The man who murdered his wife with a knife or the man who gave him the knife to begin with.

I ask this question because I doubt that it will be asked at Saddam Hussein's trial in Iraq. He shot thousands of people with American, French, Russian bullets, he gassed the kurds and the Iranians with American gas.

If he is indeed proven succinctly to have done these things, then I would say that he is guilty of these murders, but that, furthermore, the people that supplied him are just as guilty.

In a political situation like this, I would say both. They made weapons that are made for killing. They gave them to him. He used them for their purpose.

Your hypothetical leaves out a key point: did the knife maker know his product would be used to kill the woman?

Personally I couldn't give two shits about hte question, but it really does make a difference. It's like asking "a german sheppard attacks a man, is his owner responsible?" and forgetting the part about where the owner commanded the dog to attack.

As pointed out, the knife example does leave out a key element. If a man goes to a store and buys a knife then kills someone with it, the store is not at fault.

If someone handed him a knife, and he turned around and killed someone with it, and then, having seen what was done with the first knife, they handed him another, which I think i more analogous to Saddam, then they are both guilty.

Well if you sell deadly gass (or weapons) to a brutal dictator you can hardly claim clean hands...

Whats that famous saying?

"Those in glass houses shouldn't sell stones"

May be I am wrong but didn't Einstiens theories eventually lead to the development of nuclear weapons.

In the same context of the above would ole' Albert be in some way responsible for the cold war etc?

My main thrust is that a weapon doesn't have to be a gun or gas but it can also be knowledge.

May be I am wrong but didn't Einstiens theories eventually lead to the development of nuclear weapons.

In the same context of the above would ole' Albert be in some way responsible for the cold war etc?

My main thrust is that a weapon doesn't have to be a gun or gas but it can also be knowledge.

I think there is a whole chain of responsibilities involved concernig your example of nuclear weapons. Long before Einstain the knowledge was developed and gathered. This knowledge gave people the command over very powerfull means.

Weapons should be controlled colectively because that makes the chance of misuse of these weapons smaller. Dictatorships shouldn't be provided with any weapons what so ever from the democracies because they can be misused. Saying this where is then my place in this chain of responsibilities (selling arms to Sadam). Did I ever protested against that (eg did I mail th US government with a protest note..? - no I didn't), did I do anything else in that direction - no.


Thus not only Einstain is responsible but all of us people who have the freedom to act against it and didn't. But the measure of this responsibility is different. American Weapons Industry is more responsible for arming the dictators than single Americans - but all free citizens of the world are responsible for the worlds events - willing or not willing...

Let's change things around a little bit then.

You know your friend is nuts. You give him a loaded ICBM and he levels New York City. Who's to blame? The both of you, from my perspective.

There was something else that my question didn't address, besides knowing if the guy is nuts (something kind of relative in my opinion) but the fact that he could get himself a knife or a different murder weapon elsewhere. Things change when he has an atomic bomb or nerve gas or an entire army of loyal followers, especially when you're the one responsible for giving them to him.

Yes. The bolth of you are to blame(unless the person who gave the gun down right lies about having knowledge about the friend and pleads utter dumbassness). I beleive that he would be guilty by assoiciation. But in all reality, do you think that the judical system would go and hunt down the French, US and all others? Not in this world. Why? Cause they can. Then we protest and nothing happens. You cant change anything.

We have to deal with it unfortunatally.

"The Structure is set it never changes with a ballot pull"-RATM.

I mean come on, you gonna persucute Colt, or beretta family for making guns? I mean, the guns did kill people right. And didnt they kinda have a preexisting knowledge that the sub-machine gun may be used to kill people.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Pollux V
[B]The man who murdered his wife with a knife or the man who gave him the knife to begin with.
I know this is avoiding the question, but I felt the need to point out - one could also blame someone for not giving the weapon. i.e. In the World War (not sure which one), for America waiting so long to get involved.

I would also argue that you can't hold someone responsible for someone else's actions, though in your example, I think you can, so I guess it depends on circumstance.

Hmm...morally i would have to say both are guilty. If he knew that his "crazy" friend was going to use the ICBM to level the city then of course he is responsible. But, of course if the person who was supplying the icbm didn't know that his "crazy" friend would use it our of such destruction then no he isn't the one to blame.

