HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "bob garfield" <bob.garfield@execnet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: assasination
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:12:48 EST
Reply-To: "bob garfield" <bob.garfield@execnet.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Executive Networks Information

There is a strong pull toward bringing pragmatic considerations into the
discussion re the moral justification of assasination. This will ulti-
mately cloud the issue, which finally must be faced up to in strictly
moral terms.

I am of the opinion that morality is, in the final analysis, an
aesthetic field, of the same species as poetry and painting. Weaving
assasination into the fabric of morality strikes me as akin to saving
the composition of a painting by the careful placement of fecal material
into an otherwise enchanting and beautiful work. In both cases, the
spell is broken, the illusion shattered. One is left without art or
morality, and the terror of raw, uninterpreted reality reasserts itself.

If morality has so decayed as to require the interventions of Grand
Inquisitors, whether official or free-lance, for a civilization's
crippled continuation, then there is a real question as to whether
one is indeed operating within the bounds of civilization at all.

There are no crimes (assasination or otherwise) in the jungle.

rcg
bob.garfield@execnet.com
mt. vernon, ny
---
  SLMR 2.1  
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Linear Time
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:35:08 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <BszLsp.DJt.1@cs.cmu.edu> tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.165615.16382@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>>Absolutely. In fact, Ockham's Razor requires us to discard the redundant
>>hypothesis that there is or ever has been more than one soul. For reasons
>>of economy, only one soul was ever created; that soul has been recycled
>>some 7 billion times throughout our time space continuum.

>See Raymond Smullyan's _5000 B.C._ for a nice elaboration of several
>variants on solipsism such as this one.

Good grief. It _is_ obvious that I was kidding, right? RIGHT? 


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Assasination
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:32:22 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Aug20.155458.22813@aero.org> 
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.181238.14909@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>In a recent discussion I noted the legitimacy of assasination as the last
>>recourse for obtaining justice, as witnessed by the German and French court
>>decisions in the cases of Tehlirian's 1921 killing of Talaat Bey and
>>Schwartsbard's 1927 killing of Petliura.  It is my considered opinion that
>>such a course of action may be morally justified, *provided that* no other

RF:
>My suggestion would be somewhat different. I suggest that the person that
>one considers worthy of assasination should be tried in absentia before the
>World Court. If convicted of a capital crime an adaquet reward could be
>offered for his capture dead or alive.

Setting aside the standard doubts about the legitimacy of the World Court,
I note that this suggestion hardly answers my question.  Suppose the World
Court has sentenced Saddam Hussein to deth; then what?  I also submit that
the original question needn't be linked to the separate issue of moral
justifiability of capital punishment; instead, considerations of defence of
innocent life ought to suffice.

>Richard Foy           Standard Disclaimer
>

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Assasination
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:45:40 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <170pm0INNsbr@early-bird.think.com> 
karlr@think.com (Karl Rotstan) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.181238.14909@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>(stuff deleted)

MZ:
>>me doubt the soundness of my reasoning.  Accordingly, I would like to hear
>>some calm arguments from people interested in history, legal theory, and
>>political philosophy.  I suggest that all participants observe the followup
>>line, and attempt to keep this discussion reasonably noise-free.

KR:
>I think there are a few issues to be addressed.  First, what is the purpose
>of assassinating the individual?  If it is to "obtain justice", then I
>would be highly dubious of the action, for it allows the accused no chance
>to defend himself in court.  Also, when we start talking of justice, we
>need to be very careful of definitions.  Even within the universe of
>parliamentary democracies there are many variegated interpretations of
>justice, due process, and individual rights.

To simplify this discussion, let us agree that the purpose is protection of
innocent lives, and that justice, due process, or individual rights aren't
forthcoming on the occasion.

KR:
>As for moral justification, I choose to avoid entering into this kind of
>debate.  Strong cases can be made that attempting an assassination is
>sometimes good (Hitler) and that it is always immoral, since it involves
>killing a person.  Almost every assassin asserts that what he/she does is
>morally correct, so I wonder whether morality is really the issue.

It is, if you believe Camus.  As for your wish to avoid debating (better,
discussing) the morality of the issue, I wonder why you would bother to
follow up at all.  Also, if you assume that killing a person is always
immoral, the question becomes trivial; however your example of Hitler shows
that this is not the case.

