View Poll Results: See OP: Who is responsible for the death of the human shields?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Side A

    41 89.13%
  • Side B

    5 10.87%
Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 185

Thread: Human shields

  1. #101
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Human shields

    I look at it this way. If either side had not taken the actions they did, then the human shield would not have died. That makes both sides responsible for the death.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  2. #102
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Does the presence of a human shield create a legal and/of moral imperative to not attack a legitimate military target?
    If it is known that human shields are being used and that those shields are civilians, then yes it does create that moral and legal imperative.

    I didn't vote because you didn't give me a "both" option.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  3. #103
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Yup, and he's going to have nightmares and PTSD and **** for the rest of his life anyway, most likely.
    Exactly. The guys gonna live with it the rest of his life, and to add anything to that would be sadistic, IMO.

    When I looked at the poll question, my answers were related to the idea of the "brass" giving the order to shoot. One of my biggest considerations is what you describe above. When I was talking about "highest order of strategic significance" I was thinking about situations like the one you described.

    Situations where the decision to shoot was definitely going to save lives.

    It doesn't necessarily need the immediacy of what you described, but one of the reasons there is a moral imperative to make damned sure the action is justifiable, IMO, is that the people who have to do the shooting are going to live with that action for the rest of their lives.

    They need to be able to trust that when they are given an order of that nature, there is no other option, and that they've been given the order for a damned good reason. It probably won't totally stop the nightmares and PTSD they'll face in the future, but it might decrease the frequency and intensity.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #104
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    You're talking about the most literal meaning of fault.
    That the person that pulls the trigger is at fault for killing the innocent, because he has pulled the trigger.
    Of course, because pulling the trigger isn't an empty effect. It causes something, namely a projectile to be launched. That projectile is deadly. If you don't pull the trigger, a person does not die. If you do, a person does. Thus you have some role in the death of the other person.

    All this blah blah blah it's not their fault crap is all attempts to remove responsibility so that people can feel better about killing other people. So that we don't have to think about it as mowing down innocents, but rather some vague concept of dastardly sub-humans forcing the hands of others around them. "It's not our fault that person X is dead. I mean...yeah, we shot X...but it's not our fault." More "it's not my fault" than you'll here on the Millenium Falcon.

    People want to remove that responsibility, pretend that their actions didn't lead to the death of someone so that they can feel better about themselves. That's the whole thing here with these dismissive statements which are quite frankly insulting to humanity. But the facts are clear, someone may have put another in harms way; but if you physically kill someone you share a part in that person's death. I didn't think that would be so hard to understand. But I'll repeat it because it seems like a tough concept. If you kill somebody, you share a part in that person's death. End of story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    In both the legal and the moral world, that is of course not the assumption.
    The person who has killed the innocent is the one who has caused his death.
    By taking the person hostage while shooting at another, the humans shield user has created a situation when there is a great risk for the innocent's life, and hence, in the case when the innocent dies, the humans shield user has caused his death.
    In the legal and moral world it is the assumption. It cannot be anything else and still line up with reality. The person who has killed an innocent always bears some responsibility towards to death of that person. The question isn't "did X kill Y", we know the answer...yes. Legal and to lesser extent moral (though moral can be more rigid) isn't asking if X caused Y to die, but rather if X was justified in killing Y. But that's justification, not responsibility. If someone kills another, they are responsible at least in part for that person's death. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Since we assume that a person would always try to survive, and that if he's being shot at he'll have to fire back, we do not regard to it as a move that he takes, but a move that is 'naturally' expected to be taken.
    When you're walking into fire, expect to be burned.
    When you're jumping off a building, expect to be hit by the floor.
    When you're shooting at a person, expect to be shot back at.
    Those are justifications. We're talking responsibilities. And the responsibilities need to be accepted and the weight born. If you kill someone for whatever reason, you've still killed another human being. Legally you may be justified, you may not go to jail. But that doesn't negate the fact that you killed someone, you've taken human life. All this blah blah blah is to hide that part, it's what the "war is hell", shrug the shoulder people are running from; why they are so dismissive towards human life. Because people don't want to acknowledge their role in killing other humans, so we scrape for excuses and we struggle to invent "logic" to remove responsibility and consequence. But that responsibility should be accepted and we should look at it for what it is. Killing another human is never a good act. You may find justification for having done so, but it's still not a good act. That is the moral absolute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    When a driver who has 3 passengers in his car decides to smash his car into a wall, he is killing his passengers, because he should know that if you smash the car into the wall, there is a risk to the passengers' lives.
    And is responsible for their deaths as he's the one who caused it solely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    From the same exact reason, when someone takes a human shield and starts shooting people in the street, he is pretty much entirely at fault for killing the innocent were he to be shot back by the expected counter-fire.
    He shares fault for having put the person in that position in the first place. But the person who kills that human shield bears some responsibility for killing that human shield.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    It should have been an obvious question to begin with.
    It should be, but some people really want to remove all responsibility and consequence of action. It doesn't make sense.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #105
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Human shields