Now, politically the one supplying is not to blame. If this was to be held in a court room during this point in history the person supplying the ICBM wouldn't be charged of anything since he never did the killing himself. Now the question i have to ask is, POLITICALLY should he be sued by the family's who lost close friends during this bombing?

As many know a similar case came up like this. You know, with the video game GTA3 and the incident where 2 kids decided to shoot shotguns off a bridge into the middle of traffic where they shot a woman and killed a man. Another incident is the many suicides due to the everquest games. Is it the makers of the video game's fault? or simply the person doing the crime?

Here in Australia we use a rule called " the rule of proximity"

How close were the parties to the actual committing of the crime?

I would think similar legal rules apply in the determination process in other parts of the world.

I think also that the legal position is that there is no assumption that the free will of the criminal has been compromised by the efforts of others. In other words the criminal has a choice that is his alone.

At present North Korea is developing a weapons program. At the moment North Korea can say that it is stable enough to avoid accidental launching or indiscriminant launching.

They assume that the present government will be in control of these weapons for ever and not allow for the fact that they may be over thrown tomorrow by some terrorist group or other.

Are they acting in a way that is potentially culpable?

In that if a terrorist group took control and launched nuclear weapons would the previous Government be guilty even if only for stupidity?

This whole thread demonstrates why America should never, ever give any kind of foreign aid to any nation other than allies during times of war.

This whole thread demonstrates why America should never, ever give any kind of foreign aid to any nation other than allies during times of war.

Iraq was our ally. We don't just give weapons to enemies. We give weapons to bad people, but not to bad people that (for the moment) threaten us.

But in all reality, do you think that the judical system would go and hunt down the French, US and all others? Not in this world.

I agree. Plus, I don't think anyone could really say where the chain of blame stops. I would say that the people who decided to give the weapons up are guilty and, beyond that, no one else is.

But, of course if the person who was supplying the icbm didn't know that his "crazy" friend would use it our of such destruction then no he isn't the one to blame.

But you're still giving away an ICBM. Doesn't that mean that you should excersize some measure of responsibility in deciding who, if anyone, to give the ICBM to?

"Well, I didn't know he was going to use the ICBM to blow things up!"

No one really believes that.

The problem with the US is not that they "gave someone a knife", it's that they encourage the stabbing behaviour and then suddenly turn on the one with the knife years later and start calling them "evil".

There are plenty of accusations that can be levelled at the US and other countries that relate to their direct support of people who are ALREADY performing "evil" acts. (Usually, in the case of the US, they will support someone who is fighting against an enemy of the US. This is why the US supported the Khmer Rouge, for instance.)

So don't go around with this "get the knife-maker" garbage, 'cause the big countries are always going to make and own their own weapons made just for killing, and the small countries are going to try to do the same. What you should worry about is when your country (and not just the US, but pretty much anyone with money) supports people who have already proven that they can't hold a knife without stabbing someone with it.

This entire notion of guilt and innocence is one based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
They have something we need we are willing and able to kill to attain it, why must we excuse ourselves for being human?
Why must we construct elaborate concepts of ‘evil’ and ‘good’ to justify our actions?
Nature screams about selfishness and violence daily, have we become deaf to her, have we become so cut-off from our inner nature that we need to explain ourselves to ourselves?
Who has infected humanity with this disease?
The essence of nobility isn’t to be just or fair or compassionate or truthful, these are human ideas with little meaning- this is why we have trouble defining them- nobility is about accepting responsibility for your own actions; nothing more.
This blaming of the victims for our own actions isn’t only hypocritical it is also disgusting to behold and ignoble to the core.
Has western man degraded so far that now he needs to blame his victims for his own violence?
Has western thought degraded so much that we now need to justify ourselves by creating a hypothetical moral high-ground so as to alleviate our own guilt for being human?
The Greeks are rolling in their graves.