KR:
>Also, there is a danger that the assassination will backfire, as happened
>to the young Polish jew who assassinated the German Vice-Consul (I think
>that was the rank) in Paris in 1938.  This led directly to Kristallnacht,
>which, I suggest, is not exactly what the assassin wanted.

Perhaps not, but was his action right or wrong, regardless of its
consequences? furthermore, might it have been right if, instead of
unwittingly killing an old school liberal democrat, he had killed Hitler
himself?

KR:
>Additionally, assassination doesn't necessarily solve the injustice
>perpetrated by the person assassinated.  It seems, rather, like a way to
>exact vengeance instead of justice.

Retribution is a separate issue, on which I recommend consulting Vlastos'
last book on Socrates.  My proposal is to avoid addressing its moral
ramifications by selecting examples in an appropriate fashion.  What about
that generals' plot?

>My 2 cents worth
>karl...

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Assasination
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:35:21 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Aug20.010305.17888@ccu.umanitoba.ca> feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>In short: why not let the good guys win one for once?

You mean like James Earl Ray?

Assasination is not high on my list of persuasive arguments to present in
a court of justice. Are we not now treated to the 'justifications' of the
Chinese regime for their Tienanmen murders? Given that China could very well
end up economically worse than the former USSR, and with starvation a much
closer danger, is there not an argument that the democracy movement _had_ to
be extinguished for the sake of millions of lives? Surely this is something
to worry about when we consider killing Saddam Hussein for the sake of the
Shiites, Kuwaitis and Kurds.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaut
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Assasination
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 22 Aug 92 15:51:40 EDT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1192@kepler1.rentec.com> 
andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.010305.17888@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

MF:
>>In short: why not let the good guys win one for once?

AM:
>You mean like James Earl Ray?

In view of all I have said on this subject so far, you should be able
to understand that this is a specious example.

AM:
>Assasination is not high on my list of persuasive arguments to present in
>a court of justice. Are we not now treated to the 'justifications' of the
>Chinese regime for their Tienanmen murders? Given that China could very well
>end up economically worse than the former USSR, and with starvation a much
>closer danger, is there not an argument that the democracy movement _had_ to
>be extinguished for the sake of millions of lives? Surely this is something
>to worry about when we consider killing Saddam Hussein for the sake of the
>Shiites, Kuwaitis and Kurds.

The democracy movement was extinguished for the sake of the _raison
d'Etat_; in this discussion we ought to concern ourselves with the
force of the opposite justification.

>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaut

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."

From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:56:02 GMT
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc


>So what? Knowledge is still irrelevant to the argument that dave
>was responding to.

So what? The point I made was that even if God knows that there is determinism,
there may be no way He can prove it to you.

I think a precise definition of free will is required. I won't try too make
one, but point out some possible directions.

1. Free will exists if there is no way to make predictions.
2. Free will doesn't exist if there is a deterministic physics, and
   free will does exist if there isn't a deterministic physics.

1. may seem silly, but consider the chocolate vs. vanilla question. If one
can know which you will choose, then you certainly don't have free will.
If no one but you can know which, then you have this free will.

2. is black or white, and, like you point out above, one's knowledge is
irrelevant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino     c/o Hewlett Packard Co.        I represent only myself
ric@spd.hp.com    1501 Page Mill Rd. Bldg. 5M    Buy low, sell high
415-857-7526      Palo Alto, CA 94304            Eat your wheaties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:34:01 GMT
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc


Jeff Dalton writes:

>>    Thus I can't prove to you that you have no free will
>>by confronting you with a choice that you have no choice but to make.

>It might be possible to show that the subject didn't have a free
>choice in that one case, but something more than such a confrontation
>would be needed if the aim was to show that the person didn't have
>free will at all.

>Still, I think a reasonable way to proceed is too look for constraints
>and limitations on free will and then see what (if anything) is left.

Certainly I wasn't precise. A problem being that I could confront
you and say that you had no choice but to remain within 1 meter of
your present position in the next microsecond. Certainly we're all
constrained in this manner. At least two "possible" choices must
exist. Also, the choices should be of little consequence to the chooser.
"You will choose not to kill yourself today", certainly has two
possible choices you could make, but I think you see my point.

