Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Jeff Hall, one of the leaders of the National Socialist Movement was shot dead Sunday, probably by his ten year old son. Personally, this makes me feel safer than a dead Bin Laden. One less Nazi breathing.

Good for you; as long as you know the difference between a national socialist and a socialist.

Originally posted by skekUng
Good for you; as long as you know the difference between a national socialist and a socialist. Yeah--one's a communist and the other has "nationalist" in the name. Which lets you know how patriotic they are.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah--one's a communist and the other has "nationalist" in the name. Which lets you know how patriotic they are.

Unless that was sarcasm, it is wrong.

Originally posted by skekUng
Unless that was sarcasm, it is wrong. Swing and a miss. Almost. It was a ball, not a strike.

Originally posted by skekUng
Good for you; as long as you know the difference between a national socialist and a socialist.

Slight difference in body count?

No, no. It's skin color, isn't it?

If it was his son, I sentence him to counseling and to serve out his prison term at Disneyland. Now he did commit a heinous crime so he only gets fast pass on weekends and for the first six months, he can only get into California Adventure.


And for the record, yeah, I know the difference. National Socialism is to Socialism as Democratic Kampuchea was to Democracy or as the Republican Party is to Republicanism.

yes, but you also think there are people out there it is ok to kill and harm...

Wait... why did his ten year old son kill him? Why is it a good thing when a ten year old kills anyone?

ummm, he disagreed with us, therefore, we celebrate his death

The man doesn't even have a wiki page, how important could he have been.

He was the leader of a major Nazi hate group who is subverting Arizona politics, responsible for acts of violence, and is patrolling our southern border with military grade weaponry waiting for an excuse. And for the record, despite being nearly a Democratic Socialist, I never said I was against the death penalty and have pointed out my admiration for Germany's Iron Front militia several times Inimalist. I respect and revere human life but at the same time recognize that there are people who are too dangerous to live.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I never said I was against the death penalty and have pointed out my admiration for Germany's Iron Front militia several times Inimalist.

I know, hence my sarcastic remark pointing out what I see as a glaring contradiction in your beliefs.

It is ok to promote hate and violence so long as it is against those who promote hate and violence, though for some reason we have the moral high ground in this equation

also, inimalist.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I respect and revere human life but at the same time recognize that there are people who are too dangerous to live.

so you respect the rights only of those who you feel are worthy of deserving rights?

Wait, so this guy got shot by his ten year old? That is a rally poster for gun control if ever I've heard one. The irony is funny to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
so you respect the rights only of those who you feel are worthy of deserving rights?

no, I just don't respect the rights of those who pose a threat to the rights or lives of others.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
no, I just don't respect the rights of those who pose a threat to the rights or lives of others.

how does that differ from what I said?

also, what standard do you use to determine threat? further, how does your ideals not pose as threatening to these people you think are a threat. there is some sort of special pleading going on here

Originally posted by inimalist
how does that differ from what I said?

also, what standard do you use to determine threat? further, how does your ideals not pose as threatening to these people you think are a threat. there is some sort of special pleading going on here I think the laws of most western nation already determine that for us.

I see no "heinous" contradiction in Darth Jello's thought process. Believing all should live and none should be killed is just as questionable as believing that it is better that one man should die so that many can live (and by "live" I also mean something similar to "live up life, man!"

Humans, as a whole, would agree with Darth Jello. Argumentum ad populum is my fallacy. But what's the other side of the moral coin on this? Argumentum ad minimus? That doesn't make sense, either. But then we could say, "So if the majority of humans think it's okay to commit genocide, then it's okay?" Then I reply, "So if the minority of people think it's wrong to take a dump, then it's okay?"

There could be a "moral" meter-stick that could be used to end all arguments: "the path that leads to the preservation of the most life is the most morally sound."

But even that could be morally wrong. I think the argument is futile because the debate is really not solvable due to how extremely subjective it is.



Anyway, did this guy murder lots of people and planned on murdering more? If so, then it's possible that the moral of "preserving the most life" has been fulfilled in his death via his son.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Humans, as a whole, would agree with Darth Jello. Argumentum ad populum is my fallacy. But what's the other side of the moral coin on this? Argumentum ad pupillus? That doesn't make sense, either. But then we could say, "So if the majority of humans think it's okay to commit genocide, then it's okay?" Then I reply, "So if the minority of people think it's wrong to take a dump, then it's okay?"
No, the point isn't that the minority is always right. The point is that an argument is sound purely on the basis of its intellectual strength, not on how many (or how few) believe it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anyway, did this guy murder lots of people and planned on murdering more? If so, then it's possible that the moral of "preserving the most life" has been fulfilled in his death via his son.

unless of course, you think killing people is immoral in the first place...

Only an idiot would think that, though, since there are many scenarios in which the only way to save lives is to end others. Should we really cater to the thoughts of idiots?

Gotta love the moral dilemma. Better to do without it frankly.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Only an idiot would think that, though, since there are many scenarios in which the only way to save lives is to end others. Should we really cater to the thoughts of idiots?

so, killing can be pragmatic, it isn't moral

/idocy

That is idiotic, yes. Can you give me even a single logical reason for why killing being unconditionally immoral would make sense?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That is idiotic, yes. Can you give me even a single logical reason for why killing being unconditionally immoral would make sense?

I don't believe one man has the right to end the life of another, for any reason, save self-defense, but even then, I'm divided between it being a moral or pragmatic decision...

I don't see what is illogical about that at all, and frankly, its far more consistent than the morals most people throw around

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your inaction indirectly endorses killing, violating your moral idea on killing.

yes, words can be twisted in funny ways

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't believe one man has the right to end the life of another, for any reason, save self-defense, but even then, I'm divided between it being a moral or pragmatic decision...

I don't see what is illogical about that at all, and frankly, its far more consistent than the morals most people throw around I asked you to provide a logical reason for why killing being unconditionally immoral makes sense. You explained your belief in greater detail, which I always appreciate, but.. that's not what I asked you to do.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I asked you to provide a logical reason for why killing being unconditionally immoral makes sense.

I don't believe one man has the right to end the life of another

what is illogical about that? you might disagree...

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't believe one man has the right to end the life of another


How is this not a really naive and silly belief?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
How is this not a really naive and silly belief?

I don't see it as either, so you might have to fill me in...

Why don't you see it as either?

Because it is a pretty simple axiom that makes sense to me. If I think someone is bad because they kill, killing them makes me bad, therefore I deserve the same fate.

I think you might be confusing my moral stance with the pragmatics that sometimes come up, like, say the firebombing of Berlin during ww2, where copious innocents were killed to end the war. There is nothing moral or good about it, but it needed to be done if we didn't want to live under genocidal fascism. The basic pragmatic needs of people outweighed the moral cost of the action, the pragmatic benefit does not reduce the moral consequences.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, words can be twisted in funny ways

That's neither 'twisted" nor is it "funny."




It's a logical conundrum ecountered in more than just the "killing" stance.

That is the same exact concept that can be applied to any idea on moral "do nots." "Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not torture." etc.

Your apathy against those that violate the morals you hold indirectly endorses the violation of those very same morals.

The proper response is, "Why should I care about the actions of others? I only hold these morals to govern the self and not others because it violates the other moral I have of 'morals should only be applied to the self.'" Thus preserving your moral ideas while allowing you to not fall subject to the "moral dilemma" of "do nots" on morals.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's rather arbitrary since it definitely does not have "intellectual strength." Neither side does as they are extremely subjective.
Well then it's useless even discussing it. appeals to popularity is never a good way to determine if something is right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's neither 'twisted" nor is it "funny."




It's a logical conundrum ecountered in more than just the "killing" stance.

That is the same exact concept that can be applied to any idea on moral "do nots." "Do not steal. Do not rape. Do not torture." etc.

Your apathy against those that violate the morals you hold indirectly endorses the violation of those very same morals.

The proper response is, "Why should I care about the actions of others? I only hold these morals to govern the self and not others because it violates the other moral I have of 'morals should only be applied to the self.'" Thus preserving your moral ideas while allowing you to not fall subject to the "moral dilemma" of "do nots" on morals.

if you knew the logical response, why ask?

and I object to your use of "endorse". It isn't even tacitly endorsing. I support any effort to stop people from killing, save outright murdering them

lol

EDIT: not to mention, your whole argument falls apart if there is any other way to stop people from murdering aside from killing them. Since there is, I really don't need to support death to be against killers

I don't see a distinction between pragmatism and morality. Assuming that it is a fact that invading Japan would have cost more money and lives than dropping the nukes, I would say that the United States was morally correct for nuking Japan and ending the war with as minimal loss of life on both sides as reasonably possible. The act of performing the action with the intention of saving lives is what defines wither the action was moral or not. It's intent that decides morality, imo.

That aside, though, I've been busting your balls. Morality's all relative so there's no such thing as an idiotic moral belief.

Though, I do disagree with the notion that killing is unconditionally morally wrong. That's not something that could be argued in a traditional manner, though.