    Couldn't you come straight out and say this is about the fight in Afghanistan? That was kind of confusing the way you explained it for the poll.

  6. #106
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    But that statement is meaningless to the actual conflict here, that if you do not shoot while you're under attack, every moment is a risk to your life.

    Simply allowing the terrorist to kill you is of course not one of the options.
    It is a glaringly obvious option. Just because most people would never allow it to happen does not mean it is not a solution to shooting human shields.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  7. #107
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    It is a glaringly obvious option. Just because most people would never allow it to happen does not mean it is not a solution to shooting human shields.
    Sure, it's a solution I'll give you that.
    It is the second worst solution, right after shooting the innocent and then committing suicide.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  8. #108
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Sure, it's a solution I'll give you that.
    It is the second worst solution, right after shooting the innocent and then committing suicide.
    well, from a certain perspective, it would be the best decision, as it would only result in the loss of one life, whereas shooting the innocent and the captor would result in the loss of two lives
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  9. #109
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Of course, because pulling the trigger isn't an empty effect. It causes something, namely a projectile to be launched.
    Taking a human shield and shooting people isn't an empty effect, it causes the innocent to be in the line of counter-fire.
    Taking a human shield and then firing at a person practically causes a projectile to be fired towards the human shield holder, putting the innocent he holds at risk.
    If you kill somebody, you share a part in that person's death. End of story.
    Really?
    So in a state where mercy killing is allowed, and a doctor unplugs a person from the machine, is he responsible for the person's death?
    But that is wrong, no? Seeing that the doctor has done everything that he could to keep the patient alive.
    In the legal and moral world it is the assumption.
    No it's not.
    A person being shot at while the shooter holds an innocent as a human shield, the person pulls out a pistol and shoots back, killing both the human shield's holder and the innocent, the person would not be charged with anything and would not be found guilty of killing an innocent.
    The above is a contradicting example to the claim that the assumption exists in the legal and moral world.
    Those are justifications. We're talking responsibilities.
    That's why I stated above that you look at this issue from the most literal meaning of the term responsibility, and not from the way of values and morality.
    Killing another human is never a good act.
    Of course not, but sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's also not a bad act.
    No one has suggested otherwise.
    He shares fault for having put the person in that position in the first place. But the person who kills that human shield bears some responsibility for killing that human shield.
    Why?
    What was he expected of?
    How could he avoid that alleged responsibility while still living on with his life?
    What do you expect the normal person in this situation to do?
    It should be, but some people really want to remove all responsibility and consequence of action. It doesn't make sense.
    I do not find sense in ("partially") blaming a person for the crimes of another.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  10. #110
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    well, from a certain perspective, it would be the best decision, as it would only result in the loss of one life, whereas shooting the innocent and the captor would result in the loss of two lives
    The captor would have to be shot at were he to open fire, so is life is not to be considered in the equitation.
    Furthermore, a chance exists in the decision to shoot the captor to hit the captor alone, and not causing harm to the innocent.

    Beyond that, it consists of committing suicide, and that is not to be expected from a living person under no sane law.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •