Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#61

Post by CWuestefeld »

notahacker wrote: post #55
CWuestefeld wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. Why would you say that? If you'll grant me for the sake of argument that the war is justified, then the Iraqi people are every bit as guilty as we are. In both cases, we (and the Iraqis) have allowed our respective governments to do…

You are not your government, and neither are the Iraqis. If we're talking about collateral damage _in Iraq_ though, it's reasonable to assume firstly that the American (civilian or otherwise) consciously chose to be there, which means they certainly accepted an elevated level of risks and secondly it is reasonably probable that they actively supported and are actively profiting from the war. Choosing a job with an oi…

You are not your government, and neither are the Iraqis.

I would say that our nation is us, and the same is true of the Iraqis. The bad things that my nation does (including the entity that it allows to govern) is my responsibility, especially because its acts are enabled because of my production (i.e., taxes, technology I develop, etc.).

The very same thing is true of Iraqis. They allowed their government to continue to run things the way they are.

You might argue that we live in a democracy, and thus change is easier for us. I would reply that (a) the form of government doesn't matter, in the final accounting a government cannot survive without the acquiescence of its people; and (b) fundamental changes in the USA might actually be more difficult, because its government is stable, entrenched, and incredibly strong.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#62

Post by naner »

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

This is an odd analogue. Trees aren't very comparable to humans. Why not go with dogs or at least some kind of animal we have empathy towards?

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#63

Post by VladRussian »

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

the moral line isn't between tossing baby or doctor out. No.

The moral line is between whether you're able to kill a person ("toss out to save somebody else" - our human killer brain is good with coming out with "good/valid" reasons to kill) or not. If you're able to kill, then it is just a small technical detail whom to kill and why.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#64

Post by sprout »

defen wrote: post #27
sprout wrote: post #15

I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the inci…

If you're going to play the odds and assume the blueblood is a "parasite", shouldn't you also assume that the lower-class black man is not present to support his family anyway?

Please finish reading my comment.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#65

Post by logicalmind »

iuyhgtfvgbhjn wrote: post #59
logicalmind wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, I was a successful bmx racer for a number of years so I used to be a hardcore bicyclist, but I really have a problem with bicyclists riding on roads on which they have no ability to maintain the posted speed limit. I experience this nearly every day on a road I drive to/from work. This is a four-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 45mph. It is a favorite of bicyclists for some reason so there are a…

When I'm not cycling I have a Subaru WRX, and yet on the road I'm held up by all these people in SUVs,minivans and pickup trucks that can't do 0-60 in Same on sidewalks - I'm jogging along and the sidewalk is crowded with old people that can't maintain a 50min 10K time, they should get out of my way.

Ironically, there is a law against accelerating too fast. It's usually called illegal "display of acceleration".

BTW, I have a Subura WRX STI (2006).

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#66

Post by stellar678 »

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

I think there's probably some evolutionary motivations tied up in this. If we weren't hardwired to prioritize the the life of our pre-reproductive members, well...we might not be around for too long. So saving the baby is a utilitarian decision motivated by our genome to ensure its survival!

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#67

Post by MartinCron »

amh wrote: post #31
reader5000 wrote: post #11

Xenophobia is a well-known behavioral trait, this study seems to indicate xenophilia exists as well (i.e., Americans being more accepting of American causalities than Iraqi).

It bugs me when stuff like that is described as "xenophobia". It's possible to dislike something (or have a preference for the alternative) without fearing it. Even when the basis for the dislike is irrational -- if you prefer chocolate ice cream does that imply that you fear strawberry?

The -phobia suffix doesn't indicate fear exclusively, it's also used to describe profound distaste and dislike. Just like with homophobia, One doesn't have to be specifically afraid of gay people to be homophobic, though that is often the case.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#68

Post by btilly »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #50
btilly wrote: post #40

Here is what I think is going on. First, you're putting people in a position where they are on the boundaries of what they consider acceptable. Anything that affects those boundaries, will affect their choice. Conservatives in general have no problem with tribalism. In the abstract any life is equal to any other life, but it is only reasonable that I should personally protect the lives of my tribe (be that ethnic gro…

A rather simpler explanation is simply that the black guy is a member of the liberal tribe. A way to test this: replace "Chip" and "Tyrone" with, e.g., a low income housing or gun rights activist.

Simpler, but I think incorrect. Liberals tend to take positions which include going out of their way to fairly treat people that they very well know don't agree with them. As exhibit A I would take about half the stuff the ACLU does, and as exhibit B most of the efforts to support multiculturalism.

That is not to say that there are not liberal tribes - there clearly are - but the mores that they have push them away from straightforward acceptance of tribalism.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#69

Post by CWuestefeld »

potatolicious wrote: post #49
ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

Key difference: sentience. We keep the tree around because of its aesthetic or productive value to us - i.e. the old maple tree is preferable (to us) over the younger. We are inclined, in this case, to preserve the "work" we've already done to raise the tree up to this point. We do not perceive the tree as conscious nor sentient. The human, however, is, at least in our books. We care about the fact that the child has…

Sentience is certainly a difference between trees and humans, and probably a crucial difference.

However, some studies show that, depending on your definition of sentience, a baby might not fit into the category. There are many things (from memory: seeing moral consequences; some kinds of what if processes; understanding analogies) that aren't available to a person until 5-6 years old. Even trivial concepts such as the idea that an object still exists even when it's out of sight are not in the toolbox of a baby.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#70

Post by tome »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #69
potatolicious wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key difference: sentience. We keep the tree around because of its aesthetic or productive value to us - i.e. the old maple tree is preferable (to us) over the younger. We are inclined, in this case, to preserve the "work" we've already done to raise the tree up to this point. We do not perceive the tree as conscious nor sentient. The human, however, is, at least in our books. We care about the fact that the child has…

Sentience is certainly a difference between trees and humans, and probably a crucial difference. However, some studies show that, depending on your definition of sentience, a baby might not fit into the category. There are many things (from memory: seeing moral consequences; some kinds of what if processes; understanding analogies) that aren't available to a person until 5-6 years old. Even trivial concepts such as t…

The issue is of sentience in humans and non-sentience in trees -- not of developed sentience in adults and yet-to-be-developed sentience in babies.
Post reply on HN