The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

So when killing is moral then it is not murder?

You have claimed that 'murder is wrong'. Murder is defined as wrongful killing. All you have said is that wrongful killing is wrong. This is a tautology and you haven't actually said anything worthwhile. Anyone can agree that acts that are defined as wrong are wrong. All that we've established is that people know the difference between right and wrong when the law tells them which is which. That law can change though.

What are those universal evils? Tautologies based on changing laws won't work. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Killing in self defense isn't murder and it's moral. Yes

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Wrongful killing is murder. Why are you trying to play semantics here? You can call it tautology but I was very clear. It's not my fault you don't have an argument refuting what I said. And you can spout off "can" all you want. The law WONT change because certain things as I've said, are considered wrong. Rape, Murder, Theft.

Edit: Don't have an argument for what you said? You didn't say anything. It would be like me saying 'water is wet. Disprove that.' and thinking I won the argument. You're being silly and wrong.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Neither will simply stating there are no universal rights and wrongs, and then claiming I'm spouting tautologies. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between murder and killing.

I understand perfectly. When the law (written and arbitrated by humans, by the way) says that someone murdered someone else then their action was 'wrong'. Else, they're in the clear.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
What is universally wrong?

(I am debating this part. I just don't care what you think.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

We've established that killing is not universally wrong. What is universally wrong? (I am debating this part. I just don't care what you think.)

Not playing semantics. Just clearing things up: the only thing wrong about killing is that it is called wrong by the law. That's what you're arguing. That you want to place the decisions of morality in a code that legitimized slavery is your problem. I'm not here to change minds. I think it is a rather poor decision, but it is your prerogative.

Edit: Don't have an argument for what you said? You didn't say anything. It would be like me saying 'water is wet. Disprove that.' and thinking I won the argument. You're being silly and wrong.

I understand perfectly. When the law (written and arbitrated by humans, by the way) says that someone murdered someone else then their action was 'wrong'. Else, they're in the clear. [/B]

Originally posted by Eminence
He's said that murder is a "universal wrong" several times, as well as rape and theft. That much at least has been clear.

😆

Thanks for clearing that part up, lover.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Hilarious how you knew my points very clearly and you switched them in the middle of a debate. Very MC like. Murder is universally wrong. Rape is universally wrong. Theft. They only excuse for them has been the two I've mentioned before. I've yet to hear you refute any of my points though, instead electing to post yours.

And I haven't refuted your points because you've been telling me that water is wet and that fun toys are fun. We left kindergarten a while ago. Do try to keep up with the pack, won't you?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

So you say. As a Christian nation, I believe it became wrong by the law because it was immoral. This is why I never stated everything has a universal code to it. And I love the logic of "if one thing can be debated and was considered a mistake, then the whole system fails". By your logic, our justice system is a joke because we made a few mistakes in the past.

The law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law

You sure seem to want to extrapolate your opponents logic into silliness, but I haven't seen it work yet. I never claimed that a single failure of the system leads to total inadequacy. I've argued that total ambiguity on all counts leads to... more ambiguity.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Which basically proves you didn't respond to any of my points, instead electing to move onto your points and for me to argue those.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Weird. Hitler and the Nazis justified the mass genocide of Jews and Communists as necessary (political agendas). The whole world disagree with them, regardless of the law of the land.

Originally posted by Eminence
He's said that murder is a "universal wrong" several times, as well as rape and theft. That much at least has been clear.

😆

So 'wrongful taking, surprise sex, or killing is wrong'. I can't believe MC has a problem with that. Saying that people agree that something defined as wrong is wrong does absolutely nothing to advance his case for absolute morality.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So 'wrongful taking, surprise sex, or killing is wrong'. I can't believe MC has a problem with that. Saying that people agree that something defined as wrong is wrong does absolutely nothing to advance his case for absolute morality.

If I haven't made it clear, I don't agree with him.

The least he could do would be to present his case competently. He doesn't have to be right, but I expect him to be good.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The least he could do would be to present his case competently. He doesn't have to be right, but I expect him to be good.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The least he could do would be to present his case competently. He doesn't have to be right, but I expect him to be good.

