Celebrate or Not: Bin Laden's Death - Thoughts?

[cobalt124]

"t is this mercy that makes us different from such people" are IMO just a manifestation of an holier-than-thou bias.

Are you sure it's not just a self-serving bias or a form of a cognitive dissonance resolved by justifying your more merciful nature as better, more human, then the nature of the others who don't care a killer was shot ?

I know you are not asking me directly, but I feel the need to answer this. For me it was simply the difference between how I felt "not caring a killer was shot", and how I felt expressing compassion and mercy. I'm afraid "holier than thou" and "your more merciful nature as better" don't come into it, it's more to do with being able to look at myself in the mirror and live with who I see.

 

[DanP]

I know you are not asking me directly, but I feel the need to answer this. For me it was simply the difference between how I felt "not caring a killer was shot", and how I felt expressing compassion and mercy. I'm afraid "holier than thou" and "your more merciful nature as better" don't come into it, it's more to do with being able to look at myself in the mirror and live with who I see.

You realize that this attitude can be the result of a cognitive dissonance, or a powerful self-serving bias ?

 

[cobalt124]

You realize that this attitude can be the result of a cognitive dissonance, or a powerful self-serving bias ?

I just prefer who I am with the latter over who I was with the former.

 

[russ_watters]

It is this mercy that makes us different from such people. If we wouldn't feel sad to see somebody die, then we would be just like them. The mercy is wasted, but at least I'm glad I felt the mercy...

[separate post]

You need to realize that there are no wolves out there. The wolves are just other people who are looking out for their own people and believes. What is a wolf in one peoples eye, becomes a sheepdog in anothers

I knew eventually this thread would lead us to moral equivalence between celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and celebrating the death of the man who was most responsible for their deaths.

They are not equivalent. Not even close. One deserved to die while the 3000 did not.

 

[DR13]

I knew eventually this thread would lead us to moral equivalence between celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and celebrating the death of the man who was most responsible for their deaths.

They are not equivalent. Not even close. One deserved to die while the 3000 did not.

Agreed.

 

[ideasrule]

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

This seems like a piece of propaganda a politician makes up before declaring war, or a paragraph from a children's cartoon about good vs. evil. If only the real world could be cleanly divided into such clear categories!

The moment we declare someone "evil", we tend to forget that the "evil" person is a human being with essentially the same DNA, same brain, and same emotions. We neglect to consider the possibility that we could be that evil person, if we had his upbringing and experiences. We also neglect to critically examine the factors behind that person's evil views in an effort to prevent those factors from surfacing in others.

Let's critically examine Osama. He obviously has no qualms about violence against civilians, but his goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible; it's to diminish the oppressive influence of the United States in the Middle East. We can argue forever about the ethics of killing civilians in a war with an oppressive regime, but in practice every country, including the United States, accepts that civilian casualties are inevitable in a conflict and believes that they're justifiable if they help reach the military goal.

Another point: Osama killed only 3000 civilians in the WTC attacks, and even that is many times greater than what he planned for. The 1948 civil war that started due to the United Nations forcibly partitioning Arab territory had 10,000+ casualties. The 1982 Lebanon invasion that Osama used to justify his terrorism had 30,000 Arab casualties, about 10,000 of which were civilians. Others have already mentioned the Iraq War, which caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. These numbers alone dwarf the 3000 killed in 9/11. We haven't even begun considering Israel's human rights abuses in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, which make bin Laden's anger at the West much more justifiable.

I'm in no way supporting bin Laden, but his actions are at least understandable from the perspective of a delusional religious nut trying to end the (not entirely fictitious) American oppression of the Arab world.

 

[DR13]

This seems like a piece of propaganda a politician makes up before declaring war, or a paragraph from a children's cartoon about good vs. evil. If only the real world could be cleanly divided into such clear categories!

