Murderous Terrorists Kill Brits

[Pico and ME]

Its my stick and I'll play with it if I want to...

Oh Wait...I dont have one.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

Glatt - I was referring to my ancestors, sorry for any confusion on your part.

There was no confusion. At least not on my part.

I asked you about Madoff and his kids because the question is whether the guilt of the fathers is passed on to the sons. You say it isn't in your case, and I was asking if it is in Madoff's case. Assuming the sons weren't in on the fraud. It's a hypothetical question.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Hypothetically speaking, if Madoff's kids weren't involved with defrauding billions from investors, but they clearly benefited financially, are they guilty of anything?

No

Originally Posted by glatt

What if they don't return the money once they find out about the fraud? Are they guilty then?

No

Originally Posted by glatt

They don't know exactly how much was ill gotten and who is owed what. Are they guilty to keep it, if they weren't involved in the original fraud?

No

Originally Posted by glatt

Are they guilty at all for living high on the hog for all those years? Assuming they didn't know?

No
This is very similar to a conversation I believe you and I have already had in another thread . For the record, you asked very specific questions which I answered.

[glatt]

Hey Classic, thanks for answering my questions. I'm not sure what other thread you are talking about, but it's possible we've talked about something similar before.

I didn't expect you to answer the way you did for one part, that the kids wouldn't be guilty to keep the money their dad had stolen. I figured you would find them guilty in some way if they did that. But it fits with what you were saying before about not feeling guilty for anything your ancestors have done.

I personally have a feeling that if we benefit somehow from bad things that our ancestors have done, then we share some of the guilt. I find it's not enough to do anything about it, but I acknowledge that it's there.

None of this has anything to do with the different groups of Christians killing each other over their differences in how they follow Christ.

[Aliantha]

SG, I'm glad you don't hate people by the name of Doyle. I'm only one generation away from being a Doyle. Or is it two? My Nana was a Doyle, that made my Dad half Doyle, so I'm a quarter, but my Mum has Doyle's on her side too but they're a generation back.

That being said, I don't consider myself Irish in any way even though that's where they came from. Australian all the way for me. It's really the only culture I identify with.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Hey Classic, thanks for answering my questions. I'm not sure what other thread you are talking about, but it's possible we've talked about something similar before.

I didn't expect you to answer the way you did for one part, that the kids wouldn't be guilty to keep the money their dad had stolen. I figured you would find them guilty in some way if they did that. But it fits with what you were saying before about not feeling guilty for anything your ancestors have done.

I personally have a feeling that if we benefit somehow from bad things that our ancestors have done, then we share some of the guilt. I find it's not enough to do anything about it, but I acknowledge that it's there.

Guilt to me acknowledges some culpability and/or responsibility. As the questions were worded, I had to answer them the way I did. I have no control over another person.

There is a difference between guilt or remorse and empathy. If someone was wronged by my great grandfather, for example, thats on him not me. What could I have done about it? I wasn't there I wasn't born yet. I feel no responsibility for the actions of someone else, what difference does it make if they were/are a distant relative or a complete stranger? If my cousin kills someone, should I go to jail?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

I disagree with that - I am not guilty of anything that another human did. Especially what was done during a different time an place in the world. Things have changed so much so rapidly, especially the last 20-50 years, that to hold me somehow responsible for something someone else did seems ludicrous to me. But hey, my views aren't popular, they're just mine.

Its usually never that simple.

Lets take glatt's example and expand on it. Lets say you are the son of someone who made a living off stealing money from others and your father never got caught. Now, because of the money your father stole, you were able to go to private school with a tutor, go to a nice college and get a good paying job (CEO lets say) while the families that your father stole from could not pay for college or even apply for loans and their children now had to work for you in a working class job.

You would at least have to acknowledge the fact that everything you have now is the result of your father's actions along with everything that the other children do not have. By exploiting the immoral actions of your father, how are you any different? If I steal a car and give it to you is it still not a stolen car? Do you still not bear some responsibility for it?

To go off in a tangent, this is the best reason why I do not believe in ideal justice. There is no good solution in this situation. Honestly, the best solution in my opinion would be for you to acknowledge that everything you have is the result of crime and not think yourself any better then the people that work for you, especially the children that your father stole from because the situation could easily have been switched.

Originally Posted by Classicman

Guilt to me acknowledges some culpability and/or responsibility. As the questions were worded, I had to answer them the way I did. I have no control over another person.

That brings me to this. If you still knowingly benefit from the fact that your lifestyle is the result of past crime, how you can not argue that you do not share at least some responsibility. Would you not feel bad if I robbed an old lady and then bought you a candy bar from that money? I mean....you didn't actually rob the old lady...

[classicman]

According to your view we should take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has? Every employee, vendor and anyone else even remotely associated with his organization then, according to you, shares in the responsibility of this one mans (or small groups) actions? Where do you draw the line? When does the responsibility end? With the janitor, window cleaners, the guy that delivered pizzas? Where??? All that was presumably bought and;/or paid for with "dirty money."

