18 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think the responsibility lies on both sides. If you think nobody would adopt a prejudice when you repeat it again and again, you are overestimating mankind. Not everybody has the same ability to reason and analyse. So I believe that I am partly responsible if I repeat a prejudice over and over again and someone else adopts it. That's where something I said in another thread comes in, it's not just important what I say, but also to whom.
You're mistaken. It would not.
It's a shame that you hold the the rest of mankind's capacity for analysis and reason in such low esteem (unless you meant the hypothetical me specifically). I don't.
18 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet's do an experiment.
That's probably because they are uneducated, camel-riding Pakistanis.
Accumulate enough recs on this post to bring it to the top of the Recommended list, and in two weeks, let's make an RHP vote about whether people here actually believe that all Pakistanis are uneducated and ride camels, and whether my post influenced that belief.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI was talking about the hypothetical you (though I believe every person has such prejudices to a greater or lesser extent).
You're mistaken. It would not.
It's a shame that you hold the the rest of mankind's capacity for analysis and reason in such low esteem (unless you meant the hypothetical me specifically). I don't.
Incidentally, if you don't hold the rest of mankind's (or at least a good chunk of them) capacity for analysis and reason in low esteem, then what are you on about in the majority of your posts in this forum?
18 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTheir refusal to make use of that capacity out of laziness.
Incidentally, if you don't hold the rest of mankind's (or at least a good chunk of them) capacity for analysis and reason in low esteem, then what are you on about in the majority of your posts in this forum?
If I thought most people here truly lacked the capacity, I wouldn't waste my time.
You will note, however, that there are some posters that I simply don't bother with. Deduce.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet's replace "gun dealer" with "Bishop" and "gun-toting killer" with "molesting priest" for a moment.
Doesn't your argument make the gun dealer partly morally culpable, since not all gun owners are capable of exercising enough self-control to stay within the bounds of the law?
By your logic, the Bishops had no moral culpability in the subsequent crimes committed by these priests as the action was the latter's alone.
In the past, you have argued against this conclusion. Now your logic seems to support it. What gives?
18 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat does not follow from my argument.
By your logic, the Bishops had no moral culpability in the subsequent crimes committed by these priests as the action was the latter's alone.
The Bishop-priest relationship is substantially different.
The Bishop bestows the priest with powers and protections in exchange for duties that the priest carries out using those powers and protections.
If the gun dealer gave out guns and pay in exchange for having people patrol his estate as their form of employment, and one of them went beserk and starting shooting kids that strayed onto the property, the relationship would be more similar, and I would hold that gun dealer responsible. He is negligent in handling his resources.
The dealer/buyer relationship ends at the transaction. The Bishop-priest relationship persists for the time that the priest is using the Bishop's resouces in his role as the Bishop's agent.
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYes. If a gun-dealer has good reason to suspect that the person who wants to buy a gun is not capable of exercising enough self-control to stay within the bounds of law (for example because the person is drunk or a child), and he still sells the gun, I would hold him partly responsible for the consequences. And I am all for laws which prevent that anybody can just go and buy a gun.
Doesn't your argument make the gun dealer partly morally culpable, since not all gun owners are capable of exercising enough self-control to stay within the bounds of the law?
18 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHa ha ha ha ......
Let's do an experiment.
Accumulate enough recs on this post to bring it to the top of the Recommended list, and in two weeks, let's make an RHP vote about whether people here actually believe that all Pakistanis are uneducated and ride camels, and whether my post influenced that belief.
18 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThere are those that would argue with the point that the gun seller's responsibility ends with the transaction, or that the bartender's ends with his sale of alcohol to someone who gets drunk and drives his car into a pedestrian.
That does not follow from my argument.
The Bishop-priest relationship is substantially different.
The Bishop bestows the priest with powers and protections in exchange for duties that the priest carries out using those powers and protections.
If the gun dealer gave out guns and pay in exchange for having people patrol his estate as their form ...[text shortened]... for the time that the priest is using the Bishop's resouces in his role as the Bishop's agent.