Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ashermusic]

mgod wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 15:56

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:46 Why is this distinction not obvious? Because the only distinction is the rationale for killing. And the numbers -  quantity of death. The Saudis who flew Americans into skyscrapers regarded themselves as soldiers in a war. Its just that their definition of war is different than yours. But not mine - I see it all a war. They killed about 3,000 innocents, and themselves in the process. When we invaded Iraq for not attacking us, we killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. By your definition, US behavior in Iraq is mass murder. Who goes to the chair for it? DS

First of all, please link me to the source of your numbers of innocent Iraqi deaths. And please let it b e from a more creditable source than some anti-war group.

1. I am a soldier  wearing a uniform. I see you, an opposition solider with a bunch of other soldiers in uniforms in a group. I throw a grenade, killing the soldiers but also I find out some civilians that were standing nearby.

2. Although I consider myself a "soldier" I  am not a member of a military group nor am I wearing a uniform. I see you, a soldier wearing a uniform and standing not too far away are some innocent civilians. I walk over to all of you and blow myself up, killing a bunch  of civilians as well as you by intention.

In  your mind these are morally equivalent acts? If so, respectfully, your moral compass is broken.

[mgod]

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 08:37

First of all, please link me to the source of your numbers of innocent Iraqi deaths. And please let it b e from a more creditable source than some anti-war group.

Jay, I'm not even going to address that, its sooooo far out in right field. Its the classic, lame-ass retort from defenders of their preferred wars. Even BushCo itself acknowledges well over 100,000. You my friend, are not the "centrist" you claim, by any stretch of any imagination. But you're the only one that doesn't seem to know that.

http://www.afsc.org/iraq/refugee-crisis.htm

Some wacko, anti-war group - the Quakers (Nixon was one).

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 08:37

1. I am a soldier  wearing a uniform. I see you, an opposition solider with a bunch of other soldiers in uniforms in a group. I throw a grenade, killing the soldiers but also I find out some civilians that were standing nearby. 2. Although I consider myself a "soldier" I  am not a member of a military group nor am I wearing a uniform. I see you, a soldier wearing a uniform and standing not too far away are some innocent civilians. I walk over to all of you and blow myself up, killing a bunch  of civilians as well as you by intention. In  your mind these are morally equivalent acts? If so, respectfully, your moral compass is broken.

You attempt to manipulate the language you use in order to try to make a situation so specific that it exists only in your perception of the world. So for you, the "moral" distinction comes down to whether or not one considers himself to be in a military group, or more importantly whether others do, and whether or not that person wears a uniform?

And you want to raise the idea of a moral compass?

I'm sorry I just ate breakfast.

DS

[danickstr]

Hey guys I was not clear with my "logic sucks" post

I meant that logic will not work against a sick mind.  I honestly believe that evil is simply due to a social sickness.  Usually it begins at a young age, for a multitude of reasons.

There can be a perverse thrill from evil ,but it is outweighed (in healthy minds) by the rewards of doing good.

NOt that any of us are truly 100% healthy, since our DNA is coded with violent responses that have saved our ancestors' lives, but we have to choose the good path to have a positive part in our society.

What I meant was that logic is no defense against a sick mind.

And killing the guilty is wrong on many levels, as has been eloquently pointed out above, unless it is during an act of self-defense.

[Ashermusic]

