Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

patrice

(47,992 posts)
28. I don't know. That doesn't excuse me, but it IS a fact. I. don't. know. & I do know:
Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:38 PM
Aug 2012

- This is the situation we are in; we are NOT in some other more ideal situation & pretending that we are, and acting upon that error, damages not only whatever good can rise out of our current situation, and hence the future too, but, also, therefore, damages the prospects of those future situations becoming something closer to that ideal that we all desire so much.

- These drone decisions are based upon probabilities, probabilities that I cannot calculate, because I do not possess the necessary information;

- People make decisions similar to drones, also based upon probabilities, which I, and perhaps they, cannot calculate, all of the time, decisions like whether and when to have an abortion, supporting capital punishment, and the right to bear and to use arms . . . we could even extend those types of decisions to how certain government or corporate economic policies contribute to the suffering and deaths of certain other persons, our own nationals or foreigners . . .

- The reason that it is necessary for people to make these and all similar such decisions is because, even if it were possible to write them, perfect laws, laws and regulations that fit ALL situations perfectly, ALL of the time, for ALL people, are not possible, so we MUST rely upon individual FREE rational decisions about individual behaviors, ALL behaviors, even just "flipping a switch." And even if we could write such perfect laws, they would not be good for humans in their effects upon the intrinsic value of freedom to who and what each person is, especially as that is manifested in more or less perfect decision/choice making by ALL persons;

- Since most/none of us are free enough to be making fully rational decisions, for or against all forms of more or less direct murder, it will do little or nothing, or even damage the processes of liberation, to ignore that fact and continue to pretend that we live in a FALSE ideal world where just pretending something, through some form of mumbo-jumbo, makes it true, instead of doing the rational, actual, concrete, down-and-dirty, low, boring, daily grind work of actually getting out there and helping people free themselves, so that drone (and all other such similar) decisions become less and less likely a "necessary" probability.

Targeted killing by drones is a war crime. RC Aug 2012 #1
Drones are the new nuclear weapons. They need to be outlawed by all indie9197 Aug 2012 #2
285...nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #3
If your counting has to do with the OP and not the content, it is a TOS violation. Bonobo Aug 2012 #4
Good edit... SidDithers Aug 2012 #5
So what do the numbers mean? Bonobo Aug 2012 #7
No... SidDithers Aug 2012 #8
This is the first (and only) thread I have spoken to you on. Bonobo Aug 2012 #9
Am I posting a "running count on all his threads", as you're accusing me of doing?...nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #10
I saw two threads in which you had posted consecutive numbers. Bonobo Aug 2012 #11
And the personal attacks continue... SidDithers Aug 2012 #12
No... Bonobo Aug 2012 #15
I'm a reasonable person. 285 isn't "information", because it has no context, patrice Aug 2012 #35
So, answer him. I read the content. 285 is meaningless to that. rug Aug 2012 #16
What do the numbers mean? n/t sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #30
The numbers mean something/anything/nothing & IMO, that's Sid. nt patrice Aug 2012 #36
629 Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2012 #23
479 mike_c Aug 2012 #26
Dunno technically, but definitely fits the legal definition of crime against humanity Poll_Blind Aug 2012 #6
Democracies don't do assassinations. Oblomov Aug 2012 #13
Who is the tyrant in your scenario?...nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #14
I don't know. George Walker Bush? He killed a U.S. citizen without trial. Oblomov Aug 2012 #17
I wasn't thinking of anyone. I wanted to know who you were thinking of... SidDithers Aug 2012 #18
Are you a policeman? Oblomov Aug 2012 #19
He's one of the self-appointed guardians of purity. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2012 #25
Bush claimed total control over decisions of life and death without review, without input sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #31
Always a good question, but one that IS extremely hard to answer, so the best patrice Aug 2012 #32
We don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. patrice Aug 2012 #29
K&R Solly Mack Aug 2012 #20
There is no dilemma, there is an unwillingness to face the facts. bemildred Aug 2012 #21
Gee, I wonder why the United States isn't signed on to the ICC? Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2012 #22
Drone strikes are as indiscriminate as chemical or biological weapons 1-Old-Man Aug 2012 #24
If we really want to operate under the banner of international law, which we don't, Fantastic Anarchist Aug 2012 #27
I don't know. That doesn't excuse me, but it IS a fact. I. don't. know. & I do know: patrice Aug 2012 #28
Was Bush right then when he claimed total power over all decisions like this? Were we on the sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #33
All persons should maintain and OWN their rights to their own decisions. I am just patrice Aug 2012 #34
We have laws that society collectively agreed on through their chosen representatives. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #37
All true, but what about the fact that, whether we like it or not, that "representation" patrice Aug 2012 #40
I think we may agree that the Constitution is not the God some people want to patrice Aug 2012 #44
Fascism on our front door Herlong Aug 2012 #38
I think it all depends MNBrewer Aug 2012 #39
A VERY broad statement about BILLIONS of people, ergo, bias. Without patrice Aug 2012 #41
Billions of people + a practically infinite number of permutations of factors per patrice Aug 2012 #42
Just because you can't/don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there; doesn't mean patrice Aug 2012 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The legal dilemma over dr...»Reply #28