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

Murder.



I've been having a discussion with some KMC members about this topic and we disagree on what murder is.

I made the argument that the Nazis invading Poland and killing them was murder.

Others disagreed.

Originally posted by Klaw
Murder.



I've been having a discussion with some KMC members about this topic and we disagree on what murder is.

I made the argument that the Nazis invading Poland and killing them was murder.

Others disagreed. Why did they disagree?

Originally posted by Newjak
Why did they disagree?

I sent them this thread, so hopefully they'll add their opinions.

Murder is killing ppl, we don't need govt permission to cover, imo.

Keep in mind this conversation also had a theological slant, so it was also about what is considered murder in Biblical terms (as in, "Thou shalt not murder". Ethneo said that German soldiers who fought in the invasion of Poland were not murdering, due to it being a war/combat situation.

I'd probably agree with him there, as long as it's specifically regarding soldiers killing soldiers.

I offer this as a definition of combat: "Combat should be defined roughly as two parties or persons engaging in conflict. So, the battles between soldiers during the invasion of Poland was combat, but the resulting Holocaust was not combat (and was mass murder / genocide), as it was the extermination of civilians by military and government personnel."


Murder itself is a complex term. Some would define murder as any illegal killing (which is what it is considered legally, of course, with caveats such as manslaughter), whilst others would expand it beyond legal boundaries and define it as any killing without justification or excuse (which explains terms such as "meat is murder". Most dictionaries use the first definition, keeping it as a legal and not a moral term.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Murder is killing ppl, we don't need govt permission to cover, imo.

Originally posted by Scribble
Keep in mind this conversation also had a theological slant, so it was also about what is considered murder in Biblical terms (as in, "Thou shalt not murder". Ethneo said that German soldiers who fought in the invasion of Poland were not murdering, due to it being a war/combat situation.

I'd probably agree with him there, as long as it's specifically regarding soldiers killing soldiers.

I offer this as a definition of combat: "Combat should be defined roughly as two parties or persons engaging in conflict. So, the battles between soldiers during the invasion of Poland was conflict, but the resulting Holocaust was not combat (and was mass murder / genocide), as it was the extermination of civilians by military and government personnel."


Murder itself is a complex term. Some would define murder as any illegal killing (which is what it is considered legally, of course, with caveats such as manslaughter), whilst others would expand it beyond legal boundaries and define it as any killing without justification or excuse (which explains terms such as "meat as murder". Most dictionaries use the first definition, keeping it as a legal and not a moral term.

That was a glorious talking point for a simple discussion:P

The delineation between murder and war is double speak that benefits those who benefit from the proceeding confusion. Even war has been transformed into kinetic military action. Any initiation of violence against an individual or their property is deontologically immoral.

Originally posted by Newjak
Why did they disagree?



What we said is that the Holocaust itself (the systematic killing of unarmed civilians by the Nazi government) was in fact murder. It was mass murder, actually. The german soldiers did not commit murder when they killed enemy actual armed soldiers in battle because they were ordered to by their government.

If anyone was guilty of murder in that case, it would've been the government itself only. Of course any soldiers who participated in the killing of innocent unarmed civilians would be guilty of murder too.

As usual, Klaw misrepresents what we actually said and uses strawman arguments. I swear, he is becoming more and more like you crazy, irrational lefties with each passing day...smh.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Of course any soldiers who participated in the killing of innocent unarmed civilians would be guilty of murder too.


So where do you put the blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc on that list?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So where do you put the blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc on that list?


Those attacks were directed at enemies who refused to surrender. Any civilian casualties as a result of those were collateral damage.

I'm not familiar with Dresden but those other examples you mentioned I would not classify as being mass murders. Mass killings, yes, but not murders.

I would think that attacking any civilian centres of population would be considered attempted murder, personally.

Well, in the cases mentioned above, I would not.

So we disagree, it seems.

