[Winstonm]

This is not the first time Mike has used the phrase "scum of the earth", and to my best recollection the only times he has done so has been in reference to terrorists - typically Muslim terrorists.

Here is my problem with this phrase. If you say someone else is the scum of the earth then you are also saying you have the right to decide for everyone else what is correct to believe. This is simply acting as a closet controller.

It is the same type thinking that believes that the correct ends justifies any form of means.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 3 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Here is my problem with this phrase.  If you say someone else is the scum of the earth then you are also saying you have the right to decide for everyone else what is correct to believe.  This is simply acting as a closet controller. 

It is the same type thinking that believes that the correct ends justifies any form of means.

I don't know that this* is true.

I would say, though, that it's the same type of thinking that assumes that's something morally wrong with, say, Adolf Hitler other than something you'd "agree to disagree" about. I don't think I decided for anyone else that it's morally reprehensible to kill someone based on his or her race or religion. I just think it's an inherent truth of which I am aware. Saying that it was "decided" makes it sound more arbitrary than I believe it to be.

In any case, though, I particularly disagree that the belief, and the voicing of that belief, "controls" anyone, or even attempts to.

*"this" = "same type of thinking that believes that the correct ends justifies any form of means."

While we're at it, though, I would posit that Timothy McVeigh, among others, is (was) the scum of the earth. Gimme a +1, Mike.

[Winstonm]

Quote

While we're at it, though, I would posit that Timothy McVeigh, among others, is (was) the scum of the earth.

And by making him inferior, you make yourself superior. I don't view it that way. I'm not better than Timothy McVeigh and I think that neither are you - had our lives gone differently, it may well have been either one of us on the gallows.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 3 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

Quote

While we're at it, though, I would posit that Timothy McVeigh, among others, is (was) the scum of the earth.

And by making him inferior, you make yourself superior. I don't view it that way. I'm not better than Timothy McVeigh and I think that neither are you - had our lives gone differently, it may well have been either one of us on the gallows.

Interesting.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Sep 3 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Here is my problem with this phrase. If you say someone else is the scum of the earth then you are also saying you have the right to decide for everyone else what is correct to believe. This is simply acting as a closet controller.

while i don't think this part is necessarily true, i do agree with the gist of your argument

[barmar]

Winston sounds like a moral relativist. Hitler didn't act alone, he had many people who agreed with him; the 9/11 perpetrators were part of a vast network of terrorists with similar ideals.

But just because you're not unique doesn't make you right. Some people really ARE evil. No one person can make such judgements, but there's often overwhelming concensus. Outside their particular crowd of followers, almost everyone condemns people like these. In such cases, it's reasonable to declare someone "scum of the earth".

But even scum are human. Prisons are bad places, but we still take measures to ensure that they're not overly cruel -- guards are supposed to break up fights and protect inmates from injury and death. And if someone is dying from a horrible disease, is it so much of a slap in the face to his victims to let him do it on a nice bed among his family rather than in prison? That's essentially what the protesters to his release were saying.

[Winstonm]

While the events these people committed were tragic, IMO the label "scum of the earth" is a personal tag and has nothing to do with a specific crime. It implies to me that the 2-year-old Timothy McVeigh should have been shot down like a mad dog - after, all, he was "scum of the earth".

By labeling someone else as "scum" you automatically imply that you are non-scum, thus superior.

I am also curious if Timothy McVeigh was "scum of the earth" before his conviction or after? If simply being accused of the crime is enough to be labeled "scum", I would hate to have this type thinking as one of the jurors deciding another human's fate.

Speaking of moral relativists:

Quote

At least 95 people were killed this morning, a large number of them civilians, in a US air strike in Kunduz Province, Afghanistan.

Now if you were an Afghan civilian living in Kunduz Province and just lost your family to this air strike, whom would you label as "scum of the earth"?

(Before anyone misunderstands and gets upset, I am not comparing the actions of the U.S. Army to that of outlaws like terrorists. I am only pointing out the perception of right action and wrong action has more to do with viewpoint than absolutes.)

[Winstonm]

New information on the release: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ked-to-oil.html

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 5 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

By labeling someone else as "scum" you automatically imply that you are non-scum, thus superior.

You draw some interesting conclusions. I pretty sure I wasn't implying that McVeigh should have been shot when he was 2, and I'm pretty sure that most of the people I know who agree that he was the scum of the earth wouldn't say that. Maybe that you're inferring it is more about you.

As for the quote I pulled, well, yeah. I would posit to you that whatever my flaws, I AM morally superior to the guy who intentionally killed a couple of hundred innocent people. I don't know I'm a better person than my next door neighbor, or any random person on the BBF, but I'm fairly comfortable asserting my (moral) superority as against McVeigh. The "had our lives gone differently" argument doesn't persuade me. I could construct a hypothetical world in which you kidnap and rape an 11 year old girl, and keep her prisoner for 18 years. But we don't live in that world. We live in this one. And in this one, even without knowing you personally, I'm pretty sure that you're better than Phillip Garrido.