About limitations in free will, a lack of choice in one regard
(chocolate vs. vanilla) might not imply a lack of choice in another
(spam vs. lobster). Certainly a limited free will may exist, but
if one can say what another will choose for any choice, then completely
free will can't exist. How do you define free will? Is it completely
free or free in any one instance? I'd pick the former.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino     c/o Hewlett Packard Co.        I represent only myself
ric@spd.hp.com    1501 Page Mill Rd. Bldg. 5M    Buy low, sell high
415-857-7526      Palo Alto, CA 94304            Yeah yeah yeah,,, spit!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: free will 
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:57:43 GMT

	I want a copy of my Aug. 7 message on free will for myself and another.
Are there archives and what is their computer address and protocol?
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Re: The philosophical basis for Affirmative Action (was Re: ...at the Y
Date: 16 Aug 92 18:22:17 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

>I do not deny thay Russia fell, nor do I deny the reasons it fell, but
>it does not shed any light at all on why capitalism seems to ALWAYS
>abandon the free market and march down the road to socialism.

Book VIII of Plato's _Republic_ is relevant to this question.  That's
where Plato gives a theory of political evolution in which a
half-mythical ideal state declines into a military aristocracy, and
then into a commercial oligarchy, a democratic consumer society, and
finally a tyranny.

The transition you mention (free market => socialism) has at least some
similarity to the last three stages in the sequence Plato describes. 
In part, his view is that a society in which the love of gain rules
can't be stable because it's profitable for those who want to make
money to encourage other people simply to follow their own desires,
whatever they may happen to be, and people brought up in that kind of
society aren't educated to have any satisfactory reason not to do just
that.  When people make a practice of following whatever their desires
happen to be, though, they soon find themselves in difficulties because
the desires multiply while the means of achieving them dissipate. 
Next, leaders arise who tell the people that it is the rich oligarchs
who stand in the way of the realization of the liberty and equality
that democrats value (because they eliminate restrictions on an
individual's ability to pursue his desires).  A class war follows, and
a government is established in which a very small class rules in the
name of the people but in fact for their own benefit.

Naturally, Plato's account is more complex and interesting than my
summary, and you might find it worth reading.  I believe that Daniel
Bell wrote a book called _The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism_
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Re: free will
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:00:39 GMT

Suppose you have proof that event-determinism is true.
Suppose that your critic rejects your proof: no fault attaches,
surely, since he was unable to see the virtues of your efforts, and
"ought implies can".
Suppose that your critic becomes a convert to the truth you've
domonstrated: but by similar reasoning, no virtue attaches to her or
to you.

In either case, your efforts at proof, however driven or constrained,
are inherently pointless unless both convincing and UNSOUND.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: free will
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:21:36 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug7.203349.19645@cis.umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>	Furthermore, humans don't cause their actions directly. Our first 
>choice is the choice to reason or to evade reason. I.e., we turn on our
>mind. Once operating, we choose a specific idea, choose to evaluate that
>idea, experience an emotional response, and act.

It is far from clear that we choose any of these things.  I didn't
chose to wake up this morning -- it just happened.  Nor did I chose
what my first thought would be.  Fortunately, I'm (fairly) rational.
But I didn't _choose_ not to be insane, any more than I chose to
perfer chocolate ice cream to vanilla.  
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 15:52:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The philosophical basis for Affirmative Action (was Re: ...at the Y
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc

In talk.philosophy.misc, Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas) writes:

>  
> > clearly wrong, but what seems to be the case, instead, is that
> > democratic captialistic societies are moving toward socialism.
> > 
> Yeah, Yeah, and that's why the ex-USSR wisely fell behind to join
> the slow moving caravan :->

What does this sentence prove?  The USSR was never socialist in
the way that France and Britain and the US are.  I do not deny
thay Russia fell, nor do I deny the reasons it fell, but it does
not shed any light at all on why capitalism seems to ALWAYS abandon
the free market and march down the road to socialism.
 
doug
From: leeman@daimi.aau.dk (Steen Lehmann)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Reincarnation and Linear Time
Date: 15 Aug 92 10:59:20 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

chicken@unislc.uucp (Rick Cooper) writes:

>Hi all!

>I have a question I've been mulling over.  I hope this is the right place
>to have it considered.  Anyway, here goes:
No, you should have asked on alt.fun.train-spotters.

>If reincarnation exists, or if someone believes reincarnation exists, 
>does the soul have to be reincarnated after the previous person has died?
>Or could time be nonlinear for non-reincarnated souls?
Sure - being the supreme being of the Universe, I make certain time is ALWAYS
nonlinear when these things occur.

