127
rule (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just reposting this excellent point from lemmygrad

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

The notion that anyone can peer into the future and see all the possible outcomes to a sufficient degree of certainty to claim that the only possible outcome is to kill the kid is also very silly and Madeline Albrightesque.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    We can be absolutely certain that the possibility of reinstating the monarchy would be very bad for lots of Jewish children. It's terrible, but Tsar Nicholas shouldn't have created a situation where he made the existence of his family so dangerous for everyone else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago*

    We can be absolutely certain that the possibility of reinstating the monarchy would be very bad for lots of Jewish children.

    Shooting a specific Royal lineage doesn't change anything about the possibility of reinstating the Monarchy. The white's didn't evaporate after the executions in the same way that the coalitions didn't evaporate as soon as soon as Louis XVI got the chop, and the House of Windsor doesn't quake at the thought of the current Jacobite pretenders. . The notion that the fate of the revolution hangs in the balance of Alexei's life is some grade A great man theory nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No, it wasn’t the only possible outcome but still a quite probable one.

    Somehow I don't think they made this decision after siting down with a slide rule and a bunch of actuarial tables, so I don't know how they arrived at that balance of probabilities.

    In reality it's more like cops defending their use of deadly force in any circumstances. They reckoned it had to be done, and their judgement is all that's needed to justify it, and now everyone else has to object to or rationalize their decision.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Sometimes people really do make decisions with uncertain and incomplete information, and sometimes people kill a black teenager for fun and pretend they feared for their lives. These are not the same thing. I wouldn't have killed the kids, but it probably saved a lot of other kids.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    but it probably saved a lot of other kids.

    Why we don't say stuff like this? We can't tease out the tread of time and say 15 years late what our actions are going to cause. Not with any degree of certainly but also not with any objective or even methodical notion of "probability" that we seem so eager to fall back on. We can stand in the moment and make a decision. Do I shoot the unarmed kid or not? That answer is pretty cut and dry for any humanstic strain of thought.

    The fact that I can conceive of a possible chain of events where that has unfortunate ramifications doesn't change that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent