Originally posted by Gideon
I didn't say they did. But the point is that I don't define murder as a blanket statement of "taking a life." And neither does United States law.
The US law defines murder as unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought". The latter being defined as the intention to either kill or cause grievous physical harm short of death.
My point is that you use moral relativism when attempting to define the term "unlawful" by saying that certain acts that defy the law can be justified because of leading to a "good" end. A hypothetical assassination of Hitler would - even according to US law - be defined as "murder" because even if it could be morally right, it would still be unlawful. You can't disagree with that. And there is where your statements contradict each other: You can't say "assassinating Hitler would be right" while claiming "murder is absolutely wrong" in the next sentence.
I think a political assassination would only be justified in a fascist nation, when the only possible method of changing the regime and enabling the populace to explore differing alternatives is in a possibly violent manner.
Despite my relativist point of view, Borbarad, I think that the examples you mentioned in your post should all be punished, with the exception of the retard who is not responsible for his actions. However, they should be punished differently, considering that not all murders, beyond their utilitarian applications, have a different degree of moral reprehensibility behind them.
Sorry for the double post, but I'm kind of surprised we still haven't gotten to globalization and protectionism. What are your opinions on that? I personally think that financial cooperation between nations is an extremely positive thing and ultimately necessary in order to ensure a functioning world in which everyone's interests are served, but we must restrain it; protectionism must be exercised when exploitation or inhumane treatment will be the consequence of trade (like the free vs. fair trade debate), not to mention that is is effective to prevent war in non-violent methods. Plus, I think that depending upon other nations for vital resources like oil is moronic, especially if we know these nations advocate violence and terrorism.
I think my views are best summed up as humane cooperation.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
^
Socialist pig. 😛So my fever broke last night. I went ~105 hours with a fever over 99.5, over 90 hours with a fever over 100 and between 55 and 60 hours with a fever over 103.
Best Spring break ever. 😐
[b]NOT
edit: You all suck. [/B]
Haha, I'm going on Passover soon, which means I get two weeks of free political ranting time! That's way better than a stupid spring break.
Originally posted by Eminence
DS, why do you repeatedly claim that everyone else here fails to grasp the significance and "infallibility" [lol] of the Torah and then simply refuse to explain why we're all wrong? I want you to address and explain these:
You
Seeing as how you've demonstrated your constant ignorance of what you're speaking about, I can see that you take everything at its literal meaning and you actually think 7 days means 7 days and all the animals fit onto one boat.
[quote]
RN
(Beards are evil?)
Originally posted by Autokrat
And herein, your argument collapses. Murder, theft and rape are illegal because it is result of the modern day system. The system needs a social convention in which to survive, so it establishes laws against things like murder, theft and rape. However, the crux of this, is that every system is different and has different ideas on what is right and wrong. If you told a viking raider from the 11th century that the raping, murdering and pillaging he did was wrong. He would look at you as if you were crazy. The idea wouldn't even make sense to him. It doesn't make him right, but it doesn't make you right either. No one is right when it comes to ethics and morals, because everyone has different ideas on what constitutes to proper moral behavior.
A good modern day example are terrorists. You going to tell suicide bomber X that killing innocents is wrong? Sure, I think its wrong, but what makes my opinion any more right than his? Both of us are simply lumps of carbon on a insignificant world in a universe that would not even notice, should by some quantum accident, we all suddenly cease to exist.
Morals are human constructs, and humans tend to disagree quite often on what is right and wrong. Obviously has history progresses, the general viewpoint of morals changes. People from ancient times would not understand our moral viewpoints and imagine that humans thousands of years into the future would probably also conform to a completely different set of morals than we do.
I do not agree with MC's free society. I believe his viewpoint of the world is horribly naive; however he is correct about Hitler. The world didn't give a shit about Germany until Hitler invaded Poland. I personally think Hitler was wrong and I doubt that MC believes that Hitler was right. However, there is no objective source that shows Hitler to be wrong.
Also, arguments could be made for Stalin in that he managed to keep the USSR from falling behind technologically, because he instituted the rapid industrialization that killed so many people. Ironically enough, Stalin is the third most celebrated person in Russia.