These beliefs don't particularly feel strike me as going out on a limb.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Sep 5 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 5 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

By labeling someone else as "scum" you automatically imply that you are non-scum, thus superior.

You draw some interesting conclusions. I pretty sure I wasn't implying that McVeigh should have been shot when he was 2, and I'm pretty sure that most of the people I know who agree that he was the scum of the earth wouldn't say that. Maybe that you're inferring it is more about you.

As for the quote I pulled, well, yeah. I would posit to you that whatever my flaws, I AM morally superior to the guy who intentionally killed a couple of hundred innocent people. I don't know I'm a better person than my next door neighbor, or any random person on the BBF, but I'm fairly comfortable asserting my (moral) superority as against McVeigh. The "had our lives gone differently" argument doesn't persuade me. I could construct a hypothetical world in which you kidnap and rape an 11 year old girl, and keep her prisoner for 18 years. But we don't live in that world. We live in this one. And in this one, even without knowing you personally, I'm pretty sure that you're better than Phillip Garrido.

These beliefs don't particularly feel strike me as going out on a limb.

Btw, I do not mean to condemn you for your beliefs (or Mike, for that matter), but only to point out that the statement does infer a moral superiority.
It then follows (to me) that one who believes himself morally superior must also believe (perhaps subconsciously) that he has the right to control the thinking and destinies of those who are inferior - for their own good, of course.

"Maybe as officers we have the responsibility to train the lad." A Few Good Men

Another problem with labels such as "scum" is that it deflects the argument away from any misdeeds committed by others that contributed to the crime committed by the "scum". If we label al-Qaeda or all Taliban as "scum", we don't have to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it contributed to the outcome.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 5 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

Btw, I do not mean to condemn you for your beliefs (or Mike, for that matter), but only to point out that the statement does infer a moral superiority.
It then follows (to me) that one who believes himself morally superior must also believe (perhaps subconsciously) that he has the right to control the thinking and destinies of those who are inferior - for their own good, of course.

"Maybe as officers we have the responsibility to train the lad." A Few Good Men

I appreciate that, and I appreciate your taking the time to clarify it. Similarly, I certainly don't mean to condemn you for your beliefs, either; merely to express (and attempt to explain) my own profound disagreement.

It doesn't follow, to me, that one who believes himself morally superior to anyone must also believe that he has the right to control the actions of anyone else. In my experience, I find it's been a bit the reverse; as a group, the moral relativists I know tend to favor more control over others than the moral absolutists. Because while they tend not to hold to any sort of moral heirarchy (or profess to), they also believe that "moral-ish" decisions can and should be based on what's best for society as a whole. For example, I know people who absolutely believe that in general, people who don't go around hurling racial epithets at everyone who is of less-preferred-race=X are morally superior to people who do. But most of them believe that those who do, while they may be "scum of the earth" types, have a right to do it, and CERTAINLY have a right to think it. On the other hand, the moral relativists I know are much more comfortable with hate speech legislation, hate crime legislation, etc., and (for the good of society), believe that they have the (and here I'll quote you word-for-word for a while)" right to control the thinking of those who" are in that group. Maybe they wouldn't call them "inferior" (or maybe they would), but they certainly do believe that they can and should attempt to control their actions and their beliefs. I'm more of the mind-set of Larry Elder, who said, "If a person calls me a **** while hitting me over the head with a brick, the operative word isn't ****, it's brick."

Great quotation from A Few Good Men, but rather inapposite...Santiago wasn't "Code Red"ded because of any perceived moral inferiority.

Of course, I *do* think that in extreme cases (McVeigh, Garrido) we do have the right to control their destinies (incarceration), but not for their own good; for everyone else's. I hope we'd agree on that point.

[Winstonm]

Moral relativism versus moral absolutism is certainly a complex discussion. I do not believe in hate crime legislation of any fashion, nor of any extra penalty for a crime, regardless of motive.

Also, many times I recognize the practical truth in your arguments but side against them as abstract concepts only.

Most of my views on control and controlling are based on my upbringing in a strict religious household and my discovery of how controlling I was later in life due to that upbringing and my attempts to alter that behavior in myself. When I point a finger, it is only because I at some time or other found that flaw in myself.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Sep 5 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

When I point a finger, it is only because I at some time or other I found that flaw in myself.

Don't we all

[Trinidad]

Winstonm, on Sep 5 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

When I point a finger, it is only because I at some time or other found that flaw in myself.

Old wisdom from India:

When you point one finger to someone else, there are three pointing to yourself.

Rik

[Lobowolf]

I guess his medical care wasn't all that bad...almost a year after getting his compassionate release, he's not only out of the slammer, he's out of the hospital and living at his family villa.

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Jul 21 2010, 05:56 PM, said:

I guess his medical care wasn't all that bad...almost a year after getting his compassionate release, he's not only out of the slammer, he's out of the hospital and living at his family villa.

also, it's going to be interesting to see where the 'bp connection' leads in all this