[Wikipedia-l] The poor, tired, windshield police...

[Throbbing Monster Cock]

I think Ed is tired of me.  Actually, I don't just
think he is, I know he is.  I'm going to try to
respond again, but I'll make it as direct to the key
points as I can.  Also, since I'd like to stop fanning
the flames (in the hope that what I'm saying will
actually be thought about), this will be my only post
to wikipedia-l today.

Ed Poor wrote:
> ...as if you had no idea that it was the judgment of
> wrongness of the act that justified force to prevent
> it...

I'm taking the liberty to restate how I understand
your position.

 1: gang smashing windows -> wrongful act
 2: wrongful act -> force justification
 3: force justification -> calling police

> you insinuate that I hold the opposite opinion:
> that the *power* to enforce a standard of right and
> wrong somehow *defines* that standard.

I didn't intend to make an insinuation regarding your
opinions.  What I mean to do is point out that you are
relying upon your personal sense of right and wrong.

Put yourself in the shoes of the gang after the police
arrive.  Their personal sense of right and wrong could
very well lead to this line of reasoning.

 1: police interference -> wrongful act
 2: wrongful act -> force justification
 3: force justification -> capture of police 

The question before us, as I see it, is what makes
Ed's personal sense of right and wrong any superior to
the gang's personal sense of right and wrong.  Ed was
kind enough to share with us one possible "set of
absolutes":

> Here are the moral absolutes I believe in:
>
> It is evil to harm another person for my own
> benefit.
>
> It is good to benefit another person.

This is a perfectly reasonable set of core beliefs,
but that doesn't mean that all people have to share
these same beliefs.  Nor is it clear that all people
who did share these beliefs would apply them the same
way.

> TMC, you sound like a relativist. You seem to claim,
> I may do whatever I wish and no one has a right to
> restrain me.

Your pronouns confuse me, are you saying that Ed can
do whatever he pleases, or are you saying that Cock
can do whatever he pleases?  The end result is the
same either way, since I see your actions and my
actions as morally equal.  Just so there is no doubt,
here is what I am saying:

* Ed can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
  right to restrain him.

* Cock can do whatever he likes, and no one has the
  right to restrain him.

* Despite the fact that he has no right, Ed will act
  to restrain others whom he disagrees with.

* Despite the fact that he has no right, Cock will
  act to restrain others whom he disagrees with.

Paraphrasing a private email I had with another
wikipedian, if the gang is in front of my house
smashing my car window then I am going to go outside
and use force to stop them.  What I'm not going to do
is pretend that I'm morally superior to them in any
way, or that I had some "right" to stop them.  I'm
simply using my ability to project force to enforce my
will over them.

> ...unless you're too chicken (or just being cocky).

Cool!  Two puns for the price of one.

--Cock

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2