Obviously.... I mean, if some lone terrorist sets off a bomb for "Allah" or whatever in a major city that kills lots of innocent people then that would be a clear case of mass murder (though from the terrorist's pov it probably wouldn't be; he'd probably view himself as a hero).

I don't put that in the same category as dropping bombs on an enemy whom you've warned to surrender or else you will use your secret weapon on them and they refuse to surrender. Especially after you've already used it one time and so they know you aren't bluffing and yet they still refuse to surrender.

Any deaths that result after that would be on their (the people who tefused to surrender) heads for sure.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So where do you put the blitz, Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc on that list? imo they are war crimes, and as such, unjust killings. If you use the larger meaning of 'murder' then they are definitely murder.


The bombings of Hiroshima / Nagasaki are perhaps the two most singularly abominable acts in human history.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Obviously.... I mean, if some lone terrorist sets off a bomb for "Allah" or whatever in a major city that kills lots of innocent people then that would be a clear case of mass murder (though from the terrorist's pov it probably wouldn't be; he'd probably view himself as a hero).

I don't put that in the same category as dropping bombs on an enemy whom you've warned to surrender or else you will use your secret weapon on them and they refuse to surrender. Especially after you've already used it one time and so they know you aren't bluffing and yet they still refuse to surrender.

Any deaths that result after that would be on their (the people who tefused to surrender) heads for sure. That's hypocritical. Surely by your reasoning, the terrorist is a combatant, and is attacking an enemy stronghold. ISIS have told the West to surrender plenty of times, and they didn't, so by your justification their attacks are definitely not murder. You're picking and choosing based on which side you prefer in this case.

Originally posted by Scribble
imo they are war crimes, and as such, unjust killings. If you use the larger meaning of 'murder' then they are definitely murder.


The bombings of Hiroshima / Nagasaki are perhaps the two most singularly abominable acts in human history.

That's hypocritical. Surely by your reasoning, the terrorist is a combatant, and is attacking an enemy stronghold. ISIS have told the West to surrender plenty of times, and they didn't, so by your justification their attacks are definitely not murder. You're picking and choosing based on which side you prefer in this case.


Nah, it's not hypocritical. Nice try though. The US was at war with Japan because Japan wrongly attacked them (killing thousands of innocent Americans some of whom were civilians) while pretending to be their friend. Whatever happened to the japanese after that point they brought on themselves. Sorry but I don't consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder.


Both of those targets were military type targets that just so happened to have a lot of innocent civilians in the surrounding area. They were collateral damage. It wasn't murder.

And you're ignoring the fact that the American government gave them a chance to surrender before dropping the bombs.


A lone terrorist that blows up a bunch of people is a mass murderer. He is intentionally wanting to kill innocent unarmed civilians to cause terror. It is not the same thing. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved far more people in the long run than would've been saved had the US tried a land invasion of Japan.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, it's not hypocritical. Nice try though. The US was at war with Japan because Japan wrongly attacked them (killing thousands of innocent Americans some of whom were civilians) while pretending to be their friend. Whatever happened to the japanese after that point they brought on themselves. Sorry but I don't consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder.


Both of those targets were military type targets that just so happened to have a lot of innocent civilians in the surrounding area. They were collateral damage. It wasn't murder.

And you're ignoring the fact that the American government gave them a chance to surrender before dropping the bombs.


A lone terrorist that blows up a bunch of people is a mass murderer. He is intentionally wanting to kill innocent unarmed civilians to cause terror. It is not the same thing. If you can't see that then I can't help you. That's just silly. "The Japanese" did not decide to attack Pearl Harbour, their government did. Up to 226,000 civilians died in the Hiroshima / Nagasaki bombings, and the targets were chosen specifically due to high density of population of innocents. This was not an air raid on a military strong hold, this is an abomination and a war crime. The only reason you do not see it as such is because you are Hell Yeah Murican.