The human psyche has outlived, by a fantastic margin BTW, anything that's Judeo-Christianity, or anything else under the Solar System's Sun for that matter. That you're prudently aware of of "guilt" and "innocence" shows a glitch on your part... an imperfection, a... roadblock. But it is your inferiority, not mine. If the values of guilt and innocence were incorporated in J-C, as they have everywhere else in history, then it only stands to reason that these values had already been established in the human psyche long long before the human conscious mind sought to record them. However, one group, one body, one school, can easily manipulate and annex an essence, an idea, a perception, an awareness... and then redefine it to its own accord — to its advantage. What you are doing is putting time-zones around something a lot grander than you will ever be able to... justify. From where I stand, I see nothing insidious with the idea of guilt and innocence. In fact, I see it everyday — and thus I classify it everyday. This goes here. This goes there. No, over there. ANOTHER BOX? Yup. As-a-matter-of-fact, you are proclaiming justice (as the good old christians are fond of doing) for yourself because y-o-u—a-r-e—g-u-i-l-t-l-e-s-s-!

Define guilt and I'll respond.

Because guilt and innocence knocks at your door? Because the wind rattles at your cheaply installed window-panes? Because... you perceive that a creeping idea of good and evil exists outside the J-C dogma, but that you can only comprehend as in a "good" and "evil" à-la-J-C? How dumbfounding it must be for you. I can just see you stuffing and cramming human nature in a little snuff-box. Ah-choo.
I'm careful as to whom I let through my door. There are many peddlers of crap that still wait for me to open my entrance to their knocking.
Expand my horizons then, oh enlightened one.
Tell me about 'good' and 'evil', if you cannot then sit at my door and wait with the others.
If my 'window-panes' are cheaply installed or not is a matter of perspective, nevertheless it was I that installed them.
Who did the work for you?
Have you built anything in your dwelling or do you live in the homes of other men?
Have you fooled yourself into believing that you are more complicated than what you really are?
How simple you are to me. I can not only fit you in a snuff-box but I can wrap you around my little finger and twirl you in the wind.
Even your need to be more than what you really are is amusingly simplistic.
A little animal pretending to be god without earning it; a little beast taking its dominance of a single planet to be proof of its dominance over existence itself.
But how many simpletons walk this earth? Simple minds pursuing simple goals, dreaming simple dreams, creating simple structures and comparing themselves to what is base to feel complicated and important.
Here I stand, simple modern man, measure yourself against me if you wish to see your plainness.


And why must they not be excused for having "it" and obviously wanting to defend "it"? Are they not also human nature? You know, it completely astounds me that the concept of being "human", which you advocate for yourself/selves ad nauseam, seems to stop at your front-door. Talk about ice-cubed global awareness! I long for the day when Phoebus will shine so brightly that — you'll just melt away.

Who's taking away their right to defend themselves?
Let them perish with honor being human. Even a people still stuck in primitive reality deserves the right to fight back and then be respected for it. The warrior honors his enemy because his enemy defines him.
Do you even know what I’m talking about? I wonder as I wander.

My goal is to be more than just human, as you define this concept.
But everything stops at my door, even you, you despicable beggar. Rattle my window-panes and hope I'll let you in.
Phoebus has no effect on me I'm holding a parasol. You, on the other hand, have already melted into the river of non-descript nothingness. Enjoy the communion.

If you are wanting to redefine the human psyche by your own image, and if indication of that definition is reflected in your idea that Nature "screams" about "selfishness" and "violence" "daily", then I wonder how simplistic your render of man will be. Nature doesn't scream. Ever.

A whisper can be heard as a scream to an acute ear. To the deaf, silence resounds.
Do you take your inability to hear as proof that there is no sound? How miserable you are.
To the simple-minded the simple appears much too complicated.
Perception and awareness determines what is heard and what is seen.
To an ant, building tunnels in the dirt may be a complicated meaningful endeavor that requires all its talent; to man they are but holes in the ground.
Now crawl back into your hole, before I crush you.

Those who aren't immune to your "disease" of course, i.e., you. Hence your "disease".
To the sick health looks sickly as to the ugly beauty is a deformity.
Have you taken the popularity of your disease to be a sign of its health? Have you mistaken quantity for quality?
You poor imbecile.
Associate with the rabble, if you choose to, let me compare myself to grander things than mediocrity and averageness

Nobility doesn't require "responsibility". If nobility is responsible for anything, it's to keep itself aloft. Your wannabe for nobility is your down-going. Justness, fairness, compassion, truth... are psychedelic flowers in the nobleman's abundant garden of paradise. Here, have a flower and stick it in your rifle. It looks pretty there. You should try it in your hair! Wild, man!
Do you even understand what I said?
Nobility is being responsible for self and not cowering in the shade of others.
What is a flower in my barrel? It can't stop the bullet from killing you. It can only hope to make me feel 'guilty' afterwards.
Are you now trying to place guilt in my mind, you slave to weakness, so that I might spare you?
Just that makes you underserving of my compassion.

