Before I do, lemme be clear. By “we are getting somewhere,” have you conceded that “the whole concept of whether one person is ‘morally responsible’ for the actions of another” is, even though you may disagree with it, not “completely devoid of any meaning”? Because if you haven’t conceded that, we can’t continue, just as I don’t teach my students three-digit addition until they’ve mastered two-digit addition.
That is what I’ve asked you to demonstrate. I’m not conceding what I asked you to demonstrate. By saying “we are getting somewhere,” I mean that we are getting closer to you demonstrating that.
By Pledge Week - does that mean:
A) Drinking cheap beer while standing in my boxers while guys in Greek letters yell at me, or
B) Constantly having a great arts presentation interrupted by someone asking for money?
Back to the OP - I would love to see Officer Crowley offer to move in with Professor Gates to keep his new beer buddy safe.
Make it a reality show and I’m totally in.
I see it as more of a Samuel Jackson/Adam Sandler vehicle.
Great. How have I not demonstrated the point in the context of “inciting to violence” crimes?
LHOD, you were doing so well, don’t give up now! Show me the consequences, like you did with ice cream-stealin’ Jim.
This is not, of course, a hypothetical question:
From Caribbean Slave Revolts and the British Abolitionist Movement, by Gelien Matthews:
Abolitionists percieved that slave revolts: a) endangered the well-being of all parties concerned (i.e. led to bloodshed); b) that the slaves were driven to this by the “gross inhumanity” of slavery. What effect did this perception have?
Their perception by abolitionists of slave-owners as “morally responsible for the injuries incurred in slave uprisings” led abolitionists to step up their campaign both in terms of principled argument and practical amelioration. As I don’t need to tell anyone here, this campaign ultimately succeeded. I’m not sure we ever defined what “meaningful” means in this context but I’m going to guess that “playing a significant role in ending slavery” counts.
If you’re not trolling, and if you’re not an imbecile, post 57 and 58 should answer the question. Show understanding of those posts (even if you disagree with them), and we’ll continue the lesson. DOn’t, and we’re done.
I understand those posts. You are saying that the question of whether action x is immoral is not meaningless because it has consequences, and those consequences are that deciding the question may cause someone to change their own behavior or encourage other people to change their behavior. You may now continue.
He ate them?
Prof. Gates was a citizen living a normal life. He had trouble opening his door one day and someone thought he might be breaking in. The cops came and Gates was insufficiently polite and the cop arrested him. It was a crappy arrest and a controversy followed. Now Gates gets bombing and death threats. To suggest Crowley is completely blameless for what ensued is absurd.
Oh, come on- Crowley can hardly be held responsible for the actions of a bunch of nutjobs. It’s not as though he’s asking people to blow up Gates’ house, and if anyone is asking him I’m sure he’s denouncing this.
Is this really what constitutes a a death threat these days?
Its all Abraham Lincoln’s fault. If he wouldn’t have freed the slaves, Gates wouldn’t be a Harvard professor in the first place, so this incident with Crowley would never have occurred.
Great. So do you agree with this reasoning or not? If you disagree with the reasoning, explain why; if you agree with it, then I expect never to see you suggest that the question of whether action x is immoral is meaningless again.
Yes, it’s really more of a death suggestion.
He is not responsible for each and every death threat, but he created the problem with his bad arrest. If he left without collaring Gates, there would be no threats.
You finish the case-in-chief and the I’ll rebut.
Oh, so that’s the proper standard? Then I blame the big bang. If there had been no big bang, there would be no threats.