JehovahsWitness and them 144,000

[Conversator]

Alright, a little background. I live in an orthodox Jewish neighborhood, and one day some JehovahsWitnesses came into our neighborhood and caused problems. They knocked on my door, told me I'm going to hell and asked if I was OK with that. They also said something about 144,000 people go to heaven and offered to sell me a pamplhet that talked about it. It was two bucks by the way, and no, I didn't buy it.

A few days later our synagogue was vandalized, the camera footage was reviewed and it was the same two JehovahsWitnesses who had knocked on my door. They broke two windows and threw a dead cat in there. They were jailed, but not charged with a hate crime, but that's another story altogether.

Out of curiosity, what did that two dollar pamphlet say? I doubt it said to kill cats and break windows. 144,000 people go to heaven? OK, fair enough its your religion, but how do those 144,000 merit entrance into heaven? Please don't say, selling two dollar pamphlets.

[JoeyKnothead]

I was going to agree with this until you got to "I don't see the people who blow up Planned Parenthood as hateful, competitive, or violent." Blowing up buildings and killing physicians is certainly violent and hateful. And it likely does not prevent abortion whether or not a woman has a right to control her body and what is in it.

Blowing folks up is just a really, really late term abortion.

lol... ya who's to judge...

Apparently the guy with the bomb.

Well the ironic thing is in the other thread we are debating about morality and you are saying morality is subjective...

Maybe the late late term abortions are actually something that is... (i was going to say good but in subjectivism that wouldnt exist)...

If morality is subjective, abortion is just someones preference, and late late term abortions, murder, mass murder, etc, is someones preference.

You're getting it.

Some folks think blowing folks up is an acceptable, moral thing to do. Others disagree.

Subjective opinions.

[Shem Yoshi]

I was going to agree with this until you got to "I don't see the people who blow up Planned Parenthood as hateful, competitive, or violent." Blowing up buildings and killing physicians is certainly violent and hateful. And it likely does not prevent abortion whether or not a woman has a right to control her body and what is in it.

Blowing folks up is just a really, really late term abortion.

lol... ya who's to judge...

Apparently the guy with the bomb.

Well the ironic thing is in the other thread we are debating about morality and you are saying morality is subjective...

Maybe the late late term abortions are actually something that is... (i was going to say good but in subjectivism that wouldnt exist)...

If morality is subjective, abortion is just someones preference, and late late term abortions, murder, mass murder, etc, is someones preference.

You're getting it.

Some folks think blowing folks up is an acceptable, moral thing to do. Others disagree.

Subjective opinions.

certainly you have no debate against anyone then... everyone just has the own opinions...

[JoeyKnothead]

certainly you have no debate against anyone then... everyone just has the own opinions...

Now now, you're missing it again.

Knowing morality is subjective opinion opens up a huge area for debate.

Where you at on the women forced into being brood mares? That's just a rhetorical example.

[Purple Knight]

I was going to agree with this until you got to "I don't see the people who blow up Planned Parenthood as hateful, competitive, or violent." Blowing up buildings and killing physicians is certainly violent and hateful. And it likely does not prevent abortion whether or not a woman has a right to control her body and what is in it.

It depends on whether you believe using violence to defend rights is permissible. Imagine if we had some awful dehumanisation and it was systemic, like in Logan's Run. You have to die when you're, what, 30? Somebody would be justified in defending their life with violence even if it didn't change the system, right? And imagine then, the people who agree with the society shaking their heads in disapproval that some enforcer was killed.

People are rarely genuine pacifists. And just to preface I don't believe it of anyone on this forum, but what I frequently find in real life is that when the cause is disagreed with, "violence is always wrong" will be the card that is pulled, but it will stay in the deck if the cause is considered just.

I'm the only one I have personally met who applies violence being justified in defence of rights to people I disagree with about who gets rights. I just think that's exactly why the question of who gets rights is so irreducible and you can't live in a society with people who disagree about that. A society can tolerate diversity on other fronts but not that.

[Diogenes]

I was going to agree with this until you got to "I don't see the people who blow up Planned Parenthood as hateful, competitive, or violent." Blowing up buildings and killing physicians is certainly violent and hateful. And it likely does not prevent abortion whether or not a woman has a right to control her body and what is in it.