I expected you to do the same, but I guess we were both in for a surprise.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

I'm not sure that I've switched any points at all. You're still not saying anything. "Wrongful killing is universally wrong. Wrongful surprise sex is universally wrong. Wrongful taking [is universally wrong]." Excuse? That's new. So killing is always wrong except for when there is a reason for it. That would make killing always wrong, except for in certain situations. Does this exceptionalism apply to theft too? Is 'taking' always wrongful unless otherwise indicated? You see, you have not been able to post a 'universal wrong' (or right) other than a few tautological 'bad things are bad' recitations. What is an action that is wrong? I don't want a definition of a wrong thing (like murder, which is defined as wrong action) but a previously value neutral action (like 'killing' or 'running' or 'sex'😉 that is universally a bad thing. Giving me circular logic won't change any minds.

And I haven't refuted your points because you've been telling me that water is wet and that fun toys are fun. We left kindergarten a while ago. Do try to keep up with the pack, won't you?

So the things that are immoral are immoral because they were considered bad for the British? You know their king left the church because he wanted to be allowed a divorce (showing lack of discipline- something you can't advocate) and that they have terrible teeth? (Showing lack of personal discipline- something you can't advocate.) Surely we can do better than centuries old British conventions as the root for the morality of the greatest country in the world!

You sure seem to want to extrapolate your opponents logic into silliness, but I haven't seen it work yet. I never claimed that a single failure of the system leads to total inadequacy. I've argued that total ambiguity on all counts leads to... more ambiguity.

At one point the whole world (less victims, since you seem to be ignoring them as powerless) condoned slavery. That doesn't make slavery a 'good' under any system. So if the whole world decides something then it doesn't have to be legal to be moral? [/B]

Here's one site that gives you the difference. If you need more, I'll be happy to provide. If you do respond to my posts, do so with an actual argument. IF you don't have one, don't respond.

http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1550/story4.html

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You haven't made any points. Your arguments consist of self contradictions and double standards, and when I easily refute one of your so called points, you change the argument and claim that was what you were arguing for from the beginning.

You didn't refute anything. You simply showed a lack of understand my point beyond "Contradictionz!!!". (Not to mention you, I'm afraid to say, failed to grasp the concept behind morality).

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
If conservatives have an incredibly negative view of the world (they don't), then liberals have an unrealistically and a delusional view of the world. In the generalization of the two sides, at least the conservatives have history on their side. The liberals have nothing but hope.

I think conservatives often tend to look at the world in an incredibly negative light and often concede to the belief that it can 'never be changed', which is something that directly contradicts history in itself. I think most liberals are capable of creating a suitable balance between idealism and realism, which is, in my opinion, the only genuine way to reach positive social change.

I don't think one side has history on the other. While to the conservative's merit, wars have always been fought, but to the liberals' merit, the concept of diplomacy and occasionally aggressive diplomacy was never employed to its fullest extent, people always having surrendered to the seduction in being violent. Like you, they always went upon the notion of people being fundamentally unreasonable and evil; they did not see a point to diplomacy.

In truth, there is nothing actually disproving my points. We have never tried to exercise diplomacy to its fullest extent.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'll list your contradictions as we go along so you don't sit there lying to yourself that I'm missing your points, instead of you not being able to stick to your own points and form a cogent argument.
Contradiction #1. You JUST said conservatives view the world in a negative light. Now conservatives view things as a mixture? Please make up your mind.

No, it is a mixture. Conservatives just see the negative. In truth, the negative does have to be considered, but focusing upon the positive traits of humanity is a far more effective attitude towards the world.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The concept of human beings being rational is more silly. Throughout history we have continually fought wars to the brink of annihilation. There are more facts pointing to human beings being irrational, than them actually being rational. And we didn't negotiate with hitler because hitler wasn't into negotiations. Instead what we did was look at reality and act. Then we sat back and watched the dumbass tree hugging buffoons ***** and moan.

With the exception of the world consistently working towards a better existence and progress, dontcha think? Slavery and imperialism against. These exist, but they have been mitigated and almost abolished by most modern societies. I'm sure the people at the time took the notion of people being 'evil and some things will never change'; idealism and the positive aspects of human nature proved them wrong.

And do you have a verifiable historical document indicating we ever attempted to rationalize with Nazi Germany, or if that was taken to its fullest potential extent ('aggressive' diplomacy)?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Contradiction #2. You either said or hinted at the fact that human beings were reasonable. IF human beings were reasonable then we would have tried to negotiate (we do, despite your assertions). The fact that wars are inevitable shows that human beings are irrational. Not always, not everyone, but to a great extent.

First, humans constantly change. Second, we've always went upon the idea of humans being evil and Barbaric and thus never attempted to touch upon the idea of reason and such.

Ok, stepping in as judge here, as this thread is being torn tom pieces. Heed the judge or I will forcibly stop this argument.

My judgment is this- Red Nemesis has a legitimate point. There is no objective definition of 'murder', it is simply the term used by people to refer to killings that are wrong. Its definition often varies quite widely from system to system, so sayi9ng 'Murder is wrong', whilst literally true is not a helpful statement in an argument of this sort. You must define yourself in a far less ambiguous way.

It is therefore legitimate for Red Nemesis to ask for more detail about what killings you consider to be wrong as opposed to those which are justified.

So do that, please, or this gets shut off.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Really. Your history lesson is based on...What exactly? Show me facts. Don't tell me something is so because you said so. Excuse me if I don't take your unreliable word on anything. And I know my history, and my grandparents' history. It doesn't seem at all like you're portraying it.

http://rotter.net/cgi-bin/forum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&forum=gil&om=5494&omm=30&viewmode=

Ignore the Hebrew. The key point is (in English): "Hitler offered to send German Jews to the United States, the UK, and the Soviet Union. All of these countries declined the offer. Then the Holocaust began."

It also appears in a lot of the history books I have.

Do you understand? We looked at things from our national and financial interests, despite having been met with a diplomatic and non-violent method of preventing the Holocaust from coming to pass.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Even if this was actual history (it wasn't), the fact remains that the Germans resorted to mass genocide and your blame is misplaced as usual.

Of course they reverted into mass genocide, which is entirely their fault, but continuing to preach about how the other side is responsible serves no solid purpose. Instead, we should focus upon our responsibility and our ability to change.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It doesn't matter what the leaders of the nation think. Mass Genocide is wrong period. Now here's contradiction #3. If everything is subjective as you claim and it's not wrong to the nation, why would you believe in interventionism? Doesn't make much sense.

Yes, it does: ignoring a point of view because you see it as repulsive is completely anti-objective. Mass genocide is wrong according to our societal standards of good and evil. It is wrong to the violated party. It is not wrong to the people who are committing it.

And that's the thing. That's why we should intervene. It is wrong to the violated party: it is evil to them and directly harms them. In order to potentially hear their interests instead of having them crushed, we most intervene.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And no, mass genocide is a universal even. I don't see how you can even begin to debate this. Justice is petty? Good lord you're funny. Justice is one of the most important aspects of society. Without Justice, you are excusing everything that is done.

I love how you say 'mass genocide is a universal evil' without explaining why, beyond 'most societies agree upon it' (which is not a solid reason). In order for something to be a universal evil, there must be an objective, all-powerful force to dictate it: a 'rulebook', as Nemesis said.

Mass genocide is wrong according to our standards of human rights. It is wrong to the murdered party. It is not wrong to the party committing it, who justify it with some sort of philosophical point of view. It is irrelevant what we feel about the party and their justification: instead of branding them as 'evil', we should simply attempt to uphold the interests of the innocent, murdered party by intervening, hopefully in a peaceful manner.

And justice is not petty, but your simplistic concept of justice (kill everyone we think is evil) is. In truth, justice is a far more complicated thing.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Contradiction #4. You claim everything is subjective so there's no "good and evil" or right and wrong, so how can you believe in what you just said?

Note: I don't believe in some form of omniscient good and evil, but I believe in the fact that every society, according to its philosophical beliefs, sets certain standards of good and evil. This continues my viewpoint of it being 'subjective': a society's point of view is subjective in nature.

In addition, there can be good and evil done to one individual. Let's say a business owner screws one of his customers. It is not evil to him, but it is certainly evil to the screwed customer: and in order to prevent people from being violated in ways that is evil to them, we must create certain laws.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Again, you stated that everything is subjective, so by that definition there can be no good and evil, or right and wrong.

What is good to you is not good for another. What is evil for you is not for another. What is right for you is not for another.

A man kills another guy. There is no universal law dictating it is evil, or good; however, it is very distinctly evil to the murdered party, and these interests and beliefs have to be protected.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nope, the death penalty serves justice to the victim's families. If you don't believe in the death penalty, you can't believe in mass genocide, so that would make contradiction #5. Who in the blue hell would rehabilitate someone who killed 10 people? 15 people? Tell me, how many people does it take for someone to kill before you accept that the guy isn't going to be rehabilitated? You apparently don't understand the difference between justice and revenge either.

This isn't a debate on whether the death penalty is right or wrong.

However, I DON'T think mass genocide is good. How the hell did you develop that belief? In fact, I think that mass genocide is evil (my moralistic standards of human rights) and that we must intervene, in order to preserve the interests of the murdered party. Blatantly ignoring the desires of the weaker one and enabling an injustice to them (the key word 'to them'😉 is wrong.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Murder is the same in all societies. I told you the only way they justify it is through skewed religious text and political agenda. Same goes for rape.

Skewed being a point of view.

Murder is always wrong in certain societies, but the legal definition of murder consistently varies. For example, it wasn't considered 'murder' to kill an incompetent slave in ancient societies, but killing an incompetent worker today is considered 'murder'.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I agree somewhat, but when that doesn't work? You really seem to think everything can be solved through diplomacy. History argues with you.

Show me one genuine time when we attempted to push diplomacy and protectionism to its fullest extent. Just one time. And then tell me why it didn't work.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Again, history would argue with you.

No, it would not, because my beliefs were never implemented in history. Nobody ever tried to see whether diplomacy can or cannot work, instead taking the easy route of claiming people are 'irrational and evil' and thus diplomacy is pointless.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes, because your definition is much better than the ones who received the torah, or as you said, "wrote it". Furthermore, if you believe a human wrote the torah, then the interpretations of the sages are as canon as George Lucas. So that's another contradiction.

A human wrote the torah, but it was not that guy who set interpretations to it. The interpretations were done over the ages by perfectly fallible human beings interpreting the text in their form of logic and beliefs. Their word cannot be seen as absolute law.

And I don't disagree with the sages' interpretations of the Bible, by the way, I'm simply saying that somebody who would would not be 'skewing' a religious text. He would be interpreting it in a different manner.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It CAN be proven wrong because the texts don't say anything resembling what the radicals believe.

In accordance to your beliefs and you own religious interpretations.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Says the one making comments about conservative idiots, etc. You are incredibly egocentric.

Hey, I did say I was guilty of this too, didn't I?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Actually, I never claim what the majority think is true. That was your claim and I refuted it time and time again. Would you like for me to paste your contradictions and how you made the initial appeal to the majority?

If you thought I was appealing to the majority, then you're simply wrong, which is possibly the fault of the way I phrased my arguments.

(By the way, you haven't made any real points in this debate aside from saying 'contradiction' where there was none. I don't know if it's my fault, in the way I said something, or your fault in the way you saw it. But honestly, if you want to decently debate, then at least say some valid points.)

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, your argument was to prove that liberals and atheists are the intellectual elites. When I squashed that argument, you changed your stance yet AGAIN. Seriously, pick one stance. And if I said all liberals are dumbshit morons, then I apologize. It's a ridiculous generalization. I think most liberals though are naive and delusional about the world.

You didn't squash that argument. You said "well if atheists are smarter than how about Jews are smarter!!1!", at which point I chalked it up to nurture and environmental influence, explained why my beliefs are not racist in nature, and showed more studied indicating the relationship between intelligence and atheism.

Similarly, I've used statistics to prove that liberals are the highest educated, highest payed, and most Academically influential group. You initially said 'prove it', and when I gave you links and exact statistics, you didn't post any sort of rebuttal and instead ignore the point. Yeah, you've 'squashed' my arguments all right.

You know what? After examining my life over the past few days, reading over all of my arguments, I've eventually came to the decision that DS was right: liberals are delusional fools, and conservatism is the only realistic ideology which one can follow. I've been a very immoral person my entire life, championing concepts like peace and compassion over the infinitely more important: like violent justice, stability, and absolutist conformity. I've signed up for three classes of Bible study a week. Hopefully G-d will be able to forgive me for my remarks regarding His worship and my disrespect to the sacred book. Thankfully, I must praise Him for implementing the value of redemption; I can make up for my sins by becoming a moral, conservative individual.

Over the past 100 pages or so, I am appalled by what I wrote. A disrespect for the sanctity of life and pregnancy? A blatant disrespect to the divine concept of marriage? An argument for the fact that there may not be an absolute evil we must purge of the world? A glorification of those who choose to be lazy parasites, instead making petty excuses like education, the survival instinct, intelligence, favoritism, racism, and human rights?

