Yeah, and that’s a huge difference. You can’t control the actions of those other people. You can only control your own actions. So if your actions begin a chain of events that end with someone dying, and you could reasonably predict that that would happen, it doesn’t matter whether the direct cause of death is a religious fanatic or a faulty machine or a bullet. You took an action that you predicted would be causally related to someone’s death. You’re responsible for your action.
The difference in responsibility is that if you build a shoddy machine that kills a worker, there’s nobody else responsible for the worker’s death. If you take an outrageous symbolic action that riles up a fanatic who kills someone, the fanatic is also (and to a much larger degree) responsible for that person’s death. In both cases, you’re responsible for taking an action that predictably led to someone’s death.
Whether something is an asshole move isn’t determined by its effects. It refers to whether there’s any nontrivial benefit whatsoever to the action.
Well, yeah. It is different, because of that death cult hiding among the Muslims. Not to Godwinize this, but imagine two scenarios:
I tell a 1942 German SS officer, “Hey, my neighbors are Jews.”
I tell a 2011 American, “Hey, my neighbors are Jews.”
It’s precisely because the Nazi is such an asshole that the former move is an asshole move, even though you’re doing exactly the same thing.
Another question: as I understand it, there were some imams in Afghanistan who called for the deaths of some Westerners to avenge this insult to the Koran. These imams did not touch any Westerners. Do they bear any blame for the Westerners’ deaths?
From my perspective, they do, because they took an action that they could reasonably predict would result in the death of someone, and it was an asshole action, one with no redeeming value. I suspect some people here disagree, saying that the murderers alone bear responsibility for any murder they commit.
Not in my opinion. It’s about intent. The intent may be to incite violence , or the intent may be to deliver the message, with callous disregard for potential or even likely violence. IMO, both are guilty of inciting violence but IAMAL or judge.
Oh, I expect that for most of those people all of a sudden inciting violence will count as immoral when it’s an Islamic foreigner doing it instead of an American Christian.
That’s just allowing the lowest common denominator to control your actions. Burning a flag is not an asshole thing to do, because other people behave decently. Burning a Koran is an asshole thing to do, because some Muslims do not.
Benefits are effects.
If you can do Godwin, I can do blame-the-victim. Go out in public without a bra, and get groped on the subway. It’s still mostly their fault, but part of it is yours - you knew some people would react unreasonably. Right?
The murders still bear responsibility. Words don’t kill. Actions do. There are always some idiots spewing stupid things, if you wish to seek them out there should not be a problem finding them, but adults will have to take responsibility for their own actions. They are Muslims, not children. Lets not belittle their intelligence. And calling upon people to go out and kill a certain person is in no way comparable to burning a book. If the pastor had told his listeners that they should go out and kill random Muslims, then I’m sure a lot more would understand the criticism he gets. But he didn’t. He burned a book. Burning the Koran is comparable to burning the Bible, not telling people to go out and kill other people.
I know it won’t be for the last time, but it should be: calling Jones on the carpet in no way, shape, or form absolves the murderers of the murder.
Good lord, people. This isn’t a difficult concept. Disagree with it directly if you must, but then you’ll need to marshal your explanations. But don’t keep making posts that assume this concept is untrue without addressing it directly.
Yes: they’re positive effects. So let me rephrase that, since you’re picking nits: whether something is an asshole move isn’t determined by its net effect. It’s determined by there being plenty of negative effects with no nontrivial positive effects. IOW, all asshole moves have a net negative effect, but not all acts with a net negative effect are asshole moves.
And note the real problem in that article: the idiot judge acted as though a woman’s increasing her risk of rape (whether a real or false increase) somehow lessened the perpetrator’s guilt. That’s an idiotic claim, akin to suggesting that a car thief should get a lighter sentence for stealing an unlocked car. Guilt isn’t a zero-sum game; even if a woman acted in a way that increased her risk of rape, in no way does that lessen the guilt of the person that rapes her.
I wouldn’t be blaming the killing on Myers–as I don’t blame Jones for actual acts of murder that he didn’t commit–but I’d blame each for what they did which knowingly contributed to stoking an environment of hatred.
Which one had more prior knowledge that violence might ensue? If I recall, Meyers was shocked at the hatred and threats of violence that followed-no one really expected that kind of reaction.
As with Jones, I think provocation was precisely his goal, and he’s disingenuous to claim he expected anything but an angry reaction to his own hateful act.
Jones put his out on TV and Youtube, and of course he had been in the news last year, so he got more notice than Myers’ little blog. Otherwise I see their stunts as pretty similar.
As Varlosz said, you’re [to some degree] responsible for the predictable results of your actions. If the predictable result of your actions is that someone gets really upset, you’re to some degree responsible for that. If the predictable result of your actions is that someone gets killed, you’re to some degree responsible for that.
In November of 2004 Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam. Van Gogh directed an 11 minute film called **Submission **criticizing the Koranic interpretation of how women should be treated and was no doubt aware that it would piss a lot of people off, even some violent people. Given that, to what degree was van Gogh responsible for his own death? On another note, can’t we argue that Islamic extremist are responsible for Jones burning the Qur’an? After all, he probably wouldn’t have done it in the first place if the World Trade Center was still in one piece. Don’t the actions of rioters and Islamic extremist who threaten death to those that criticize Islam make them somewhat responsible for Dutch cartoonist, van Gogh, and Jones?
He wasn’t trying to get himself killed, so the analogy doesn’t work. Now, if someone else trying to kill van Gogh had published advertisements in Islamic publications talking about how von Gogh’s film showed why Muslims were all Satanic pig eaters, then the analogy would work.
Christians and Muslims have hated each other for much longer than that.
I don’t really understand your argument. For starters I do not believe Jones was trying to get people killed. He was certainly aware that he would piss a lot of Muslims off and I’m sure he was aware that some of them might even react violently. The same is no doubt true of van Gogh who must have realized that some violent Muslims would no doubt like to harm him because his film’s content. Nor do I think Jones is entirely risk free in this venture. If a Dutch filmmaker can be murdered in Holland by a Muslim extremist why not a preacher in the United States? Because from where I’m sitting if you hold Jones to a shared responsibility for the riots and killing then you cannot help but hold van Gogh partially responsible for his own murder as well.
Well yeah, but how much thought do you think Jones gave to Muslims before 9/11?