5 ms·

That's not a very big distinction at all if you hold the realatively prominent view that the masses are stupid and manipulated (their average IQ is 100, for God

That's not a very big distinction at all if you hold the realatively prominent view that the masses are stupid and manipulated (their average IQ is 100, for God's sake!).

Ntrails 13y ago
Perhaps if you hadn't used average IQ as a measure of the populations ability to decide on a leader I might have been able to take this comment seriously. It is really no harder to manipulate or indoctrinate someone with a high IQ. It's not a measure of resistance to the former. Of course, a perfectly reasonable question is "how many people does it take to give someone the right to kill?". If 66 million is enough, is 50 million? 10 million? How about a hundred thousand? Which countries, therefore, have leaders with the moral backing to do so, and which are too small. The idea that popular support makes murder acceptable is ludicrous in and of itself, if you doubt this look at our depictions of Hitler.
- psionski 13y ago
  I like the tone of your comment, but I'm not really sure about the contents... A high IQ means you're better able to make connections, so it should be easier for you to spot that there's something foul, something not quite right... Do you have some proof that manipulating intelligent people is just as easy? I agree with everything that comes after this statement.
- DannoHung 13y ago
  I'm not saying that President Obama has the right to kill, really. The right to kill is a really difficult moral question, though not in the case of Tsarnaev. Obama has been given the authority to kill along the officially legislated channels of his office. So, there is the distinction: Dzokhar Tsarnaev had no authority to do what he did. What he did was also clearly immoral. President Obama has the authority. What he's doing is questionably immoral. It's also not the only thing he does that affects people in a material way good or bad.
  - psionski 13y ago
    A hypothetical scenario - someone straps bombs to himself and detonates in the middle of a crowd. I think you'd agree that this is "clearly immoral" too? But to the other members of the terrorist cell this is either a moral thing to do or at least "questionably immoral", otherwise they'd have left the organization. This is the relativity of moral decisions and the only way out is to try to define morality in absolute terms, which has resulted in many religions and philosophical works. The purest (i.e. simplest) form of a moral framework is that of Jainism - it promotes full restrictions on all forms of violence except when necessary for survival (e.g. a farmer killing a farm animal to feed his family). This may seem like common sense, but it helps that it's defined in a simple form. This is why we don't agree with Tsarnaev or terrorist groups - what they do is not necessary for survival, it serves other purposes. This is why we sometimes just as easily don't agree with president Obama's choices. It has nothing to do with "proper channels", "authority" or any of those words.
alinajaf 13y ago
> (their average IQ is 100, for God's sake!) Their average IQ is 100 by definition. If everyone got twice as smart overnight, the average IQ would still be 100.

That's not a very big distinction at all if you hold the realatively prominent view that the masses are stupid and manipulated (their average IQ is 100, for God's sake!).

Ntrails 13y ago

Perhaps if you hadn't used average IQ as a measure of the populations ability to decide on a leader I might have been able to take this comment seriously. It is really no harder to manipulate or indoctrinate someone with a high IQ. It's not a measure of resistance to the former. Of course, a perfectly reasonable question is "how many people does it take to give someone the right to kill?". If 66 million is enough, is 50 million? 10 million? How about a hundred thousand? Which countries, therefore, have leaders with the moral backing to do so, and which are too small. The idea that popular support makes murder acceptable is ludicrous in and of itself, if you doubt this look at our depictions of Hitler.

psionski 13y ago
I like the tone of your comment, but I'm not really sure about the contents... A high IQ means you're better able to make connections, so it should be easier for you to spot that there's something foul, something not quite right... Do you have some proof that manipulating intelligent people is just as easy? I agree with everything that comes after this statement.
DannoHung 13y ago
I'm not saying that President Obama has the right to kill, really. The right to kill is a really difficult moral question, though not in the case of Tsarnaev. Obama has been given the authority to kill along the officially legislated channels of his office. So, there is the distinction: Dzokhar Tsarnaev had no authority to do what he did. What he did was also clearly immoral. President Obama has the authority. What he's doing is questionably immoral. It's also not the only thing he does that affects people in a material way good or bad.
- psionski 13y ago
  A hypothetical scenario - someone straps bombs to himself and detonates in the middle of a crowd. I think you'd agree that this is "clearly immoral" too? But to the other members of the terrorist cell this is either a moral thing to do or at least "questionably immoral", otherwise they'd have left the organization. This is the relativity of moral decisions and the only way out is to try to define morality in absolute terms, which has resulted in many religions and philosophical works. The purest (i.e. simplest) form of a moral framework is that of Jainism - it promotes full restrictions on all forms of violence except when necessary for survival (e.g. a farmer killing a farm animal to feed his family). This may seem like common sense, but it helps that it's defined in a simple form. This is why we don't agree with Tsarnaev or terrorist groups - what they do is not necessary for survival, it serves other purposes. This is why we sometimes just as easily don't agree with president Obama's choices. It has nothing to do with "proper channels", "authority" or any of those words.

alinajaf 13y ago

> (their average IQ is 100, for God's sake!) Their average IQ is 100 by definition. If everyone got twice as smart overnight, the average IQ would still be 100.