It depends on whether you believe using violence to defend rights is permissible. Imagine if we had some awful dehumanisation and it was systemic, like in Logan's Run. You have to die when you're, what, 30? Somebody would be justified in defending their life with violence even if it didn't change the system, right? And imagine then, the people who agree with the society shaking their heads in disapproval that some enforcer was killed.

People are rarely genuine pacifists. And just to preface I don't believe it of anyone on this forum, but what I frequently find in real life is that when the cause is disagreed with, "violence is always wrong" will be the card that is pulled, but it will stay in the deck if the cause is considered just.

I'm the only one I have personally met who applies violence being justified in defence of rights to people I disagree with about who gets rights. I just think that's exactly why the question of who gets rights is so irreducible and you can't live in a society with people who disagree about that. A society can tolerate diversity on other fronts but not that.

The key in any situation where force is used, is that the force be reasonable under the circumstances. Blowing up buildings, particularly when people are inside is not a reasonable use of force to try to influence someone's opinion. And influencing opinion is the only thing a reasonable person could hope to accomplish by blowing up buildings.
But let us suppose your 'Bomber-Defender' blows up a building to directly save the life of an embryo about to be the subject of an abortion. Killing the mother, doctor, and nursing staff is not a reasonable (or lawful) way to prevent the abortion... not to mention it would kill the embryo in the process.
I've broken up fights by using physical force when words alone were insufficient.* I didn't start shooting or clubbing the participants.

Perhaps you can pose a scenario where murdering a physician or blowing up a building (both class A felonies) constitutes reasonable force to prevent an abortion



_________________________
*The last time was in San Felipe, Baja, Mexico. I was nearly 70. I got a funny story out of it. Some of this is even true:

This morning Anthony angrily approached Marc about insulting Anthony’s wife. I was in my trailer with doors still closed against the storm so I didn’t actually see how it started. When I heard the thud of a punch or of a body hitting the sand, I grabbed my handiest pair of shoes and went outside. Apparently Anthony had grabbed Marc and shoved him and Marc took Anthony to the ground, holding him there, then letting him up when he thought it was over. It was not over for Anthony.

When I arrived they had a hold of each other, and it looked like punches were about to be thrown. They were certainly threatened. Instinct triumphed over reason and I jumped between them, grabbing each by the wrist that looked most likely to launch a fist.

Anthony to me: “What do you think YOU’re doing?”

I replied, “I’m going to referee.

Now, If you’ll both step back, let’s agree on the rules”

“Rules?” Anthony asked.

“Yes. For example, 
will eye gouging be allowed?

When you get a good bite hold on the other’s cheek, are you allowed to rip off a chunk, or be limited to merely clamping down?

Is kicking to balls allowed?

Is it OK to bite off fingers?”

The combatants looked at each other.
 They looked at me. 
They looked at each other.
 They loosened their grips (and on my shirt which had become included in the fray) and walked away.
….

[Purple Knight]

The key in any situation where force is used, is that the force be reasonable under the circumstances. Blowing up buildings, particularly when people are inside is not a reasonable use of force to try to influence someone's opinion. And influencing opinion is the only thing a reasonable person could hope to accomplish by blowing up buildings.
But let us suppose your 'Bomber-Defender' blows up a building to directly save the life of an embryo about to be the subject of an abortion. Killing the mother, doctor, and nursing staff is not a reasonable (or lawful) way to prevent the abortion... not to mention it would kill the embryo in the process.

He's not trying to influence opinion. He is trying to defend rights. This is terrorism yes. But is terrorism okay if you're the good guy, defending rights? If you're fighting people who violate rights?

I've broken up fights by using physical force when words alone were insufficient.* I didn't start shooting or clubbing the participants.

Perhaps you can pose a scenario where murdering a physician or blowing up a building (both class A felonies) constitutes reasonable force to prevent an abortion

If physicians are running in fear of their lives they won't do as many abortions. Again, yes, blowing stuff up is terrorism. But terrorism works.

If you have other methods that will work and can cleverly convince people not to do something, great. If you can't and all you have is a bomb you make, are you supposed to use it to defend rights, or allow rights to be violated?

I have to say that if people genuinely believe rights are being violated, they're justified in doing whatever they can to make that stop. I'm not going to change my mind and see a fertilised cell as the same as an adult human being. If they blow me up for that I have to say they were righteous to do it. If I defend myself (or the mother) I am righteous to do that. We can't have people killing each other in the streets so a society has to agree on who gets rights and defend that. We can't, for example, tolerate a religious right to abuse women or animals if we as a society believe animals and women have a right not to be abused. We can't be all, abortions for some, tiny American flags for others. Tolerance ends where rights begin.

