Jeff Hall, NSM Leader Shot dead.

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 [a] 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

On July 29, 2010, Manning was moved from Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, and classified as a "maximum custody detainee" held under a "Prevention of Injury" assignment until April 2011. At Quantico he was detained in a 6 x 12 ft cell, with no window, furnished with a bed, toilet and sink, and with meals taken in his cell. According to The Washington Post, the facility had 30 cells built in a U shape, and although the detainees could talk to one another, they were unable to see each other, according to his lawyer, David Coombs, a former military attorney and member of the United States Army Reserve. Coombs said in December 2010 that the guards were professional, and had not tried to bully, harass, or embarrass Manning. He was allowed outside his cell to walk for up to one hour a day, shackled. There was access to television for limited periods when it was placed in the corridor outside his cell. He was allowed to keep one book and one magazine in his cell—according to Leigh and Harding, he requested Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781)—but otherwise no writing materials, though access to them was given during allotted times. He was shackled during visits.[31]

A Prevention of Injury order is one stop short of suicide watch. It entails checks by guards every five minutes, and no sleeping during the day. His lawyer said he was not allowed to sleep between 5 am (7 am at weekends) and 8 pm, and if he tried to, was made to stand or sit up. He was required to remain visible at all times, including at night, which entailed no access to sheets, no pillow except one built into his mattress, and a blanket designed not to be shredded. Until March 2011 he was required to sleep in boxer shorts, and had experienced chafing of the skin from the heavy blanket.[31] On March 2, he was told that an Article 138 complaint filed in January by his lawyer—asking that he be removed from maximum custody and prevention-of-injury watch—had been denied. His lawyer said Manning subsequently joked to the guards that, if he wanted to harm himself, he could do so "with the elastic waistband of his underwear or with his flip-flops." This resulted in him being required to sleep without clothing and present himself naked outside his cell for morning inspection, which his lawyer described as ritual humiliation, though from around March 10 onwards he was given a wrap-around smock with Velco fasteners to sleep in. In response to the incident, the brig psychiatrist classified him as at low risk of suicide.

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