If I say to a guy I'm fist-fighting "surrender!" and he doesn't, and then I carpet bomb his entire family, that would be a bit ****ed up, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved far more people in the long run than would've been saved had the US tried a land invasion of Japan. So you think it's justified murder, fine. It's still murder.

Like I said, those innocent civilians were collateral damage. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military type targets which were used in the Japanese war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate but they were not the intended targets.

And you're also ignoring the fact that even after the US dropped the bomb the first time, the japs still stubbornly refused to surrender. If you still think that they weren't directly at fault at that point then then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Like I said, those innocent civilians were collateral damage. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military type targets which were used in the Japanese war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate but they were not the intended targets. They nuked two ****ing cities lmao. Collateral damage, sure...

Sorry Scribble, but if your intent is trying to make me feel guilty for what the Japs brought on themselves then you are going to fail miserably. You should just save yourself some time by giving it up because I guarantee you that you will never obtain your goal.

Originally posted by Scribble
They nuked two ****ing cities lmao. Collateral damage, sure...


So you're ignorant and just trolling me now. Ok, good to know. Now I know not to waste anymore time arguing with a moron.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Sorry Scribble, but if your intent is trying to make me feel guilty for what the Japs brought on themselves then you are going to fail miserably. You should just save yourself some time by giving it up because I guarabtee you that you will never obtain your goal. Why do you assume everyone you have a conversation with is trying to guilt you, troll you or enrage you? awebrow

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So you're ignorant and just trolling me now. Ok, good to know. Now I know not to waste anymore time arguing with a moron. God, you're so touchy, lol

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Obviously.... I mean, if some lone terrorist sets off a bomb for "Allah" or whatever in a major city that kills lots of innocent people then that would be a clear case of mass murder (though from the terrorist's pov it probably wouldn't be; he'd probably view himself as a hero).

I don't put that in the same category as dropping bombs on an enemy whom you've warned to surrender or else you will use your secret weapon on them and they refuse to surrender. Especially after you've already used it one time and so they know you aren't bluffing and yet they still refuse to surrender.

Any deaths that result after that would be on their (the people who tefused to surrender) heads for sure.

The Japanese public were not enemy combatants. They were civilians. They were not "the enemy", nor was surrendering up to them.

You can argue that the bombings were justified til the cows come home, but it's still mass murder imo.

^Like I said, EPIC FAIL.

Originally posted by -Pr-
The Japanese public were not enemy combatants. They were civilians. They were not "the enemy", nor was surrendering up to them.

You can argue that the bombings were justified til the cows come home, but it's still mass murder imo. Nah, Pr, you don't get it. The Japs were asking for it.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^Like I said, EPIC FAIL.

Really hope you're not quoting me intentionally.

Originally posted by Scribble
Nah, Pr, you don't get it. The Japs were asking for it.

Indeed. Those 200,000 or so civilians totally had it coming.

Originally posted by -Pr-
The Japanese public were not enemy combatants. They were civilians. They were not "the enemy", nor was surrendering up to them.

You can argue that the bombings were justified til the cows come home, but it's still mass murder imo.


Are you blind? Or do have a problem with reading comprehension, dude? I have said multiple times already that the innocent civilians were not the US governments intended targets. Do you not know what collateral damage is? Both of those targets were used in the japanesee war effort. You and Scribble can keep ignoring this to the cows come home but it was not in any way mass murder no matter how much you two keep repeating it.

If it was mass murder (which it wasn't) then it was on the japanese government's head, not America's.


Maybe they shouldn't have picked a fight with the wrong country, get it? Again, they brought it on themselves. It's sad that so many innocent civilians were killed but again, they were not the primary targets. They just happened to be in the surrounding area. If the Japs wanna blame someone for what happened then they should blame themselves.


I'm done arguing this subject with moronic people who're intent on making me feel like shit because my country bombed a country that attacked us first while deceitfully pretending to be our friend.