Please forgive me, O Lord almighty.

Happy April Fool's day, bitches.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, stepping in as judge here, as this thread is being torn tom pieces. Heed the judge or I will forcibly stop this argument.

My judgment is this- Red Nemesis has a legitimate point. There is no objective definition of 'murder', it is simply the term used by people to refer to killings that are wrong. Its definition often varies quite widely from system to system, so sayi9ng 'Murder is wrong', whilst literally true is not a helpful statement in an argument of this sort. You must define yourself in a far less ambiguous way.

It is therefore legitimate for Red Nemesis to ask for more detail about what killings you consider to be wrong as opposed to those which are justified.

So do that, please, or this gets shut off.

Are you kidding me? You're going to tell me what points to respond to? Have you even read the discussion? And please, show me the different systems which define murder differently. I'll wait.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

Ignore the Hebrew. The key point is (in English): "Hitler offered to send German Jews to the United States, the UK, and the Soviet Union. All of these countries declined the offer. Then the Holocaust began."

It also appears in a lot of the history books I have.

Do you understand? We looked at things from our national and financial interests, despite having been met with a diplomatic and non-violent method of preventing the Holocaust from coming to pass.

Of course they reverted into mass genocide, which is entirely their fault, but continuing to preach about how the other side is responsible serves no solid purpose. Instead, we should focus upon our responsibility and our ability to change.

Yes, it does: ignoring a point of view because you see it as repulsive is completely anti-objective. Mass genocide is wrong according to our societal standards of good and evil. It is wrong to the violated party. It is not wrong to the people who are committing it.

I love how you say 'mass genocide is a universal evil' without explaining why, beyond 'most societies agree upon it' (which is not a solid reason). In order for something to be a universal evil, there must be an objective, all-powerful force to dictate it: a 'rulebook', as Nemesis said.

Mass genocide is wrong according to our standards of human rights. It is wrong to the murdered party. It is not wrong to the party committing it, who justify it with some sort of philosophical point of view. It is irrelevant what we feel about the party and their justification: instead of branding them as 'evil', we should simply attempt to uphold the interests of the innocent, murdered party by intervening, hopefully in a peaceful manner.

And justice is not petty, but your simplistic concept of justice (kill everyone we think is evil) is. In truth, justice is a far more complicated thing.

Note: I don't believe in some form of omniscient good and evil, but I believe in the fact that every society, according to its philosophical beliefs, sets certain standards of good and evil. This continues my viewpoint of it being 'subjective': a society's point of view is subjective in nature.

In addition, there can be good and evil done to one individual. Let's say a business owner screws one of his customers. It is not evil to him, but it is certainly evil to the screwed customer: and in order to prevent people from being violated in ways that is evil to them, we must create certain laws.

What is good to you is not good for another. What is evil for you is not for another. What is right for you is not for another.

A man kills another guy. There is no universal law dictating it is evil, or good; however, it is very distinctly evil to the murdered party, and these interests and beliefs have to be protected.

However, I DON'T think mass genocide is good. How the hell did you develop that belief? In fact, I think that mass genocide is evil (my moralistic standards of human rights) and that we must intervene, in order to preserve the interests of the murdered party. Blatantly ignoring the desires of the weaker one and enabling an injustice to them (the key word 'to them'😉 is wrong.

Murder is always wrong in certain societies, but the legal definition of murder consistently varies. For example, it wasn't considered 'murder' to kill an incompetent slave in ancient societies, but killing an incompetent worker today is considered 'murder'.

Show me one genuine time when we attempted to push diplomacy and protectionism to its fullest extent. Just one time. And then tell me why it didn't work.

No, it would not, because my beliefs were never implemented in history. Nobody ever tried to see whether diplomacy can or cannot work, instead taking the easy route of claiming people are 'irrational and evil' and thus diplomacy is pointless.

A human wrote the torah, but it was not that guy who set interpretations to it. The interpretations were done over the ages by perfectly fallible human beings interpreting the text in their form of logic and beliefs. Their word cannot be seen as absolute law.

And I don't disagree with the sages' interpretations of the Bible, by the way, I'm simply saying that somebody who would would not be 'skewing' a religious text. He would be interpreting it in a different manner.