Quote: Originally Posted by Libra Girl
I do not believe for one second, (just my own personal opinion, based on no other evidence than intuition) that the Mother was out of her senses, yet she was able to stand by and watch her babe's horrific sufferings, and NOT know that she was murdering him? This would not have happened overnight. How could she have been so insensitive and uncaring, or so stupid as to have believed such nonsense as his 'resurrection' after starvation?
And, even in the unlikely event that THIS too was the case, that the Mother was mentally, or emotionally incapacitated; is it being implied that everyone else involved and around her was also? No, I do not believe that either.
Gilbert got it about right, as usual. We should seriously be looking towards some type of psychological examination before people are allowed to have children at all.
My heart bleeds for what that poor little toddler went thro.
I am of the opinion that fallacious thinking almost certainly leads people to psychopathic behaviour. I have seen it first hand. It is the cornerstone of our war and propaganda machines for example. The most common method is to mix kinds, that is, to confuse groups and blur the middle. For example: "When we fight it is for freedom but when they fight it is against freedom."
The law of Identity tells us that a soldier is a soldier.
The Law of Excluded Middle tells us soldiers whether they are from Afghanistan or Canada are still soldiers.
The law of non-Contradiction tells us one of these statements must be false: Killing is good, killing is bad.
The only arguments to be made is of kind, that is, does this group belong to that one or is this group soldiers and that group something else.
There is also the justification argument: is it OK to kill when your country has been invaded?
If it is OK then it must be that killing is good. If it isn't OK then it must be that killing isn't good.
So whether it is good to kill or not is a subjective question depending on desired outcomes and classification:
We want Afghanistan to embrace democracy so it is OK for our soldiers to kill.
It isn't OK for the religious soldiers to kill because we don't like their flavour of religion.
Neither of these statements is true and neither justification is logical, however, after all the double speak is ignored, these are the sort of basic premises used to excuse the ongoing war.
Whatever excuse is used it will be likewise subjective and fallacious. I have not yet heard such an argument that wasn't at any rate nor have I been able to imagine one.
Given that this is the sort of thinking which governs our social norms and behaviour.
Given that such twisted and demented double think is acceptable in some circumstances it is unreasonable to think it shouldn't be in others. In other words, the majority of people could not figure out when subjective irrationality is OK (like in war) and when it isn't (like when trying to save a child's soul).
The very line that you are claiming is in its very nature subjective and irrational because you are saying killing is not good, however, our society clearly says it is.
You have been able to find some line of difference (intersection) it is unreasonable and fallacious to expect everyone to take on your subjective prejudices.
If this woman is guilty so too are the soldiers in Afghanistan. If she is charged so too should they be.
I say this because the notion of guilt in such a deluded and contradictory society as ours can only be determined by intent. Did she knowingly intend to kill the child while knowing killing was wrong?
Did the soldier knowingly drop a bomb on a group of people while knowing that killing was wrong?
Or is it that their fallacious and distorted thinking allowed them to act without knowing they were doing something wrong?
It isn't logic that you are appealing to when you say the lady should be charged. That there is a right and wrong that she should have known. All you are really saying is that it is your subjective opinion that she should have known because you wouldn't have done that yourself.
But you don't know that if you were in her situation you wouldn't have done the same thing.
In all probability, actually, you probably would have.
Because if you are a typical Canadian you already adhere to so many fallacious, contradictory and subjective beliefs that it is absurd for you to claim any kind of capacity for defence. Obviously I don't know you, I only mean if you are typical, and by that is that most Canadians have no defence. Perhaps you do but I doubt it because your condemnation of this lady demonstrates you don't.
: In the interest of not being hypocritical I need to say that I don't actually believe in good and bad. I used those labels only because they are culturally popular not because they hold any actual value. The terms are ancient euphemisms for beautiful and ugly, desired or undesired. IMO, there is no such thing as good and evil.
I realize this would change the entire character of my argument but I intended only to keep it confined within the basic norms of our culture which is so far removed from anything like reality I fear my actual opinion would take several volumes to prove. Non the less this more basic argument has a similar conclusion to one that would take longer to make.
Last edited by Scott Free; Apr 4th, 2009 at 06:05 PM..