The moment we declare someone "evil", we tend to forget that the "evil" person is a human being with essentially the same DNA, same brain, and same emotions. We neglect to consider the possibility that we could be that evil person, if we had his upbringing and experiences. We also neglect to critically examine the factors behind that person's evil views in an effort to prevent those factors from surfacing in others.

Let's critically examine Osama. He obviously has no qualms about violence against civilians, but his goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible; it's to diminish the oppressive influence of the United States in the Middle East. We can argue forever about the ethics of killing civilians in a war with an oppressive regime, but in practice every country, including the United States, accepts that civilian casualties are inevitable in a conflict and believes that they're justifiable if they help reach the military goal.

Another point: Osama killed only 3000 civilians in the WTC attacks, and even that is many times greater than what he planned for. The 1948 civil war that started due to the United Nations forcibly partitioning Arab territory had 10,000+ casualties. The 1982 Lebanon invasion that Osama used to justify his terrorism had 30,000 Arab casualties, about 10,000 of which were civilians. Others have already mentioned the Iraq War, which caused hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. These numbers alone dwarf the 3000 killed in 9/11. We haven't even begun considering Israel's human rights abuses in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.

I'm in no way supporting bin Laden, but his actions are at least understandable from the perspective of a delusional religious nut trying to end the (not entirely fictitious) American oppression of the Arab world.

I have no problem calling OBL evil. And what do you mean he didnt mean for so many people to die? He flew planes into tall buildings in populated areas. Do you have a source for this? Also, the unfortunate death of civillians during the crossfire of war is nothing like ramming a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. In one case, innocent death is accidental and kept to a minimum. In the other case, massive amounts of innocent death is the goal.

On a side note: Please don't bring up Israel. If you want to debate that then start a new thread and I will see you there.

 

[Proton Soup]

People I know seem fairly polarized between whether or not it's acceptable to celebrate bin Laden's death. Any thoughts?

when Ted Bundy was executed, some of the police here celebrated at one of the local BBQ joints with a Bundycue.

personally, i think it's creepy and uncalled for.

 

[jobyts]

I have no problem calling OBL evil. And what do you mean he didnt mean for so many people to die? He flew planes into tall buildings in populated areas. Do you have a source for this? Also, the unfortunate death of civillians during the crossfire of war is nothing like ramming a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. In one case, innocent death is accidental and kept to a minimum. In the other case, massive amounts of innocent death is the goal.

On a side note: Please don't bring up Israel. If you want to debate that then start a new thread and I will see you there.

What do you think the reason Al Queda turned against US? Why they were not against, say Norway?

 

[DR13]

What do you think the reason Al Queda turned against US? Why they were not against, say Norway?

Because he doesn't like western culture. What is your point? If you don't like something, then ram a plane into it?

 

[micromass]

I have no problem calling OBL evil. And what do you mean he didnt mean for so many people to die? He flew planes into tall buildings in populated areas. Do you have a source for this? Also, the unfortunate death of civillians during the crossfire of war is nothing like ramming a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. In one case, innocent death is accidental and kept to a minimum. In the other case, massive amounts of innocent death is the goal.

Hmm, yes, but that is the Western point-of-view. Osama didn't see it that way. He saw americans killing his people, invading his countries and support oppressive regimes. And what he wanted to do was to try to stop all of this, and he saw no other way than to send planes in a building filled with people. He was a man filled with hate and delusions, but I don't necessairly think that makes him "evil".

USA is holding people captive in Guantanamo without the chance of a trial (of whom some are innocent!). I'm sorry, but if Osama is evil, then this is also evil! Nonetheless, people find this more justifiable.

And for the record: I don't want to give criticism to the US and support for the Bin Ladens, at all. I just don't want to be too quick in calling people evil or good, because by that same standards, everybody would be evil...

 

[russ_watters]

The moment we declare someone "evil", we tend to forget that the "evil" person is a human being with essentially the same DNA, same brain, and same emotions.

I most certainly do not have the same emotions as Bin Laden.

We neglect to consider the possibility that we could be that evil person, if we had his upbringing and experiences.

So what? Poor upbringing does not decrease the level of evil. We are defined by our actions, not our potential. This is a red herring argument.

He obviously has no qualms about violence against civilians, but his goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible; it's to diminish the oppressive influence of the United States in the Middle East.

You need to read his manifesto more closely. You're not correct. You're making-up excuses for him.

We can argue forever about the ethics of killing civilians in a war with an oppressive regime, but in practice every country, including the United States, accepts that civilian casualties are inevitable in a conflict and believes that they're justifiable if they help reach the military goal.

Not true. There is a world of difference betwen killing civilians accidentally and targeting civilians.

Another point: Osama killed only 3000 civilians in the WTC attacks, and even that is many times greater than what he planned for.

Source? The attack easily could have killed 10x more than it did. I would have expected he was disappointed so many people got out before the buildings collapsed.

...which make bin Laden's anger at the West much more justifiable.

I'm in no way supporting bin Laden...

These two statements contradict each other.

but his actions are at least understandable from the perspective of a delusional religious nut trying to end the (not entirely fictitious) American oppression of the Arab world.

Oh, now I get it - that whole post was "delusional religious nut" logic?

Why in the world would we want to analyze this using "delusional religious nut" logic? I'm not interested in "delusional religious nut" logic or morality.

 

[russ_watters]

USA is holding people captive in Guantanamo without the chance of a trial (of whom some are innocent!). I'm sorry, but if Osama is evil, then this is also evil! Nonetheless, people find this more justifiable.

[setting aside the factually wrong part about no chance of a trial...]

So in your view, holding people prisoner is morally equivalent to murdering them? Where does your view of morality come from?

 

[micromass]

[setting aside the factually wrong part about no chance of a trial...]

So in your view, holding people prisoner is morally equivalent to murdering them? Where does your view of morality come from?

Don't twist my words please. I never said it was equivalent. I said it was also an "evil" act.

 

[DR13]

Hmm, yes, but that is the Western point-of-view. Osama didn't see it that way. He saw americans killing his people, invading his countries and support oppressive regimes. And what he wanted to do was to try to stop all of this, and he saw no other way than to send planes in a building filled with people. He was a man filled with hate and delusions, but I don't necessairly think that makes him "evil".

USA is holding people captive in Guantanamo without the chance of a trial (of whom some are innocent!). I'm sorry, but if Osama is evil, then this is also evil! Nonetheless, people find this more justifiable.

And for the record: I don't want to give criticism to the US and support for the Bin Ladens, at all. I just don't want to be too quick in calling people evil or good, because by that same standards, everybody would be evil...

Your last paragraph is a fair point.

However, a man filled with hate and delusions who then acts on those feelings is evil whether it be OBL or an American-born murderer. Just because he can justify it to himself does not make it right (or even ok).

 

[micromass]

However, a man filled with hate and delusions who then acts on those feelings is evil whether it be OBL or an American-born murderer. Just because he can justify it to himself does not make it right (or even ok).

I can agree with this statement. It does not make it right or ok, far from it! And anybody performing these acts has to be tried before a judge and answer for himself.

I do think Osama is an evil man, but what I want to understand is where he's coming from. What caused him to be so filled with hatred against innocent people...

 

[jobyts]

Because he doesn't like western culture. What is your point? If you don't like something, then ram a plane into it?

There are many countries in this world that have western culture. Don't you think there could be more reasons than that for specifically targeting the US? Which specific cultural part of the west do you think he doesn't like?

I'm here no way to justify OBL's actions. But if you think OBL is doing all these attacks just because he doesn't like western culture, you are fooling yourself.

 

[DR13]

There are many countries in this world that have western culture. Don't you think there could be more reasons than that for specifically targeting the US? Which specific cultural part of the west do you think he doesn't like?

I'm here no way to justify OBL's actions. But if you think OBL is doing all these attacks just because he doesn't like western culture, you are fooling yourself.

You seem to have an answer already in mind. Why don't you go ahead and tell us. Personally, I just think he was an islamic extremist who hated the west and wanted to see all of "infadels" burn and go to hell.

 

[russ_watters]

Don't twist my words please. I never said it was equivalent. I said it was also an "evil" act.

You said if one was evil, then the other was also evil. Why does one being evil make the other evil?

And you said some people find it more justifiable, which implies you find them equally unjustifiable.

Explain!

 

[russ_watters]

There are many countries in this world that have western culture. Don't you think there could be more reasons than that for specifically targeting the US? Which specific cultural part of the west do you think he doesn't like?

I'm here no way to justify OBL's actions. But if you think OBL is doing all these attacks just because he doesn't like western culture, you are fooling yourself.

It's because the US is the leader of the West. Here's Osama's letter to America: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

He lists reasons why he's fighting us. The first is that we are fighting against Islam and he lists Palestine, Somalia, Chechnya, India (Kashmir), Lebanon, and Iraq. Ironically, we only actually ever had troops in three of those places and always with a coalition, but we're seen as The unifying force/support-base. We're the leader, so we get blamed for everything.

Then in the "what do we want" section, first and foremost: convert to Islam. All others flow from that. Basically, the whole tirade reduces to: 'convert to Islam or die'.

[typo fixed]

 

[micromass]

You said if one was evil, then the other was also evil. Why does one being evil make the other evil?

Hmm, you are correct, my post does seem to imply that. I'm sorry, I didn't mean it like that.

I just intended to say that USA's actions can very well be called evil, and some actions certainly were.

And you said some people find it more justifiable, which implies you find them equally unjustifiable.

No, just because somebody find it more justifiable, doesn't mean that I find it more justifiable. I just want to present the point-of-view of the others here. A point-of-view that I understand, but that I not agree with!

There will certainly be people who will find 9/11 justifiable because of "crimes" of the USA. I do understand where they're coming from and why they think this way, but I don't share their vision. I have always found it very important to understand other persons's views on things, even if I find them despicable...

 

[micromass]

It's because the US is the leader of the West. Here's Obama's letter to America: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver.

Risky typo

 

[rootX]

Risky typo

 

[russ_watters]

I just intended to say that USA's actions can very well be called evil, and some actions certainly were.

Ok, well, that seems like a pretty loose use of the word "evil" to me.

No, just because somebody find it more justifiable, doesn't mean that I find it more justifiable.

Right: it implies you find it either equally or less justifiable. Again, implying an equivalence - or worse - of American and Bin Laden actions.

I just want to present the point-of-view of the others here. A point-of-view that I understand, but that I not agree with!

I'm not sure I see the point of arguing by proxy a point that most of us seem to agree is wrong!

There will certainly be people who will find 9/11 justifiable because of "crimes" of the USA. I do understand where they're coming from and why they think this way, but I don't share their vision. I have always found it very important to understand other persons's views on things, even if I find them despicable...

Why is it important? What does that accomplish?

 

[chiro]

I don't know what happened to your post. But personally, I don't like difference in the mentors' reaction to those who offend American sentiments vs those who offend non-Americans [https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3284039&postcount=294"].

One thing that I wanted to point out when I made the post (and you can check this for yourself) is that my comments were with respect to the US military (and consequently the US government at some level) and not the general US citizen.

Also the link I posted was to a journal article and it wasn't some cheap shot or un-substantiated comment which is what this kind of forum would expect when an argument is presented.

Lots of people hate the US, but unfortunately a lot of people associated the hate with the entire country instead of a small select group of people that are not representative of the whole, and I can understand why a majority of people are not happy with this outcome.

 

[KingNothing]

We as humans have a biological instinct to dislike death (even for people we don't know, and who don't affect us). Sometimes the positive outcomes of certain deaths are enough to override this.

Why don't we want poor homeless people to do?

 

[ideasrule]

I most certainly do not have the same emotions as Bin Laden.