[Diogenes]

I have to say that if people genuinely believe rights are being violated, they're justified in doing whatever they can to make that stop. I'm not going to change my mind and see a fertilised cell as the same as an adult human being. If they blow me up for that I have to say they were righteous to do it. If I defend myself (or the mother) I am righteous to do that. We can't have people killing each other in the streets so a society has to agree on who gets rights and defend that. We can't, for example, tolerate a religious right to abuse women or animals if we as a society believe animals and women have a right not to be abused. We can't be all, abortions for some, tiny American flags for others. Tolerance ends where rights begin.

You contradict yourself when you write both:
"if people genuinely believe rights are being violated, they're justified in doing whatever,"
and
"We can't, for example, tolerate a religious right to abuse women or animals"

You've suggested that if someone really believes a right is being violated, they are justified in doing anything, including murder, but you also condemn "people killing each other in the streets." These two ideas are not compatible.

Let's take your first statement, "if people genuinely believe rights are being violated, they're justified in doing whatever...." This would justify a pregnant woman having an abortion because she genuinely believes her right to personal autonomy is being violated.

They civilized people resolve this is to appeal to the legislative and judicial bodies. Otherwise we have chaos and anarchy in the streets, which you condemn. Roe v. Wade struck a reasonable balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of a potential person. A crackpot Supreme Court overruled a 50 year precedent, but they did not rule a woman cannot have an abortion. They merely punted to the State. The States with ultra religious majorities in their legislatures will pass draconian laws outlawing a traditional human right that women have. The women can get around this law legally and peacefully by travelling to another State and by other means.

Your formula would justify them blowing up residences churches of right wing religious zealots and murdering Supreme Court judges in order to defend rights they "genuinely believe in." Your proposal is dangerous, unworkable, self contradictory, and illegal.

[brunumb]

The key in any situation where force is used, is that the force be reasonable under the circumstances. Blowing up buildings, particularly when people are inside is not a reasonable use of force to try to influence someone's opinion. And influencing opinion is the only thing a reasonable person could hope to accomplish by blowing up buildings.

"Killing is wrong and if you don't agree with me I am going to kill you".

[Purple Knight]

You've suggested that if someone really believes a right is being violated, they are justified in doing anything, including murder, but you also condemn "people killing each other in the streets." These two ideas are not compatible.

That's why if people disagree about who gets rights, they can't live in the same society. That's the incompatibility I'm talking about.

Let's take your first statement, "if people genuinely believe rights are being violated, they're justified in doing whatever...." This would justify a pregnant woman having an abortion because she genuinely believes her right to personal autonomy is being violated.

It does. And it justifies me defending her because I agree with her. The person who kidnaps her and ties her up in a basement until she gives birth, because they believe the unborn baby has a right to be born, is also justified.

They civilized people resolve this is to appeal to the legislative and judicial bodies.

And if the result of the legislative process is morally wrong, then what? Do you have to accept a tyrant because he jumped through the correct hoops to become leader?

All I base this on is the right to use force to defend what is right. Am I incorrect that people have that right?

[Diogenes]

All I base this on is the right to use force to defend what is right. Am I incorrect that people have that right?

You would be right, IF everyone who thinks they are 'right' actually are right. Unfortunately people have very easy and efficient ways to justify anything they want to do. I would guess that everyone who has committed an atrocity thought they were 'right.'

I have no evidence to suggest Hitler did not sincerely believe he was doing the right thing to champion the rise of the new Germany, the Third Reich. The human capacity to rationalize what one wants into being what is right, is limitless.

I'm reasonably confident every soldier of the Confederacy thought he was doing the right thing in defending slavery. Robert E. Lee turned down an offer to lead the United States in a war against the South and defeat slavery. He declined. Lee was a slaveholder and believed in the cause of the Confederacy. I have nothing to suggest he was not sincere. I have much to suggest he was a racist, a slave owner and a bigot.

I have no doubt that racists who oppress African Americans, or homophobes who attack gays actually believe the are doing the right thing.

Sincerity in one's beliefs does not make them right or defensible.