Who are the victims? A disfigured child? A mangled grandmother? A mutilated son? A dismembered mother? A weeping father? Right. (Hits fist on forehead: The. Actions. Of. Wander's. Nobleman!) Pathetic. But of course, you don't harbour psychedelic seeds of peace because your nature is in a constant flux of defensiveness, hatred and destruction. Peace? Whaz dat? Flower-power-hippy-shit? Once again, an essence is annexed by your body-politic and disfigured. Lord forbid that I should spit in your face...

Only that which knows hatred can appreciate love; noly those that can destroy can also build; only the powerful can be humble. Only the cruel mans compassion means anything. Those that have been convinced to give to all, wanting in reality all to be give to them, and to love all and to be compassionate to all, because they fear others will not reciprocate otherwise, hold no value in their spirit. They are nothing but sheeple.
Peace?
I'm very peaceful. I have the peace of the contented.

Spit in my face if you want to, and I will respond or not as I see fit.
Can you bear the consequences, will you blame me afterwards or will you accept responsibility for my actions towards you?
But you are weak, you can't help but blame others for your own inadequacies and inferiorities. Nature must be so abominable to you; so cruel, so cold, so indifferent to your wants and needs. You hate her so much that you want to redefine her and placate her with morals and ethics. You miserable idiot, can you see how your vengeful attitude is a product of weakness?
Can you see how you fear that I may be on to something, even while you pretend otherwise to yourself? How quick you were to point out that you were indifferent to me. This quickness spoke of a mask.

I certainly don't bother to blame you, darling. You are but entertainment to me. What is it they say in the western world? Wind-egg.
Feigning indifference is a popular response to me. Yet, actions speak louder than assertions.
If all you get from me is entertainment then sit at my window and watch me by my fire-place and be entertained.
I speak to my own kind, not to pathetic cowards, hiding behind mythical moralities to feel secure and weak minds wanting the numbers of herds to feel safe.
Huh, is that you knocking at my door?
I guarantee you won’t be able to help yourself and you will both read and answer, hoping I’ll respond. I know your kind.
Strength is frightening but also attractive, especially to the weak. The feeble worship strength through their hatred of it sometimes.

I am like dancing all over this one. Ha-ha-ha. You are an incredible hypocrite! Isn't it your moral high-ground against mine?
Yes, but mine is higher!!!
Can you see me up here and does the illusion of distance make me look small in your eyes?
Pray, as you and your kind are prone to do, that I do not dive down to your level and expose my real size.
Hypocrite? Yes, but only to those like you. It amuses me to confuse them.
To my own kind, I'm as honest and open as the sun.
Should man be honest to a dog?

And Athena is toying with her breast-plate...

I have nobler gods that that, my dear pathetic friend.
Dionysus and Apollo are who I worship.
Is Jesus still yours or have you moved up to more adult nihilism, like Buddha and Shiva?

Now kneel and beg, your God requires servitude and humility so that He can hold eternal dominion over you. My gods want me to fight them and win or perish in battle.
That is nobility!!!

Go to hell. Your invention. Use it.
Hell?
Are you taking me for a Christian dear fool?
There is no heaven and no hell only the world, if that.
Open your ears to it and hear the scream sounding feigntly, for you, like a whisper.
Are you such an imbecile that you've misinterpreted me for a Christian conservative?
Are your labels so simplistic?

Thanks for a wonderfully entchanting evening, Wanderer. Now, lets see what else challenges me in this delicious SciColosseum. BTW -- I am but a humble pariah here at the Sci-Colosseum so don't expect me to... get back on you unless you... turn me on.
Say something interesting and I might respond.
You don't even understand what I'm saying so imagine how entertained I am by your caricatures and entertainment.
Next time I might not even bother but today I’m bored.