I don't believe for a minute that bin Laden's body evolved a new emotion that you aren't capable of, or that you've evolved a new emotion that bin Laden is not capable of.

So what? Poor upbringing does not decrease the level of evil. We are defined by our actions, not our potential.

This is very true, and we have the right to judge others based on their actions. However, when I hear about a serial murderer and learn later on that he was a victim of severe child abuse, I can empathize with the murderer. Treating him with hatred does nothing to change his violent mindset, and certainly does nothing to rehabilitate people like him. Rather, we (meaning society) should focus on understanding him as a human being defined by his unfortunate upbringing, so that we can better understand the causes of crime and try to prevent them from influencing law-abiding citizens.

You need to read his manifesto more closely. You're not correct. You're making-up excuses for him.

Here is a summary of bin Laden's 2002 letter to the United States. You can read it in full here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6537.htm

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
(Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

Answer to Q1:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
(a) You attacked us in Palestine
(b) You attacked us in Somalia

(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:
(Rebuttals follow, concluding with statement that American civilians are not completely innocent.)

All of the above perfectly support my point that bin Laden is killing civilians as a means to end American oppression, not as a goal in and of itself.

Not true. There is a world of difference betwen killing civilians accidentally and targeting civilians.

Yes, and the Americans can afford to avoid attacking civilians deliberately because its forces have an extreme technological and numerical advantage. What happened in Vietnam and WWII? The United States (and for WWII, all other Western powers) deliberately bombed civilians to slow the enemy's economy. In Vietnam, the US gradually escalated its attacks on North Vietnamese production facilities as the war dragged on. In WWII, the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as firebombing every major city; the British destroyed Dresden. I think these attacks were justifiable because they helped end the war, despite the regrettable civilian deaths.

Source? The attack easily could have killed 10x more than it did. I would have expected he was disappointed so many people got out before the buildings collapsed.

bin Laden was not expecting either tower to collapse. I highly doubt he was remorseful that he killed more than he expected, but the attack was not deliberately aimed at weak points in the building. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...den-didnt-expect-New-York-towers-to-fall.html

These two statements contradict each other. Oh, now I get it - that whole post was "delusional religious nut" logic?

Why in the world would we want to analyze this using "delusional religious nut" logic? I'm not interested in "delusional religious nut" logic or morality.

That post was most certainly not "delusional religious nut" logic. If your question is why I don't support bin Laden despite understanding his anger, the reasons are:

(1) It may be justifiable to kill civilians deliberately if it has a high chance of ending the war earlier. bin Laden's terrorism has zero chance of making the US or Israel more liberal-minded in its Middle East policy.
(2) I'm an atheist, and you can guess what I think about bin Laden's religious fundamentalism. However, being brainwashed and delusional is not the same as being evil. bin Laden just happens to be born in the Middle East and deluded into believing in jihad, instead of being born in the US and deluded into believing in young-earth creationism.

 

[ideasrule]

I have no problem calling OBL evil. And what do you mean he didnt mean for so many people to die? He flew planes into tall buildings in populated areas. Do you have a source for this? Also, the unfortunate death of civillians during the crossfire of war is nothing like ramming a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people. In one case, innocent death is accidental and kept to a minimum. In the other case, massive amounts of innocent death is the goal.

See my response to russ.

On a side note: Please don't bring up Israel. If you want to debate that then start a new thread and I will see you there.

Don't bring up Israel? Osama's own justification for his terrorism, as well as the reason he became an extremist in the first place, is based on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Trying to discuss Osama without mentioning Israel is like trying to discuss physics without mentioning Newton's laws.

 

[DR13]

Don't bring up Israel? Osama's own justification for his terrorism, as well as the reason he became an extremist in the first place, is based on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Trying to discuss Osama without mentioning Israel is like trying to discuss physics without mentioning Newton's laws.

It's mainly that I disagree with your characterization of Israel's actions as human rights abuses. However, I do not want to derail this thread by starting a discussion on Israel so I will just drop it.