Again, you both failed epically.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... you support abortion from what I remember so you lecturing me on what murder is just makes me laugh, dude. Think maybe you are the one having a problem with what that word actually means.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
They just happened to be in the surrounding area. ...you mean the city that they lived in? That surrounding area? awebrow

When you kill your enemy but innocents are also harmed or killed in the process that is not murder. That is collateral damage. Murder is when you intentionally and wrongly kill someone.

It's so sad that I have to explain something so simple as that to a grown ass adult lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
When you kill your enemy but innocents are also harmed or killed in the process that is not murder. That is collateral damage. Murder is when you intentionally and wrongly kill someone.

It's so sad that I have to explain something so simple as that to a grown ass adult lol. Cool, gotcha. Totally makes sense. Dropping nukes on entire cities because there are some soldiers there isn't mass murder because it was the soldiers you were aiming for, and the civilians just happened to get in the way.


https://media.tenor.com/images/456d1b24ff6b985159a4c881ac1f1efb/tenor.gif

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Those attacks were directed at enemies who refused to surrender. Any civilian casualties as a result of those were collateral damage.

I'm not familiar with Dresden but those other examples you mentioned I would not classify as being mass murders. Mass killings, yes, but not murders.

Dresden is a city in Germany. In WW2 the Royal Air Force fire bombed it, killing 25,000 civilians.

The thing about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the target wasn't the military installations, the goal was to show off the immense power of the new weapons developed. Similar firebombing had no positive effect on the war effort, which the allies knew, since the bombing of London by the Nazis only strengthened the resolve of the populace there as well.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Are you blind? Or do have a problem with reading comprehension, dude? I have said multiple times already that the innocent civilians were not the US governments intended targets. Do you not know what collateral damage is? Both of those targets were used in the japanesee war effort. You and Scribble can keep ignoring this to the cows come home but it was not in any way mass murder no matter how much you two keep repeating it.

If it was mass murder (which it wasn't) then it was on the japanese government's head, not America's.


Maybe they shouldn't have picked a fight with the wrong country, get it? Again, they brought it on themselves. It's sad that so many innocent civilians were killed but again, they were not the primary targets. They just happened to be in the surrounding area. If the Japs wanna blame someone for what happened then they should blame themselves.


I'm done arguing this subject with moronic people who're intent on making me feel like shit because my country bombed a country that attacked us first while deceitfully pretending to be our friend.

Again, you both failed epically.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot... you support abortion from what I remember so you lecturing me on what murder is just makes me laugh, dude. Think maybe you are the one having a problem with what that word actually means.

I'm starting to wonder if there isn't an undercurrent of racism in your posts, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. It's only fair. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were cities. Civilian targets. You desperately trying to blame Japanese citizens for being nuked only makes you look bad. Not them.

And like Jaden said, Dresden is a city too.

Actually, I'm pro choice. That isn't the same thing. Funny though, how you constantly spew bigotry and stupidity but try to take the moral high ground. That's not a good idea.

Originally posted by Artol
The thing about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that the target wasn't the military installations, the goal was to show off the immense power of the new weapons developed. Similar firebombing had no positive effect on the war effort, which the allies knew, since the bombing of London by the Nazis only strengthened the resolve of the populace there as well.


Yeah, they wanted to do that to but that was incidental to them targetting the places they chose to target.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, they wanted to do that to but that was incidental to them targetting the places they chose to target.

I don't think so really, there's a fair amount of information about the process and what the deciders in the US knew and wanted, they had a couple different targets they considered, but it was not to hurt the war effort, since the United States had basically achieved supremacy by that time and Japan was on its last leg either way. Imo the real reason to do it was to end the war before the Soviet Union could enter it (which had previously been agreed to by the allies) and to send the message of the immense power the United States had developed, again, not to the Japanese per se, but to the Soviet Union. It was a display of dominance at the expense of 100 000 civilians, a very dark part of an already incredibly sad and tragic war, imo.

"We carpet bombed the entire country, and sure, maybe all of the citizens are dead, but we got the military, which is who we were aiming for. Besides, the civilians were asking for it by being there."