Originally posted by Borbarad
Gideon. As I told you before. When you make difference between murder that - according to you - can't be justified and "killing persons under special circumstances" that can - according to you - be justified then you don't see murder as absolutely wrong.
If you plan to kill a human being you're commiting a murder - no matter if you kill an innocent child or Adolf Hitler. In moral absolutism neither of that actions could be justified. So you can't come here and state "murder is wrong, period" and in the same instance come up with examples in which murder (and yes - the Valkyrie plot was an attempt to murder Hitler) might be justified. It doesn't make sense.
While I totally agree with you in the case of Hitler, I simply disagree with the system of categories you sort certain acts in. For me, and according to most legal systems in the world, every planned action carried out to kill a human being, is labeled as "murder".
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Sorry for the double post, but I'm kind of surprised we still haven't gotten to globalization and protectionism. What are your opinions on that? I personally think that financial cooperation between nations is an extremely positive thing and ultimately necessary in order to ensure a functioning world in which everyone's interests are served, but we must restrain it; protectionism must be exercised when exploitation or inhumane treatment will be the consequence of trade (like the free vs. fair trade debate), not to mention that is is effective to prevent war in non-violent methods. Plus, I think that depending upon other nations for vital resources like oil is moronic, especially if we know these nations advocate violence and terrorism.I think my views are best summed up as humane cooperation.
I think your views are best summoned up as being the most illogical, delusional, and naive views I've ever heard of.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Are you going to Florida though? No? SNAP!
Why would I go to Florida? 😐
Originally posted Dr McBeefington
I think your views are best summoned up as being the most illogical, delusional, and naive views I've ever heard of.
1. You're a bigot.
2. Pessimism =/= realism.
3. Considering you claim to know everything about history, you actually know nothing.
4. You're a child, both in the name calling sense (anybody who doesn't agree with you is either mentally ill or a naive treehugger) and in your political views (Good vs. Evil!)
5. You're sensationalist, like most conservatives. You say a lot of 'I've ever had' (I counted at least 7 in the past few pages). This how conservatives like to act. "The world is morally degenerating! Violence is higher than other! Crime rates are in the skies! Children all want to go shoot everyone because of video games! Waaah!"
6. You're religious. Religious can be proven to be nothing more than delusion. You're implementing this delusion in political debate.
7. People fundamentally suck and are evil, but apparently everybody who works hard will always get the best jobs and there is no racism is exploitation in the financial manner? Of course, I'm the naive one.
8. I honestly fear sorry for you. I honestly, honestly feel sorry for you. Your pessimistic and dark view of the lord removed any trace of human compassion or hope within your system, which is why you believe that any hope of progress is naive. You're terrified at the changes you see around you, so you attempt to stop them because they threaten traditional norms, values, and ideals.
9. Go **** yourself.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Why would I go to Florida? 😐1. You're a bigot.
2. Pessimism =/= realism.
3. Considering you claim to know everything about history, you actually know nothing.
4. You're a child, both in the name calling sense (anybody who doesn't agree with you is either mentally ill or a naive treehugger) and in your political views (Good vs. Evil!)
5. You're sensationalist, like most conservatives. You say a lot of 'I've ever had' (I counted at least 7 in the past few pages). This how conservatives like to act. "The world is morally degenerating! Violence is higher than other! Crime rates are in the skies! Children all want to go shoot everyone because of video games! Waaah!"
6. You're religious. Religious can be proven to be nothing more than delusion. You're implementing this delusion in political debate.
7. People fundamentally suck and are evil, but apparently everybody who works hard will always get the best jobs and there is no racism is exploitation in the financial manner? Of course, I'm the naive one.
8. I honestly fear sorry for you. I honestly, honestly feel sorry for you. Your pessimistic and dark view of the lord removed any trace of human compassion or hope within your system, which is why you believe that any hope of progress is naive. You're terrified at the changes you see around you, so you attempt to stop them because they threaten traditional norms, values, and ideals.
9. Go **** yourself.
Cry me a river. Better yet, paint me a flower.