 

[ideasrule]

It's mainly that I disagree with your characterization of Israel's actions as human rights abuses. However, I do not want to derail this thread by starting a discussion on Israel so I will just drop it.

Oh no, that was not my intention. My point is that I could see why some people, including bin Laden, would characterize Israel's actions as human rights abuses. We don't need to discuss whether I personally believe this.

 

[DanP]

This seems like a piece of propaganda a politician makes up before declaring war, or a paragraph from a children's cartoon about good vs. evil.

It is propaganda. But the gist of it is not a story of good and evil, of devils and angels, although these words where used. The wolf is and always was the one who feeds on sheep. It is the one who preys on your in-group. The consequence is the same. The sheep is slaughtered.

If only the real world could be cleanly divided into such clear categories!

See above, you misinterpreted the text.

The moment we declare someone "evil", we tend to forget that the "evil" person is a human being with essentially the same DNA, same brain, and same emotions. We neglect to consider the possibility that we could be that evil person, if we had his upbringing and experiences. We also neglect to critically examine the factors behind that person's evil views in an effort to prevent those factors from surfacing in others.

So ? The DNA you bear makes you the most menacing life form on this planet against other humans. Ill put it very simple, the "evil one" is the one who harms your in-group.

I'm in no way supporting bin Laden, but his actions are at least understandable from the perspective of a delusional religious nut trying to end the (not entirely fictitious) American oppression of the Arab world.

Ok. Whats your point ? That understanding someone must necessarily have the result of mercy ? No it doesn't. The understanding of someone's motivations and behaviors will bring out in sheep emotions of mercy. In sheepdog this understanding will start different mental processes.

 

[DanP]

We as humans have a biological instinct to dislike death (even for people we don't know, and who don't affect us). Sometimes the positive outcomes of certain deaths are enough to override this.

Why don't we want poor homeless people to do?

No. Don't generalize. Not all humans have this "instinct" in them to dislike the death of others.
Who are those "others" is important for many humans. Depending on this, you may care or not about their death.

Don't fall in the trap of believing that all humans are like you.

 

[DanP]

And for the record: I don't want to give criticism to the US and support for the Bin Ladens, at all. I just don't want to be too quick in calling people evil or good, because by that same standards, everybody would be evil...

It's not about good and evil and other children stories micromass. It's about social groups, and how different humans within those groups report themselves in relation with other groups which cause a harm to the interests of the group. Make no mistakes, the sheepdog in your group are capable of a lot of aggression and behaviors who may make the sheep twitch in fear. Because they remind it of the behavior of the wolf. But at least the sheep is guarded. It;s way of life is preserved and can more or less have a safe haven where she can graze grass in peace, and not worry about harder decisions.

 

[Proton Soup]

It is propaganda. But the gist of it is not a story of good and evil, of devils and angels, although these words where used. The wolf is and always was the one who feeds on sheep. It is the one who preys on your in-group. The consequence is the same. The sheep is slaughtered.



See above, you misinterpreted the text.



So ? The DNA you bear makes you the most menacing life form on this planet against other humans. Ill put it very simple, the "evil one" is the one who harms your in-group.




Ok. Whats your point ? That understanding someone must necessarily have the result of mercy ? No it doesn't. The understanding of someone's motivations and behaviors will bring out in sheep emotions of mercy. In sheepdog this understanding will start different mental processes.

lol, so soldiers are sheepdogs, and citizens are sheep. that's very clever.

too many puppies if you ask me.

 

[Adyssa]

It's not about good and evil and other children stories micromass. It's about social groups, and how different humans within those groups report themselves in relation with other groups which cause a harm to the interests of the group. Make no mistakes, the sheepdog in your group are capable of a lot of aggression and behaviors who may make the sheep twitch in fear. Because they remind it of the behavior of the wolf. But at least the sheep is guarded. It;s way of life is preserved and can more or less have a safe haven where she can graze grass in peace, and not worry about harder decisions.