I mean it is a pretty common view, especially in the United States, the US curriculum on history is not that interested to frame itself in any sort of moral grey in this regard. It's similar to the UK and its education regarding the atrocities of the empire. Or also conversely the way that Japan has dealt with its atrocities in the Second World War, i.e. mainly ignore them, at least in schools. So I'm not really angry at people not knowing much about that unless they have an interest in history in one way or another.

Originally posted by Artol
I mean it is a pretty common view, especially in the United States, the US curriculum on history is not that interested to frame itself in any sort of moral grey in this regard. It's similar to the UK and its education regarding the atrocities of the empire. Or also conversely the way that Japan has dealt with its atrocities in the Second World War, i.e. mainly ignore them, at least in schools. So I'm not really angry at people not knowing much about that unless they have an interest in history in one way or another. That is true. It's one of the most sinister aspects of nationalism and post-imperialism, that history is framed with such bias as to excuse past (and thus future) atrocities. How does one who is 'patriotic' approach thinking about what its country has done when the acts are so monstrous and inhumane? They either ignore the atrocity, or double down on defending their country's actions by finding their own excuses, whatever those may be, as to why their country did no wrong.

We seem to have drifted in the conversation from the actions of the participants to the moral and legal definitions of the people who ordered the actions.

I'm asking whether the pilots who dropped the bombs should be considered murderers. If soldiers who gun down civilians, as opposed to other soldiers,
are murderers then logic would imply that the flight crews who bomb civilians are as well.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
We seem to have drifted in the conversation from the actions of the participants to the moral and legal definitions of the people who ordered the actions.

I'm asking whether the pilots who dropped the bombs should be considered murderers. If soldiers who gun down civilians, as opposed to other soldiers,
are murderers then logic would imply that the flight crews who bomb civilians are as well.

I think you could make that case very reasonably.

I hope the irony of eThneoLgrRnae shouting Allah in one of his posts describing an ISIS terrorists as murder because of civilians dying but not the nuking of major Japanese cities because "collateral damage" isn't lost everyone here.

Honestly on the topic of murder I hate how we don't classify military exchanges as murder. I know from a historical point of view leaders and commanders need their soldiers to feel as guilt free as possible otherwise suicides among soldiers would sky rocket.

It's why the Crusades were a "Holy" war. It's why we come up with every conceivable reason to for humanities wars to be justified.

It's why propaganda is such a major military tool.

I would personally say the Nazis attacking Poland was murder. The soldiers may have justified as just war but they still attacked a group that didn't attack them first.

Originally posted by Newjak
I hope the irony of eThneoLgrRnae shouting Allah in one of his posts describing an ISIS terrorists as murder because of civilians dying but not the nuking of major Japanese cities because "collateral damage" isn't lost everyone here.

Honestly on the topic of murder I hate how we don't classify military exchanges as murder. I know from a historical point of view leaders and commanders need their soldiers to feel as guilt free as possible otherwise suicides among soldiers would sky rocket.

It's why the Crusades were a "Holy" war. It's why we come up with every conceivable reason to for humanities wars to be justified.

It's why propaganda is such a major military tool.

I would personally say the Nazis attacking Poland was murder. The soldiers may have justified as just war but they still attacked a group that didn't attack them first. A fair point, but at that point, what isn't murder, other than self-defence? Is all war murder? Why use the term 'murder' rather than just 'killing'?

Murder is usually used in an emotive rather than a descriptive way. Essentially, if you morally agree with the killing, then it is killing, if you morally object to it then it is murder. Not a very useful application of words, imo.