mgod wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 18:04

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 08:37 First of all, please link me to the source of your numbers of innocent Iraqi deaths. And please let it b e from a more creditable source than some anti-war group. Jay, I'm not even going to address that, its sooooo far out in right field. Its the classic, lame-ass retort from defenders of their preferred wars. Even BushCo itself acknowledges well over 100,000. You my friend, are not the "centrist" you claim, by any stretch of any imagination. But you're the only one that doesn't seem to know that. http://www.afsc.org/iraq/refugee-crisis.htm Some wacko, anti-war group - the Quakers (Nixon was one). Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 08:37 1. I am a soldier  wearing a uniform. I see you, an opposition solider with a bunch of other soldiers in uniforms in a group. I throw a grenade, killing the soldiers but also I find out some civilians that were standing nearby. 2. Although I consider myself a "soldier" I  am not a member of a military group nor am I wearing a uniform. I see you, a soldier wearing a uniform and standing not too far away are some innocent civilians. I walk over to all of you and blow myself up, killing a bunch  of civilians as well as you by intention. In  your mind these are morally equivalent acts? If so, respectfully, your moral compass is broken. You attempt to manipulate the language you use in order to try to make a situation so specific that it exists only in your perception of the world. So for you, the "moral" distinction comes down to whether or not one considers himself to be in a military group, or more importantly whether others do, and whether or not that person wears a uniform? And you want to raise the idea of a moral compass? I'm sorry I just ate breakfast. DS

So your source is the "Wage Peace" campaign. Wow, I  am sure they are coldly objective as they have no agenda. Now, I am the one about to lose breakfast. The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO.

The distinction to me is simply whether one's main objective is to specifically target and  kill innocents or an unfortunate byproduct of a military attack. It is not a small difference.

[danickstr]

How can you possibly think that someone deranged or angry enough to kill someone will be deterred by the punishment difference being death or life in prison?

And the few times I have been not quite angry enough to kill someone, life imprisonment was enough of a deterrent to me  

[Ashermusic]

danickstr wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 18:57

How can you possibly think that someone deranged or angry enough to kill someone will be deterred by the punishment difference being death or life in prison? And the few times I have been not quite angry enough to kill someone, life imprisonment was enough of a deterrent to me

Are you talkin' to me ?

Are you talkin' to me ?


Where did I argue that deterrence was a reason for capital punishment?

[danickstr]

I don't see anyone else here, so I must be talking to you.

But that does not mean I have accurately addressed your argument.

[rphilbeck]

You know..where else can you find a forum where Animal rights morphs into the death penalty an the Iraq war?  

[CCC]

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 13:55

I was against  the death penalty for many years until I read Dennis Prager's book "Think A Second Time." After reading his chapter on the death penalty, which in my mind destroyed every argument I had against it, I realized that my opposition was based on emotion, not reason. And so, I thought a second time and changed my mind.

Interesting how a religious Christian who advocates for a state that is rooted in Judeo-Christian values has apparently forgotten the spirit of Christian charity, forgiveness, and that messy business about the first stone being cast by the person without sin.  I would have thought that a person with a fairly literal view of the Bible, and a deep attachment to the Bible, might be aware of the contents of that book.  Evidently not.  I guess he's hung up on the "eye for an eye" stuff.  The Bible, it would seem, is a convenient supermarket for whatever you "moral" argument you need to make.  

[Ashermusic]

JS wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 06:17

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 13:55 I was against  the death penalty for many years until I read Dennis Prager's book "Think A Second Time." After reading his chapter on the death penalty, which in my mind destroyed every argument I had against it, I realized that my opposition was based on emotion, not reason. And so, I thought a second time and changed my mind. Interesting how a religious Christian who advocates for a state that is rooted in Judeo-Christian values has apparently forgotten the spirit of Christian charity, forgiveness, and that messy business about the first stone being cast by the person without sin.  I would have thought that a person with a fairly literal view of the Bible, and a deep attachment to the Bible, might be aware of the contents of that book.  Evidently not.  I guess he's hung up on the "eye for an eye" stuff.  The Bible, it would seem, is a convenient supermarket for whatever you "moral" argument you need to make.

You are totally wrong about Prager. He is a devout Conservative Jew, not a Christian, and while he respects Christianity he does see it as very different from Judaism especially when it comes to the role of God as a moral judge in the universe.

He certainly does NOT believe that the Torah is literally the word of God. He views it much more allegorically. I took at class from him on Genesis at the University of Judaism here in LA several years ago and he really made it come alive.