1984 (Orwell) comes to mind.

 

[DanP]

lol, so soldiers are sheepdogs, and citizens are sheep. that's very clever.

too many puppies if you ask me.

What do you want to say ? That soldiers are not citizens ? In any case, you can add politicians to your puppy list, ppl working in public service, and a nice percentage of other humans who do different jobs, but who are not not blinded and in denial.

As for the rest of the flock, it suffers from a form of Stockholm syndrome. Oh, so much misplaced empathy for the ones who shaft it. Rather than wasting your empathy on the ones who slaughtered your kin , go out and help an old lady cross the street, or help your old neighbor carry her bags to her home. Or whatever, make a child happy.

 

[micromass]

What do you want to say ? That soldiers are not citizens ? In any case, you can add politicians to your puppy list, ppl working in public service, and a nice percentage of other humans who do different jobs, but who are not not blinded and in denial.

And let me guess. You're the one who is not blinded and in denial? How convenient...

As for the rest of the flock, it suffers from a form of Stockholm syndrome. Oh, so much misplaced empathy for the ones who shaft it. Rather than wasting your empathy on the ones who slaughtered your kin , go out and help an old lady cross the street, or help your old neighbor carry her bags to her home. Or whatever, make a child happy.

The great thing about empathy is that you don't get to chose who you give your empathy to. It's an emotion that comes without you wanting it to come.
And who says that we don't also make children happy or help old ladies? You can do that too, and still feel empathy for others who may not have been so fortunate in life...

 

[DanP]

And let me guess. You're the one who is not blinded and in denial? How convenient...

Id post of video to the beheading of Eugen Armstrong for you to watch it, but I am afraid it doesn't fit well with the regulations of this board. Maybe it would make you see clearer who is in denial. Just google it. Watch it. Then waste some more tears and empathy for the poor beheaders, thinking what garbagety childhood they had, how they have the same DNA as you do, how they feel the same emotions , how they did not been very lucky in live and other such platitudes.

The great thing about empathy is that you don't get to chose who you give your empathy to. It's an emotion that comes without you wanting it to come.

Yes you are right. Then I consider myself damn lucky my brain doesn't "chooses" to waste energy on generating empathic feelings towards some of my fellow humans.

 

[micromass]

Id post of video to the beheading of Eugen Armstrong for you to watch it, but I am afraid it doesn't fit well with the regulations of this board. Maybe it would make you see clearer who is in denial. Just google it. Watch it. Then waste some more tears and empathy for the poor beheaders, thinking what garbagety childhood they had, how they have the same DNA as you do, how they feel the same emotions , how they did not been very lucky in live and other such platitudes.

You evaded my point. Do you feel better than the people who do feel empathy towards others??

Yes you are right. Then I consider myself damn lucky my brain doesn't "chooses" to waste energy on generating empathic feelings towards some of my fellow humans.

But the one that doesn't feel empathy, can only feel hate. I'm sorry, but I don't like to hate other people, they're not worth it...

 

[DanP]

But the one that doesn't feel empathy, can only feel hate. I'm sorry, but I don't like to hate other people, they're not worth it...

Your assessment is incorrect, but anyway, this made me laugh , no offense. So you consider specific others unworthy of your hate, but at the same time you proclaim your unflinching empathy towards them.

Whats going to be ? Unworthy, or so worthy that you are willingly given to give them their empathy, find a place for them in your heart like all good human beings must do. Do tell me pls. Or maybe the brain is just playing the cards you got at your birth and the modulations of your social upbringing ?

Besides, hate , as empathy, is an emotion. As you said, "the great thing about empathy is that you don't get to chose who you give your empathy to". It's the same with hate. Or if it is not, your theory about the subjects of empathy doesn't hold any water,

 

[micromass]

Your assessment is incorrect, but anyway, this made me laugh , no offense. So you consider specific others unworthy of your hate, but at the same time you proclaim your unflinching empathy towards them.