I am by no means saying that I am right or more importantly that you are wrong, just asking how far you are willing to go with the responsibility or guilt?

[piercehawkeye45]

You need to read more carefully.

Key words:
knowingly benefit

Key phrase:
There is no good solution to this problem



Also, I'm really curious how you got "take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has" from?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Would you not feel bad if I robbed an old lady and then bought you a candy bar from that money? I mean....you didn't actually rob the old lady...

I didn't think this part was serious. My response:
I might feel bad for you after I beat you within an inch of your life, stuff that candy bar you bought up your ass and then held you down so the "old lady" could kick you repeatedly in the balls till the police arrived. Yeah, I'd feel bad, but only for a moment.

But again, thats just me.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I'm really curious how you got "take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has" from?

I took it to the extreme - Now, where do you draw the line?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You need to read more carefully.

Originally Posted by classicman

According to your view we should take everything that everyone who worked for Madoff has?

You too - see the question mark?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

I didn't think this part was serious. My response:
I might feel bad for you after I beat you within an inch of your life, stuff that candy bar you bought up your ass and then held you down so the "old lady" could kick you repeatedly in the balls till the police arrived. Yeah, I'd feel bad, but only for a moment.

But again, thats just me.

Don't be stupid. You are fully aware that the point was to show that it can be possible to be guilty from actions of your predecessors when you KNOWINGLY BENEFIT from them. That was the point then and that has always been the point.

Originally Posted by Classicman

I took it to the extreme - Now, where do you draw the line?

A line cannot exist because it is impossible to not be biased or hypocritical. I try my best not to knowingly benefit from crime but that is still a load of idealistic crap. Take it how you want.

Originally Posted by Classicman

You too - see the question mark?

What? Just because you have a question mark there doesn't mean you don't imply something. For example

Person A - I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.
Person B - Do you believe we should start giving heroin away as well?

As you can see, even though Person B asked a question, it was still implied that marijuana decriminalization will lead to the legalization of harder drugs.

In your comment, you made an implication that I was getting at a point where everyone that was around Madoff should be stripped of everything they have, which is absolutely ridiculous. Not only that, the implication is also a straw man.

This happened earlier in this tread as well. Don't make ridiculous statements and hide behind the fact you put a question mark there.

I'm still curious of where you got that from.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

I have nothing but the highest respect for sugarpop and her opinions. I certainly disagree with some of them, but that is irrespective of the point being made here.
My opinion remains unstated and the question I originally asked still goes unanswered. A simple yes or no would suffice.

And I respect yours. Honestly though, I thought I had pretty much anwered the question in all my other posts, and that my opinion about this was pretty clear. I will state it again though.

I think, when people are desperate enough to turn to terrorism, they do so because they are not being heard. I believe people use those kinds of tactics, usually, because they do not have the resources of the people they are fighting, so they turn to radical methods to make a point. I believe that, in places where terrorism is common, people need to find common ground or they will never solve the problem. In order to DO that, you have to be willing to LISTEN to the people who are committing terrorism. You know, sometimes, they have a legitimate beef. Both sides have to be willing to make concessions. That means sometimes you have give terrorists some of what they want in order to gain peace.

Personally, I do believe you can fight terrorism, especially using conventional military means. If you could, Israel would be the safest country on earth.

[sugarpop]

Everyone is guilty of something.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Don't be stupid. You are fully aware that the point was to show that it can be possible to be guilty from actions of your predecessors when you KNOWINGLY BENEFIT from them. That was the point then and that has always been the point.

I'll try not to be stupid. lol
I got your point. I disagree with you. Have you gotten that yet? I don't know what my great grandparents did and if I found out today that they supplied guns to martians or some other illegal shit I AM STILL NOT GUILTY!
If you find out tomorrow that your education is/was being paid for with drug money from your long lost uncle/father/mother/sister.... Are you responsible or guilty in some way with this newly acquired knowledge?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

A line cannot exist because it is impossible to not be biased or hypocritical.

That is why I took the argument to both extremes. Good job! Welcome aboard.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What? Just because you have a question mark there doesn't mean you don't imply something. For example
Person A - I believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.
Person B - Do you believe we should start giving heroin away as well?
it was still implied that marijuana decriminalization will lead to the legalization of harder drugs.

You're paranoid. Actually I see that as "Do you think we should legalize heroin too?"
You have twisted the scenario a bit. Nice try.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

In your comment, you made an implication that I was getting at a point where everyone that was around Madoff should be stripped of everything they have

FALSE. No implication intended. Perhaps my post was not as clear as I thought it was. As I have said that was to establish a point of where the line is drawn. Since you now agree that there can be no line drawn, this has become moot.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

This happened earlier in this tread as well. Don't make ridiculous statements and hide behind the fact you put a question mark there.
I'm still curious of where you got that from.

I'm not hiding. With respect to the earlier reference with sugarpop. As I stated previously, my intention was to have
her clarify what she was saying. You may choose to believe me or not.