I disagree with him about 75% of the time and we got into a long, very heated argument on the radio about 5 years ago but I like that he challenges my assumptions and makes me re-think them. And as I say, on the death penalty he succeeded in changing my mind.

[Daniel Farris]

Ashermusic wrote on Wed, 26 December 2007 10:55

Respectfully, you cannot seriously compare the layers of bureaucracy between a court and a bloated mess like the IRS or USPS.

Oh yes I can.

The death penalty is incompatible with a system where prosecutors are elected officials who actually raise funds and campaign for re-election based on number of convictions.

Many prosecutors simply could not care less about the guilt or innocence of the person they're prosecuting. They're politicians, and they care about being re-elected.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx

DF

[Hank Alrich]

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40

The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO.

So in your line of "reasoning" Mahatma Gandhi was immoral?

If so, your "moral compass" must have some unusual cardinal points.

[mgod]

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40

So your source is the "Wage Peace" campaign. Wow, I  am sure they are coldly objective as they have no agenda. Now, I am the one about to lose breakfast. The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO.

Lucky for me, the solidity behind your thinking about this has already been addressed by Hank. You can find similar figures many places. But OK, if not the immoral Quakers, who then? Your friends in the administration who wage the moral war that you find justifies these deaths? Who stil say its over 100,000?

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40

The distinction to me is simply whether one's main objective is to specifically target and  kill innocents or an unfortunate byproduct of a military attack. It is not a small difference.

I agree with that.

Now put yourself on the ground in Iraq. You lose your daughter in a war started by a distant, invading country. You don't know who actually did the killing because there are fighters and weapons all around. All you know is, you've lost your child who you've raised for 24 years.

Please tell me: how big is the difference between "terrorism" and "shock and awe" to you, the father of the dead girl?

DS

[Ashermusic]

Hank Alrich wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 14:58

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40 The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO. So in your line of "reasoning" Mahatma Gandhi was immoral? If so, your "moral compass" must have some unusual cardinal points.

Gandhi's way worked because he knew that the British people were decent enough that  they would respond eventually to moral outrage and pressure their government, a democracy, to put an end to it.

If Gandhi tried the same tactics against Nazi Germany  or Stalinist Russia  he would have been quickly executed.

What is Burke's quote, something like "All that is required for evil  to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

In specific situations when fighting  is the only thing that can succeed, to be pacifistic is immoral. Fighting should always b e the last resort but sometimes it is necessary.

Obviously I am using pacifism with a capital P here.

[Ashermusic]

mgod wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 15:40

Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40 So your source is the "Wage Peace" campaign. Wow, I  am sure they are coldly objective as they have no agenda. Now, I am the one about to lose breakfast. The Quakers are pacifists and pacifism is an immoral philosophy IMO. Lucky for me, the solidity behind your thinking about this has already been addressed by Hank. You can find similar figures many places. But OK, if not the immoral Quakers, who then? Your friends in the administration who wage the moral war that you find justifies these deaths? Who stil say its over 100,000? Ashermusic wrote on Thu, 27 December 2007 10:40 The distinction to me is simply whether one's main objective is to specifically target and  kill innocents or an unfortunate byproduct of a military attack. It is not a small difference. I agree with that. Now put yourself on the ground in Iraq. You lose your daughter in a war started by a distant, invading country. You don't know who actually did the killing because there are fighters and weapons all around. All you know is, you've lost your child who you've raised for 24 years. Please tell me: how big is the difference between "terrorism" and "shock and awe" to you, the father of the dead girl? DS

I don't know who has reliable stats, that is why I asked you. But mgod you know FULL WELL that they are not my "friends in the administration " and that I don't trust them at all.

You are absolutely right that in your scenario that to the father it would make no difference just as is  would make no diffeence to me if my daughter were killed i.e. by a drunk driver  or a cold=blooded rapist/murderer.

But that fact would not make the manners of my daughter's death morally equivalent nor should they be treated as such.