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.
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?
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 inimalistI think the laws of most western nation already determine that for us.
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 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?"