whyIndeed
Drawing conclusions for whichever labels I present, when I did not specify how I might choose to apply the labels. Do you see where you're jumping to conclusions about my disposition yet?
My last words to you are this:
A burning death after mutilation is cruelty. The aggressors are torturing and burning the victims. The murdered suffering before the mob are victims. Everyone else witnessing the events is a spectator, although some of the spectators may be accomplices to the aggressors. Evidence for many of these events will surely be incomplete, and likely skewed. Without evidence in any direction how would anyone know.
But you, you're lashng out at people on the internet. At some point you marked me as an enemy. Maybe you'll realize you misread my remarks. Oh well, done with this conversation. I won't be replying to you again.
The Fallacy: That anybody was a noble actor.
Your wording makes it sound like there's a wrong-headed perception that war is not noble, and that the correction to the fallacy is to find ALL participants VERY noble, valiant and in high regard.
Then, your next sentences:
It was all self-serving. It's often held up as a just war.
The words "fallacy" and "nobody" inadvertently constitute a double negative.
The behavior of honey bees is one driven moreso by an inherited willingness to engage in servitude, than with wasps. Wasps are predatory carnivores, and their nests are smaller, more distributed, and constructed out of found materials, modified and pasted together. Wasps don't construct nests of secreted wax, they use mud and chewed up wood. Most wasps don't make any honey.
In honey bee hives, the manner of reproduction and sex selection is different. The queen really is the window through which the genome passes, and her capacity to produce devoted offspring, hopelessly obedient to her brand of pheremones, is her mark of success as an organism. And if she produced peers and not subjects she'd never have the spare time or the environment in which to gestate her offspring.
They liked it, they explained, because the trumpets
sounded exactly like the brassy screams of captive
women selected for feasting.
Considering that these people aren't particularly sophisticated in a social sense, you can't interpret a statement like that directly.
It needs to be examined as:
a. i like this sound, and appreciate what i'm hearing.
b. gee, it reminds me of that time the woman was
tortured, and her cries echoed across the valley.
something i can never forget. something that
cannot be stopped when mobs rule our culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazen_bull
Imagine people crafting a sculpture in the likeness of an animal, large enough to load an adult person inside, and being entertained by the noises of people (maybe your enemies, maybe not) being burned to death inside of it. Probably sounds like trumpets, no? Lest we forget what ancient Greece was like.
Cruel and unusual punishment isn't as far into the distant past as we'd like to imagine, either. This is just what that quote happened to remind me of.
Mob rule, in a place where social stratification is not adequate enough to provide for objective behavior modification by third party authoritarian paramilitary forces, takes on similar shapes around the world.
To drive the point home, I like a lot of ridiculous music, and some of the vocalists in the bands I like, they scream like they're being tortured to death. Having never witnessed any form of actual torture, firsthand, I still like the music, even though I'm not gripped by any particular desire to induce screams like that in any of my fellow human beings.
As a thought experiment, what does one do, when entering a room only to discover an entire family, all members old enough to know better, is engaged in depraved incestuous rituals?
Moral relativism is always a painful psychological quagmire.
Sure, greed, corruption, and low-brow abuse of power is repugnant in and of itself, but where does this start to become a Electronic issue?
How do the shenanigans of court district in Texas endanger an entire frontier of all things electronic?
From what I gather the line of reasoning is something like:
> eff cares about technology, in particular
electronics and communication.
> sometimes electronic systems, and the software these
systems employ, may be patented.
> patents in general may foster innovation, but
when misused, they may also stifle innovation.
> technological innovation, generally speaking, is
something the EFF cares about.
> in texas, there exists a group of political
activists colluding together to willfully
stifle technological innovation through
the careful misuse of U.S. patent law.
> although the manner in which these political
malefactors operate may be subtle and
convoluted, there is an obvious sense of the
goals behind their actions, and those goals
threaten to harm, not just a select group of
actors mired in interpersonal grudge matches,
but every participant in the American civil
justice system, by establishing dangerous
precedents with long reach and odd side
effects that may be weaponized to create
widespread strife and conflict amongst anyone
coming up against an opponent with the time,
money, and the awareness of said precedents.
> how the EFF is so certain of such intent
among these political actors remains
unclear, but because of this, the EFF is
willing to invest not-insignificant
resources in confronting and disrupting
their malignant behaviors.
> strategically speaking, should certain
specific legal decisions come to pass
in an American jurisdiction, it could
spell disaster for technological
innovation as a whole (really?), based
on the implicit logical corollaries
established by carefully chosen
legal battles won by this group.
> for this reason the EFF seeks to
challenge the validity of their
actions and their authority to operate
in general.