>If you would like a more direct question:  Could Elvis' soul be reincarnated
>into another person who was born in 1957?
No comment.

>Any thoughts would be appreciated.
No problem.

>Rick
Rhymes with Sick.

--
**           Steen Lehmann = leeman@daimi.aau.dk                **
** stud.scient at the Computer Science Dept, Aarhus University  **
** Mail: Gustav Wieds Vej 27, 1.th., DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark  **
**        "Ad damnam initiam velocitatem - ferite!"             **
From: muh@physics20 (Yury M. Mukharsky)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Assasination
Date: 19 Aug 1992 23:11:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics20.berkeley.edu

First I would like to remind how this discussian started. Somebody 
accused Ukrainian on genocide and holocaust of Jews. I'm not going 
to justify the killing of Jews during civil war by any etnic or social
group. I think it was awful. The only think I want to comment to is
I do not think it can be called genocide. Civil war lead to killing
of millions of peoples of every nation. I'm quite sure that every
Ukrainian or Russian family have not one person killed during that
time. Most Europian nations were involved at some point in oppressing
Jews, maybe another century ago.

By comparison, what Hitler did was specifically aimed to extermination
of Jews. Number of Jews survived in Germany or Chehia (sorry for possibly
wrong spelling), occupied since 1936 was tens or hundreds. 

Now, returning to the end of discussion:

In article <1992Aug19.181238.14909@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In a recent discussion I noted the legitimacy of assasination as the last
>recourse for obtaining justice, as witnessed by the German and French court
>decisions in the cases of Tehlirian's 1921 killing of Talaat Bey and
>Schwartsbard's 1927 killing of Petliura.  It is my considered opinion that
>such a course of action may be morally justified, *provided that* no other
>means of bringing the criminal to justice are available, and that the
>assasin is willing to submit to trial for his action.  However, other

Unfortunately, person in question is dead by that time, do you think
executing the muderer will revive him? 

Killing of Ferdinand in Saraevo in 1914 certanly satisfies your definition
of legitimate killing. It caused (at least nominally) WWI, revolution
in Russia and death of many Jews during Civil war, not to mention other
people died in that war.

>historical cases, like that of the politically inconclusive, though highly
>spectacular French anarchist _propaganda par le fait_ of the 1890's, make
>me doubt the soundness of my reasoning.  Accordingly, I would like to hear
>some calm arguments from people interested in history, legal theory, and
>political philosophy.  I suggest that all participants observe the followup
>line, and attempt to keep this discussion reasonably noise-free.
>
Yury
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Re: Assasination
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:03:05 GMT

You link assassination with civil disobedience when you demand that
the morally sensitive assassin agree to stand trial for what otherwise
you conceed to be justified homicide.  Why?  Why ask that the generals
plotting against Hitler, or anyone, especially more humbly situated
but otherwise analagous, agree to sucide?  Is publicity the key?  Do
you think God unable to visit final vengeance?
In short: why not let the good guys win one for once?
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: ingram@cs.duke.edu (Robert E. Ingram,02N,6606573,9294051)
Newsgroups: talk.rumors
Subject: Miracle of The Pope's Tumor
Keywords: rumor, pope
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:36:09 GMT
Reply-To: ingram@cs.duke.edu
Followup-To: talt.rumors,misc.test,alt.religion.kibo,talk.bizarre
Organization: Duke University Computer Science


	The tumor which was removed from the Pope bore the likeness of Jesus' face.

	This news will be announced by the Vatican before Christmas, and
	it will be considered a miracle.
---
--
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27706
Internet:	ingram@cs.duke.edu    (Robert Ingram)
UUCP:		mcnc!duke!ingram

Newsgroups: talk.rumors
From: bdaher@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian D Daher)
Subject: STEROIDS IN THE OLYMPICS (Was Re: DAVE HARVEY TALKS ABOUT T
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:19:57 GMT

In article <404.157.uupcb@cccbbs.UUCP> corey.pratt@cccbbs.UUCP (Corey Pratt)  w
rites:
>Since you clame that Flo-Jo had steroids because she won so many gold
>medals, then are you also claiming that Carl Lewis must also have
>Steroids?  I think the accusing of people without any evidence at all

No, No, No, The media finally came out with a correction.  All these Olympic 
athletes they named didn't have steroids, they had hemmorhoids.

Sorry everybody, big goof.  Go back to your lives now.

--
"You don't have to PAY those people...."

bdaher@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu