For my Libertarian friends

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I just hope you mourn the death of the next body guard who's life is taken. The common folk's lives don't matter as much as though selfless selfless people. Unless the bodyguard is protecting me or my family, then no, I will likely not mourn his passing. Soldiers do protect me and my family.  Therefore I mourn their deaths. You pay them to protect you. They're no different then a bodyguard, you just happen to be paying these ones. Actually they are different because they don't invade other countries unprovoked and murder people, but that's besides the point

And if I owned a business and hired people to work for me selling ping pong balls, I would mourn their passing.  I would likely not mourn the deaths of those people I had not hired.

If its in the company newsletter it qualifies as mourning.

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I just hope you mourn the death of the next body guard who's life is taken. The common folk's lives don't matter as much as though selfless selfless people. Unless the bodyguard is protecting me or my family, then no, I will likely not mourn his passing. Soldiers do protect me and my family.  Therefore I mourn their deaths. You pay them to protect you. They're no different then a bodyguard, you just happen to be paying these ones. Actually they are different because they don't invade other countries unprovoked and murder people, but that's besides the point And if I owned a business and hired people to work for me selling ping pong balls, I would mourn their passing.  I would likely not mourn the deaths of those people I had not hired.

Seems wrong to me, but ok.

Trademark wrote: So its all or nothing then?  We have to mourn the deaths of either no one or everyone?

That is exactly what I said.

Obviously you mourn the death of ones  you know more than those you don't. That's not you mourning more because one's death means more, but because you had an emotional connection to that person.

However, absent any emotional connection why should the death of an employee mean more to you than a non-employee. A police officer more than a farmer? I don't like that. It cheapens others, glorifies policemen, and is an ugly form of collectivist thought.

IMO of course, IMHO.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Trademark wrote: So its all or nothing then?  We have to mourn the deaths of either no one or everyone? That is exactly what I said. Obviously you mourn the death of ones  you know more than those you don't. That's not you mourning more because one's death means more, but because you had an emotional connection to that person. However, absent any emotional connection why should the death of an employee mean more to you than a non-employee. A police officer more than a farmer? I don't like that. It cheapens others, glorifies policemen, and is an ugly form of collectivist thought. IMO of course, IMHO.

Collectivist thought?  Come on Pat.  You opinion sounds closer to collectivist thought ("everyone must be mourned equally! We cannot have this disparity of mourning because it cheapens others!").

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Trademark wrote: So its all or nothing then?  We have to mourn the deaths of either no one or everyone? That is exactly what I said. Obviously you mourn the death of ones  you know more than those you don't. That's not you mourning more because one's death means more, but because you had an emotional connection to that person. However, absent any emotional connection why should the death of an employee mean more to you than a non-employee. A police officer more than a farmer? I don't like that. It cheapens others, glorifies policemen, and is an ugly form of collectivist thought. IMO of course, IMHO. Collectivist thought?  Come on Pat.  You opinion sounds closer to collectivist thought ("everyone must be mourned equally! We cannot have this disparity of mourning because it cheapens others!").

I think judging people by what group they belong to rather than as individuals is definition of collectivism.

I'm saying to treat people as individuals, as I usually do.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Trademark wrote: So its all or nothing then?  We have to mourn the deaths of either no one or everyone? That is exactly what I said. Obviously you mourn the death of ones  you know more than those you don't. That's not you mourning more because one's death means more, but because you had an emotional connection to that person. However, absent any emotional connection why should the death of an employee mean more to you than a non-employee. A police officer more than a farmer? I don't like that. It cheapens others, glorifies policemen, and is an ugly form of collectivist thought. IMO of course, IMHO. Collectivist thought?  Come on Pat.  You opinion sounds closer to collectivist thought ("everyone must be mourned equally! We cannot have this disparity of mourning because it cheapens others!"). I think judging people by what group they belong to rather than as individuals is definition of collectivism. I'm saying to treat people as individuals, as I usually do.

You are effectively saying that all individuals possess an equal level of dignity, but I don't agree with this.  Therefore, I will mourn the death of an honorable soldier killed in battle but not that of a drunken bum hit by a car while staggering across the street.

CPicard wrote: In fact, in French, "judging people by what group they belong" is called "racism".

So if I judge a person for being an atheist I'm being racist? 

Must be nice to sleep past 5:00

Epignosis wrote: CPicard wrote: In fact, in French, "judging people by what group they belong" is called "racism". So if I judge a person for being an atheist I'm being racist?

It depends on what you call "judging".

If you're a judge and that you're judging someone for a crime he did commit, you're doing your job.

If you start yelling "all atheists are mean and stupid, they smell bad, the atheist men have small penises, the atheist women have small breasts", then it's racism / bigotry / intolerance.