuse of their products—again, I don’t know that this is so but I’m hypothesizing it—
THEN, in order to support its alleged commitment to social responsibility, wouldn’t Caterpillar pretty much have to stop selling its bulldozers to Israel?
Again, I’m not claiming that the premises are necessarily true, but if they are, then wouldn’t the conclusion be inescapable? I’m just trying to figure out how to square some posters’ claims that Caterpillar would bear no responsibility at all, no matter what Israel did with its products, with Caterpillar’s own claims that the socially responsible use of their products is important to them and that social responsibility takes precedence over financial gain.
I agree that if Caterpillar were not making such claims—if they were saying, in effect, “hey, we just make bulldozers and sell 'em, we don’t care who buys 'em or what they use 'em for, zat’s not our deepartment”— then their responsibility would be nil. But as it is, they’re saying that they consider themselves obligated to act, as a company, in a socially responsible way.
So if they’re knowingly selling their equipment to be used as weapons against innocent civilians,* then wouldn’t that be undeniable and flagrant hypocrisy?
- One last time—what am I not doing? That’s right kiddies, I’m not asserting that this is in fact an accurate description of Israel’s demolition policy! I’m only assuming it for the sake of argument! Thanks for paying attention!
**No. **
Social responsibility means creating an unarmed, fuel efficient, safe vehicle, not designed to do additional eco-damage.
Caterpiller is not the nanny to the world, nor should it be, nor do you have a right to expect it to be.
It is a commercial concern, not a law enforcement agency.
It can & should take some intrest in how its products are used, but a government that sets out to use it for demolition, and not as a deliberated killing weapon, is a reasonably valid customer.
In fact, I did. I posted a link to an article reporting that Caterpillar put the issue to a shareholder vote. Only 4% voted to withhold sales from the Israeli military. The board recommended against the resolution. Therefore, they do not feel that this is in violation of their corporate code, and neither do the shareholders.
This is true, even if you regard the statement of social responsibility as a true reflection of the corporate ethos, and not a non-legally binding bit of PR frippery from a company whose products are used to build strip malls and raze rain forests.
Bosda: It can & should take some intrest in how its products are used, but a government that sets out to use it for demolition, and not as a deliberated killing weapon, is a reasonably valid customer.
Okay. So if the government is using it as a deliberated killing weapon, it would not be a reasonably valid customer?
I thought I’d made it clear that that hypothetical situation was what I was asking about.
Finagle: Only 4% voted to withhold sales from the Israeli military. The board recommended against the resolution. Therefore, they do not feel that this is in violation of their corporate code, and neither do the shareholders.
Thanks for the reminder, and sorry I missed it the first time. But this seems to me to be saying just that the shareholders and the board don’t consider it hypocritical; that doesn’t necessarily settle the question for the rest of us.
(And of course, the vote and recommendation refer to the real-world situation, not my hypothesized one where the use of the bulldozers is unambiguously illegitimate and unethical. )
Bosda: Social responsibility means creating an unarmed, fuel efficient, safe vehicle, not designed to do additional eco-damage.
Actually, Caterpillar’s statements on their website refer to “socially responsible” and “environmentally responsible” separately. I think that means that the “socially responsible” part must refer to something other than just environmental impact. It seems to me that knowingly selling equipment to be used criminally as killing machines* would have to fall into the “stuff a socially responsible company can’t do” category.
*Repeat usual disclaimer.
The burglar bears all the blame…the problem is that the IDF is not a burglar, and Corrie is not the homeowner in your analogy…which is still BAD. You are twisting, my friend. Also, I tend to ignore responding to questions based on parts of analogies that are BAD. Well, at least I try, but you called me out on it.
I never said illegitimate, you did…stop twisting my words. Protesting in a military zone is a dangerous and foolish thing to do, I never said it was an illegitimate thing to do…you should know that. As a protestor, she was never properly equipped to defend herself against a D-9 and shouldn’t have put herself obviously in harm’s way. Hooey, my ass.
Why do you keep clinging to these awful analogies?
Clinging to the word “desperately”, I see. A word that I didn’t use. “Fatigue” is the word I used, and any human being knows how to become fatigued. Fatigue does lead to “impairment” eventually. You act as if someone becomes more alert and energetic as time wears on when doing an activity for hours. “Hooey” to that notion. Everyone becomes fatigued at some point of doing any activity. Anything from reading a book to running a marathon to driving an 18-wheeler cross-country; this would include playing chicken with a bulldozer as well as driving said bulldozer. My state of fitness has nothing to do with this accepted reality, although you found the time to try to make it so. Nothing silly here, folks…move along.
As others have noted, you really haven’t been making any points at all…but maybe if you even looked at my analogy you would already know my answer to that…remember? Something to the effect of “Mistakes being made”. Go back and read it.