Apologies, I'm going to quote myself:
Originally posted by Scribble
Some would define murder as any illegal killing (which is what it is considered legally, of course, with caveats such as manslaughter), whilst others would expand it beyond legal boundaries and define it as any killing without justification or excuse (which explains terms such as "meat is murder". Most dictionaries use the first definition, keeping it as a legal and not a moral term.
In both of these generally-accepted uses of the term, the soldiers invading Poland are not murderers. Their justification for killing is that they are soldiers who have orders, and that's an excuse, too. The reason for those orders are because Hitler wanted to dominate Europe. Military domination is a pretty widespread justification and excuse for killing, and that makes it warfare/combat, not murder.


Honestly, we'd be much better off just using 'murder' as a legal term, and using other phrases for acts of killing we find immoral: slaughter, abominations, evil, whatever suits your fancy. Otherwise 'murder' just ends up meaning anything anyone wants it to, and thus becomes mostly meaningless, just an emphatic qualifier without substance.

The soldiers invading Poland may not be all murderers by a legal definition, but certainly those partaking in the mass killings of civilians could be described as such, and could also have been tried as that if there had been political will by the allied powers. The question really is what legal framework you accept.

Originally posted by Scribble
A fair point, but at that point, what isn't murder, other than self-defence? Is all war murder? Why use the term 'murder' rather than just 'killing'?

Murder is usually used in an emotive rather than a descriptive way. Essentially, if you morally agree with the killing, then it is killing, if you morally object to it then it is murder. Not a very useful application of words, imo.


Apologies, I'm going to quote myself:

In both of these generally-accepted uses of the term, the soldiers invading Poland are not murderers. Their justification for killing is that they are soldiers who have orders, and that's an excuse, too. The reason for those orders are because Hitler wanted to dominate Europe. Military domination is a pretty widespread justification and excuse for killing, and that makes it warfare/combat, not murder.


Honestly, we'd be much better off just using 'murder' as a legal term, and using other phrases for acts of killing we find immoral: slaughter, abominations, evil, whatever suits your fancy. Otherwise 'murder' just ends up meaning anything anyone wants it to, and thus becomes mostly meaningless, just an emphatic qualifier without substance. That's fair.

Obviously murder carries a much stronger reaction in the minds of people.

I would also think it an interesting topic of discussion that just because someone has justified killing ie combat so it's not legal murder does that make it any better?

Originally posted by Artol
The soldiers invading Poland may not be all murderers by a legal definition, but certainly those partaking in the mass killings of civilians could be described as such, and could also have been tried as that if there had been political will by the allied powers. The question really is what legal framework you accept. I completely agree. Many German units were infamous for their brutality and wholesale slaughter of civilians. One example is the Dirlewanger Brigade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirlewanger_Brigade

There is an incredible and essential film called Come and See that details in loose fiction the many war crimes committed against the Belarusian populace by the marauding German military, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in WWII. It's heavy going, though.

But yeah, this is part of the reason we have war tribunals and the like. Not that they always work; I consider Bush Jr. and Tony Blair war criminals for their part in the Iraq war, but they'll never see the dock, sadly.

Originally posted by Newjak
That's fair.

Obviously murder carries a much stronger reaction in the minds of people.

I would also think it an interesting topic of discussion that just because someone has justified killing ie combat so it's not legal murder does that make it any better? That is a whole topic in itself, for sure, and a very interesting one. Many pacifists take a hard line and say all killing is immoral, for example. A lot of its comes back to how one sees the sanctity of life, I think.

Contained within that question is also the thorny issue of capital punishment, too...

Originally posted by Scribble
Why do you assume everyone you have a conversation with is trying to guilt you, troll you or enrage you? awebrow

God, you're so touchy, lol

He's a snowflake.

Reducing innocent civilians to being murdered as "collateral damage" is laughable.

Originally posted by Scribble
I completely agree. Many German units were infamous for their brutality and wholesale slaughter of civilians. One example is the Dirlewanger Brigade:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirlewanger_Brigade

There is an incredible and essential film called Come and See that details in loose fiction the many war crimes committed against the Belarusian populace by the marauding German military, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in WWII. It's heavy going, though.