I say "though" a lot, though, I was raised in a California public school, so my lack of varied vocabulary is hardly surprising.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The act of performing the action with the intention of saving lives is what defines wither the action was moral or not. It's intent that decides morality, imo.
Mao Zedong, had nothing but the best of intentions for his actions... I would say, being the biggest killer in history more than outweighs that.

He also helped China become a lot less suck ass, immensely, and prolly saved a whole lot of lives in the process. Does that outweigh his murderous acts?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't see a distinction between pragmatism and morality. Assuming that it is a fact that invading Japan would have cost more money and lives than dropping the nukes, I would say that the United States was morally correct for nuking Japan and ending the war with as minimal loss of life on both sides as reasonably possible. The act of performing the action with the intention of saving lives is what defines wither the action was moral or not. It's intent that decides morality, imo.

That aside, though, I've been busting your balls. Morality's all relative so there's no such thing as an idiotic moral belief.

Though, I do disagree with the notion that killing is unconditionally morally wrong. That's not something that could be argued in a traditional manner, though.

I say "though" a lot, though, I was raised in a California public school, so my lack of varied vocabulary is hardly surprising.

I think its also that I don't really see avoiding doing morally wrong things as imperative. So, nuking Japan might have been morally reprehensible, but that doesn't mean there are convincing arguments, or, it also doesn't mean there aren't more immoral options.

Like, war is a tough one morally anyways, since the entire thing is immoral imho. Once you have made killing and such acceptable, well, wtf do you need morals for anyhow?

lol, no totally, there really no way to say what is or isn't moral.

I feel I say though a lot too... it and however, I can drop 2-3 of them in a sentence if I'm not careful... I think it just means we're thoughtful people

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well then it's useless even discussing it. appeals to popularity is never a good way to determine if something is right.

You've come full circle and have paraphrased what I've already stated.





I don't want you to think I'm stretching the truth:

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well then it's useless even discussing it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the argument is futile because the debate is really not solvable due to how extremely subjective it is.







Originally posted by King Kandy
appeals to popularity is never a good way to determine if something is right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Argumentum ad populum is fallacy.

Originally posted by inimalist
if you knew the logical response, why ask?

This assumes that my "logical" response was unnecessary when it definitely was not.

The reason to ask is multi-faceted:

1. Because you did not present the argument. I could have left it unsaid and you would be left with no response to the logical conundrum presented.
2. It further illustrates the futility of the argument. Lest you forget that I've already stated this:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the argument is futile because the debate is really not solvable due to how extremely subjective it is.

3. It was to indirectly draw attention to another potential violation of morals: the immorality of apathy or the concept of "internal morals only, please". I do not think that this particular moral argument is as "unsolvable" as the "should you kill" argument. It boils down to "I can compromise my morals for this reason." That also happens to be the direct response to Christians or others that say they believe killing is wrong but make exceptions.



I did not assume I had to outline all of that because this argument of "killing" is far from new to either of us.



Originally posted by inimalist
and I object to your use of "endorse".

I object to your attempt to distance yourself from your moral violation.


Originally posted by inimalist
It isn't even tacitly endorsing.

It's indirectly indorsing unless you hold the moral belief that morals only apply to an individual and it is morally wrong to mitigate the violation of your personal moral beliefs when they are violated upon others.

Originally posted by inimalist
I support any effort to stop people from killing, save outright murdering them

lol

I present to the court the "The Joker" concept.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: not to mention, your whole argument falls apart if there is any other way to stop people from murdering aside from killing them. Since there is, I really don't need to support death to be against killers

And this counter-argument falls apart when there's a person that will always fight to the death to retain their ability to continue to kill. No where in the world does this occur? Does it occur anywhere?

Also, I was waiting for you to make this argument as it falls nicely into my other response of:

Why can there not be a more atrocious violation of personal moral rights when you remove the person's ability to practice their life in what they view as being the best possible moral path? Isn't that more atrocious than taking that person's life especially if they hold it to be so?

That moral argument isn't new, either.

This is like a complete rehash of the major moral questions. None of us have covered any new ground.

if the best counter-argument you have is "The Joker"...

Originally posted by inimalist
if the best counter-argument you have is "The Joker"...






Okay, okay....I geev... geeeev!

hell, if we do ever find "the joker", just give him the bradley manning treatment

Originally posted by inimalist
hell, if we do ever find "the joker", just give him the bradley manning treatment






Though I do believe that Joker had even more severe detention than Manning did. The Joker always figures out a way, despite his detention which is just a writing tool and not feasible at all.

ya, essentially my point