Again, “illegitimacy” and “desperately” are your words, not mine. Therefore the questions you pose to me with those words are irrelevant. I don’t play twister.
My words are “foolish”, “chicken”, and “fatigue”. Please bear this in mind in your next response.
Having stated my point as best I can several times over, why would I have any confidence that if I did so one more time, you’d get it?
But as I see it, it seems that you accept that if person A does something that is highly risky, but legitimate (homeowner facing down armed burglar), then if person B (behaving recklessly but not deliberately) accidentally kills person A while engaging in an illegitimate act (burglar attempting to shoot over homeowner’s head), person B bears all the blame. Agree? Yes or no?
Remember the above comment of yours well. It is going to come back and bite you on the ass. Just watch.
Actually what you said was “pretty damn tired”. You have no evidence Corrie was pretty damn tired.
Eventually. Provide evidence that Corrie had reached that point. You can’t. There isn’t any. You’re making this shit up. And in an attempt to cover that you are now trying to argue, in a very silly fashion, that because activity will eventually cause one to become “pretty damn tired” or impaired, and because Corrie engaged in activity, Corrie must have been “pretty damn tired”.
Which is about as logical as arguing that because car brakes eventually wear out, all car brakes are worn out.
Input On The “Sacred Cause”, & Those who Advocate It.
And the Issue is—“Israel is a bad, bad country because it picks on thos poor people who want to destroy it, & kill it’s people, out of xenophobia & religious hatred. BAD, BAD Isreal! No biscut!” :rolleyes: :smack:
Bosda, was your most recent post in response to my comments? If so, I don’t understand how what you’re saying relates to what I said. Could you explain?
If not, then never mind. Carry on.
I have to say this entire thread is pretty silly. Caterpiller makes things like bulldozers and back-hoes which are designed to smash and dig. They probably sell thousands upon thousands of pieces of equipment a year. Do you think they should or even could monitor every single piece of equipment that goes to every single customer to make sure it is used “appropriately” whatever the heck that means? Who is to say what the legitimate use of a bulldozer is anyway? Should they not sell bulldozers to the Israeli government for making roads because they use other 'dozers to knock down houses?
And really, that’s what the things are designed for. You mind as well say that the Boeing company bears some culpability because their Apache helicopters are used to attack people.
I answered that before in response to your invalid analogy…do I need to answer it again? Seems like all you want to do is ask questions, demand answers, and ignore everyone elses inquiries. A debator you are not.
This thread has pretty much played itself out, bite or no bite on my ass. I have no qualms about my responses.
My evidence comes from National Library of Medicine, not to mention my own personal experience and other human beings I have witnessed personally and on TV (sporting events, documentaries and the like). Corrie was just as human as everyone else and she was subjected to the same elements of fatigue like you and I on a daily basis. This is the last time I will address this, because you want to nitpick words rather than the actual subject at hand, which is Corrie being fatigued to some point, whether it was a little fatigued or very fatigued. Tell you what, why don’t you prove to me that Corrie didn’t have any fatigue (at the time of the incident) whatsoever? Prove me that, and I will come over to your corner.
I’ve been patient with you, yet I have discovered that you don’t respond in kind and just want to cloud issues with your bad analogies with no attempt to acknowledge that a person gets more tired as time goes on when engaging in any activity. She certainly wasn’t focused in her third and last hour as she was in her first two hours of playing chicken. She ditched her megaphone which could have saved her life, she was separated from the rest of her group. Doesn’t sound like she was on top of her game in that third hour, so to speak. Bad decisions were made by her (not to mention her first decision of playing chicken with a dozer)…people who are fatigued also make bad decisions and misjudgements. All you want to complain about is that I can’t prove the exact time she became “pretty damn tired”. Well, I can tell you she was pretty damn tired to hold a megaphone, and she also made a bad decision of not staying with her group to help maintain her visibility as a group, another sign of fatigue. Why don’t you prove to me that Corrie did not suffer any fatigue or impairment in the third hour compared to the first two hours? What the hell…Why don’t you prove to me that the driver was just as fresh and just as alert in hour three as he was in hour one?
Ugh…again…another…bad…analogy. :smack:
Better analogy…When properly installed, all car brakes work best when they are new, and all car brakes eventually wear out (decreasing effectiveness) as time goes on, dependent on their own composition, individual use over time, force, and other external factors applied to them.
But then again, humans are not car brakes. Humans regenerate the capacity to use their muscles after a certain period of rest…car brakes don’t have muscles or regenerative properties.
Bosda, I’m afraid you are right.
I don’t care about the subject at hand, but when someone acts all superior and makes obvious fallacies, they have to be corrected:
Let A = “A person is fatigued”
B = “A person makes bad decisions”
At first you say “A implies B”
Then you state that B is true.
From this you infer that A is true.
This is a false conclusion.