But yeah, this is part of the reason we have war tribunals and the like. Not that they always work; I consider Bush Jr. and Tony Blair war criminals for their part in the Iraq war, but they'll never see the dock, sadly.

That is a whole topic in itself, for sure, and a very interesting one. Many pacifists take a hard line and say all killing is immoral, for example. A lot of its comes back to how one sees the sanctity of life, I think.

Contained within that question is also the thorny issue of capital punishment, too... Capital punishment is an interesting one.

I used to consider myself a hardline pacifist but I had a hard time reconciling the no violence at all aspect with some scenarios I just couldn't cope with. For instance if I saw someone being attacked I would in fact violently interject myself into the conflict to help the person.

So now I more align with the idea of violence to protect myself and others ie survival. I mean obviously any stance will also have moral grey areas but that's where I try to stay. Mostly because I do want to hold life in high regard but I also understand nature as an order to it that also includes violence.

That being said I think humans are in a unique vantage point where we can kind of bypass that and come up with more creative solutions and violence should be a last resort for us.

All this to say though is I don't believe in capital punishment. Besides the negative impacts the death penalty has on various participants of process I think it's one of those things that speaks to the culture itself.

Originally posted by Newjak
Capital punishment is an interesting one.

I used to consider myself a hardline pacifist but I had a hard time reconciling the no violence at all aspect with some scenarios I just couldn't cope with. For instance if I saw someone being attacked I would in fact violently interject myself into the conflict to help the person.

So now I more align with the idea of violence to protect myself and others ie survival. I mean obviously any stance will also have moral grey areas but that's where I try to stay. Mostly because I do want to hold life in high regard but I also understand nature as an order to it that also includes violence.

That being said I think humans are in a unique vantage point where we can kind of bypass that and come up with more creative solutions and violence should be a last resort for us.

All this to say though is I don't believe in capital punishment. Besides the negative impacts the death penalty has on various participants of process I think it's one of those things that speaks to the culture itself. Yeah, I think absolute pacifism is a terrible and usually immoral stance to take. It often just results in more suffering being spread throughout the world.

I'm kind of torn on issues such as capital punishment. I'm always in the process of working out how I feel about that one in particular. Where I'm at right now is that if the crime is horrific/severe enough, and there is absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty, and they show absolutely no remorse or ability to be rehabilitated, then I'd leave capital punishment open as an option. For me, the prison system should always be one of rehabilitation and not 'punishment', so if rehabilitation and reintegration is not possible, there isn't any reason for the person to live. I also think people with severe enough charges who are found unequivocally guilty should be allowed to choose death.

I'm not sure, though. I know that's a controversial stance, and it's not one I'm going to die on any hills for. We don't have capital punishment in the UK and I'm certainly not going to lobby my government to reinstate it. More of a thought experiment for myself, to figure out a larger understanding of human life and its 'sanctity'.

I'm against capital punishment myself, it's immoral.

Originally posted by Scribble
Yeah, I think absolute pacifism is a terrible and usually immoral stance to take. It often just results in more suffering being spread throughout the world.

I'm kind of torn on issues such as capital punishment. I'm always in the process of working out how I feel about that one in particular. Where I'm at right now is that if the crime is horrific/severe enough, and there is absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty, and they show absolutely no remorse or ability to be rehabilitated, then I'd leave capital punishment open as an option. For me, the prison system should always be one of rehabilitation and not 'punishment', so if rehabilitation and reintegration is not possible, there isn't any reason for the person to live. I also think people with severe enough charges who are found unequivocally guilty should be allowed to choose death.

I'm not sure, though. I know that's a controversial stance, and it's not one I'm going to die on any hills for. We don't have capital punishment in the UK and I'm certainly not going to lobby my government to reinstate it. More of a thought experiment for myself, to figure out a larger understanding of human life and its 'sanctity'. I can respect that stance.

I think the thing that really undermines capital punishment for me is that enough data exists to show the negative impacts on those involved in the process other than the murderer.