Whats going to be ? Unworthy, or so worthy that you are willingly given to give them their empathy, find a place for them in your heart like all good human beings must do. Do tell me pls. Or maybe the brain is just playing the cards you got at your birth and the modulations of your social upbringing ?

Besides, hate , as empathy, is an emotion. As you said, "the great thing about empathy is that you don't get to chose who you give your empathy to". It's the same with hate. Or if it is not, your theory about the subjects of empathy doesn't hold any water,

You didn't answer my question.

 

[DanP]

You evaded my point. Do you feel better than the people who do feel empathy towards others??

How the hell should I know how does a person who feels empathy towards be-headers feel about themselves. I am not like you, I can't think like you. I can't compare myself to you. Like I said, I consider myself lucky that my empathy doesn't kick in for such beings and this is as fair as an answer I can give without markedly falling into self serving biases. Your characteristics may be an adaptive advantage in a certain environment, while mine can be an advantage in other environments.

I would certainly not have the arrogance to proclaim and I paraphrase "It is this mercy that makes us different from such people". IMO this is just a self-serving bias. Sheep, wolf, sheepdog, none is intrinsically better than the other (from an adapative PoV) when all its said and done. They just exercise different functions in different social contexts.

 

[micromass]

How the hell should I know how do a person who feel empathy towards be-header feel about themselves. I am not like you, I can't think like you. I can't compare myself to you. Like I said, I consider myself lucky that my empathy doesn't kick in for such beings and this is as fair as an answer I can give without markedly falling into self serving biases. Your characteristics may be an adaptive advantage in a certain environment, while mine can be an advantage in other environments.

Fair point, you're probably correct in this.

I would certainly not have the arrogance to proclaim and I paraphrase "It is this mercy that makes us different from such people". IMO this is just a self-serving bias. Sheep, wolf, sheepdog, none is better than the other when all its said and done. They just exercise different functions in different social contexts.

Well, it may seems like a self-serving bias from your point-of-view. But your entire "sheep,wolf, sheepdog"-story and things like "you're in denial and blind" also seem like a self-serving bias in my point-of-view.

I can't make you feel empathy, that doesn't make you a bad person, at all. But you can't make me feel hate towards others, you probably find that naive, but so be it. Let's just accept that we're all different here. And isn't that a good thing? Being all thesame certainly would be a boring world...

 

[DanP]

Well, it may seems like a self-serving bias from your point-of-view. But your entire "sheep,wolf, sheepdog"-story and things like "you're in denial and blind" also seem like a self-serving bias in my point-of-view.

Think a bit this from a different PoV. Do you feel drawn to jobs positions in which you may have to decide the fate of the others, do whatever **** it takes and live with the burden? Would you want to be a criminal judge ? Prosecutor ? A federal Marshall ? Military ? Civilian security contractor ? A politician ? Drawn to other high risk - high power jobs ?

If you feel drawn, it is most likely your a dog. Frankly I consider the dog seeing the threats better than the sheep, it has been breed for this (for humans this is a combination of genes and up-brining ), and it is better equipped to deal with them.

Dont look at terms sheep and sheepdog as insulting. This is not the intention. Certainly not mine, and I think Col Grossman who wrote that piece didn't intended to insult anybody as well. The basic message is that some humans are better equipped than others to recognize and negotiate threats and deal with them. It doesn't make then intrinsically better humans, it makes them better at some specific jobs. And ya, neither are the dogs biases free, no human is.

I can't make you feel empathy, that doesn't make you a bad person, at all. But you can't make me feel hate towards others, you probably find that naive, but so be it. Let's just accept that we're all different here. And isn't that a good thing? Being all the same certainly would be a boring world...

I agree 100% with you. I don't want to change you, besides, it is an impossible task. Your personality and behavioral traits are most likely stable by a long time and they don't evolve anymore. As are mine. It's a good thing we are different.