| | Joe,
First, I did not argue that the photographer was guilty for the war, only complicit in the murder of that girl which he tried to justify by the ridiculous idea of noninterference, He was willing to enter a war zone to make money off this girl, but not willing to help her afterward. I lay complicity in her death, not the entire war at his feet.
Also, which of the two titles, or please list all of them, do you find so offensive? I had in mind the Nasty title for the caveat. I give my pieces titles mainly as a memorable tags so that (thanks to Steve Wolfer - wish he was still around) I can look them up by memory at a later date.
I think Jon's analogy is reasonable, by the way. For someone to make the argument that I feel justified in going around killing whom I like on a whim seems utterly ridiculous to me. Perhaps someone could tell me what premises I am missing to get myself to the conclusion I wish to reach, that when civilization has fallen all about you, the rules have changed, and each man has become a law unto himself. My priority, if anything would be to avoid such a situation - not to take advantage of it to kill paparazzi. But I think that Jon & Ed have at least made clear enough cases that some people have indicated by their actions that they may just be inhuman enouh for one to view as a threat. Do I need to wait for them to kill me first before seeing them under those extreme circumstances as a mortal danger?
Given my recent posts to Virginia and the sum of what I've said in its full context, comparing me to a rioter looking for a chance to loot is unfair and insulting and just plain ridiculous.
I am tired of repeating myself, so perhaps someone who is critical of me here could list such circumstances where there is no protection of law where one would be justified in judging some people to be depraved enough to be enough of a threat for me to take proactive steps up to possibly killing them? Or is quoting Rand one's only resort in lifeboat circumstances?
In any case, calling me names doesn't count as an argument, especially not an emotionalist, when all my actual life experience has shown me that the only emotions I might feel in such a circumstance would be fear and disgust but a determination to act on the side of the innocent and self-preservation.
Once a legitimate legal entity exists to protect the rights of that girl and my rights, then I am quite happy to let that entity do its job. Outside such protections, outside a polity, I agree with Aristotle that men are little more than beasts and that photographer, not being part of the solution, was, however minor, part of the problem. Certainly there would be more important foes than he, but no one has expanded the argument so far, and in the context, of myself, the girl, and him, he is a foe. In the context of all I have said and without dropping any of my qualifications, when does a person stop quoting Rand and start acting on his own judgement?
Ted Keer
(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/06, 2:36pm)
|
|