For instance executioners have long had high suicide rates associated with their profession. Those who must witness the murder are also generally negatively effected mentally. It can even cause additional suffering to the family of the victims.

There is also data that showed innocent people getting killed by capital punishment. I think this is an instance where it's okay to say it's not worth it if we lose one person because there is a more humane way of handling it.

So for me I kind of shy away from wanting capital punishment. I prefer the idea of two kinds of prison systems. One more dedicated to helping those rehabilitate that focus on those most suited to still be strong contributors to society like what you mentioned. The other being more suited for separation of those individuals that are too dangerous to the greater public. I don't know if they need to be harshly 'punished' as part of that system that's a different topic to me.

Originally posted by Newjak
I can respect that stance.

I think the thing that really undermines capital punishment for me is that enough data exists to show the negative impacts on those involved in the process other than the murderer.

For instance executioners have long had high suicide rates associated with their profession. Those who must witness the murder are also generally negatively effected mentally. It can even cause additional suffering to the family of the victims.

There is also data that showed innocent people getting killed by capital punishment. I think this is an instance where it's okay to say it's not worth it if we lose one person because there is a more humane way of handling it.

So for me I kind of shy away from wanting capital punishment. I prefer the idea of two kinds of prison systems. One more dedicated to helping those rehabilitate that focus on those most suited to still be strong contributors to society like what you mentioned. The other being more suited for separation of those individuals that are too dangerous to the greater public. I don't know if they need to be harshly 'punished' as part of that system that's a different topic to me. That's a good point, and is definitely a good and rational argument against capital punishment. It comes down to needing a 'hangman', and that's a pretty heavy position to find yourself in.

Yeah, I definitely mean "absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty" in the most absolute sense, there have been too many people executed wrongfully even just in the modern era alone. Although with increased forensic technology, combined with confirmed confessions, there could be occasional cases that are completely undeniable.

I think the larger point that you've illustrated is that capital punishment is nowhere near a clear-cut issue, and that there are so many variables to take into account that simply not having capital punishment at all is generally the safest stance to take.

It's sad that so many of you idiots don't know the easy to understand difference between murder and collateral damage... smh.

Originally posted by Scribble
That's a good point, and is definitely a good and rational argument against capital punishment. It comes down to needing a 'hangman', and that's a pretty heavy position to find yourself in.

Yeah, I definitely mean "absolutely no doubt that the person being charged is guilty" in the most absolute sense, there have been too many people executed wrongfully even just in the modern era alone. Although with increased forensic technology, combined with confirmed confessions, there could be occasional cases that are completely undeniable.

I think the larger point that you've illustrated is that capital punishment is nowhere near a clear-cut issue, and that there are so many variables to take into account that simply not having capital punishment at all is generally the safest stance to take. I will agree it is definitely the safest stance to take.

And you're right with modern day forensic evidence to make it much more certain but still it's would always be on the back of my mind.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It's sad that so many of you idiots don't know the easy to understand difference between murder and collateral damage... smh. From what I've seen from you the difference for you is if it happens to things you care about it's murder if it happens to civilian populations you don't care about like the Japanese then it's collateral damage.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It's sad that so many of you idiots don't know the easy to understand difference between murder and collateral damage... smh. It's funnier that you think that dropping atomic bombs could ever be considered "collateral damage" lol

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Like I said, those innocent civilians were collateral damage. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military type targets which were used in the Japanese war effort. The civilian deaths were unfortunate but they were not the intended targets.


Basically according to eThneoLgrRnae as long as Americans are the ones killing civilians its not murder.

It's pretty crazy that there are people that consider the killing of over 100k civilians via nuke "collateral damage."

The Japanese Empire were the aggressors and they were little better than the Nazis when it came to crimes against humanity, so f**k them. But yeah, Nagasaki and Hiroshima where atrocities.

I learned alot from reading this thread

Does the loneranger think that 9/11 was murder or collateral damage?

How about pearl harbor?

How are the two different?