doge: non sequitur and Hitler's mom

doge
if you had the chance to kill hitler's mom before hitler was born, even though she is totally innocent, would you take it
doge
your one chance to save countless lives
Sabeena has left IRC (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
doge
yeah but unless you kill her, there is no guarantee that Hitler won't succumb to aspirations of power even if he completes friggin' art school
doge
my question wasn't open-ended.. you can't kill hitler instead, your only chance is to off his mom
Sabeena has joined (~sabeena@101.100.174.226)
doge
apestate is nostradamus
chiyou- has joined (~chiyou-@66.44.122.23)
doge
rumblepez is trapped a glass case of emotion
doge
in a
dionysus- has left IRC (Quit: Leaving)
perchek has left IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
doge
apestate i would believe your entire brain is like a dolphin's
Monfd
doge: Perhaps the challenge for you in this scenario stems from your conceptualization of innocence and guilt.
doge
tho ape has not mastered the squeals and clicks of a dolphin
Monfd
You're exploring some of the limits of the contemporary definition with your question.
Monfd
You understand that there's a reasonable line of argumentation supporting the killing of Hitler's mother, but you also think she's innocent because she hasn't 'done anything'.
rumblepez has left IRC ()
doge
yes monfd, i think all people have the presumption of innocence
Monfd
That is a non sequitur in this context.
doge
no, it's not
Monfd
I'm directly challenging your definition of innocence and guilt.
Monfd
You telling me that people have your definition by default is a non sequitur.
doge
i am saying you are wrong.
Monfd
Let me try this symbolically:
Monfd
I want to do action X, but I think it violates X.
Monfd
I don't think that's how you should define X, and so it might not violate Y.
Monfd
You: People have X by default.
doge
yes monf, the dilemma is would you kill one innocent person if it would save many more, countless innocent lives?
Monfd
That's not the dilemma I'm articulating.
Monfd
I'm saying perhaps you shouldn't conceptualize her as innocent.
doge
i postulated the dilemma asshole, not you
Monfd
That would render the dilemma moot.
Monfd
This is a dilemma in standard conversations that people have trouble resolving. They generally accept she's innocent, but maybe you 'gotta do what you gotta do'.
Monfd
I'm proposing she shouldn't be conceptualized as innocence or guilty.
Monfd
Therefore, there is no dilemma.
doge
i'm done.
doge
that's good apestate
Monfd
The current Western conceptualize of guilt is a combination of mens rea and actus reus.
Monfd
You did a bad act -- not your ancestors, for example -- and you intended to do it.
Monfd
This is a pretty good system that stops over-zealous responses to violence featured in our past.
Monfd
It also seems highly exploitable.
22:52 Monfd
Stochastic terrorism is a great example of one exploitation.
Monfd
The generally accepted causality allowable for 'guilt' in Western jurisprudence has a strong emphasis in the actions of a person. I don't think this is consistent with 20th/21st century science.
doge
chiyou have you ever mainlined king cobra venom yet
Monfd
It's interesting to reflect on our differences in this conversation.
Monfd
I guess you consider this 'excessively deep' and so you moved on because you're 'frustrated'.
Monfd
These are opening remarks, in my view.