Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 29 Jul '05 03:11
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Would killing Bush be justified "so more people won't be killed"?
    You just never quit do you, Kevin?
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jul '05 03:47
    Originally posted by Delmer
    You just never quit do you, Kevin?
    You people were the ones discussing the legitimacy of killing leaders to save lives. Can you answer the question?
  3. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    29 Jul '05 05:48
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Would killing Bush be justified "so more people won't be killed"?
    Anyone can justify anything in their own heads, that does not mean it
    is right.
    Kelly
  4. 29 Jul '05 08:41
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Stan, I'll ask you again. Was Hitler evil?

    You may as well answer the question now or go away for several days or weeks until I forget this bit.
    There is no evil. Hitler was antisocial toward the extreme.
  5. 29 Jul '05 11:41
    Originally posted by STANG
    There is no evil. Hitler was antisocial toward the extreme.
    i know people who are extremely anti-social. i dont know of any who would want to kill millions of people.....
  6. 29 Jul '05 11:59
    Originally posted by STANG
    There is no evil. Hitler was antisocial toward the extreme.
    Hitler was actually a hobbit who wanted to take over earth.

    If you notice he spent most of his time in a burrow and
    have you ever seen a picture with his feet in it??

  7. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    29 Jul '05 12:24
    Originally posted by lioyank
    i know people who are extremely anti-social. i dont know of any who would want to kill millions of people.....
    I'd say we none of knows that really, if one was given the power to
    do away with millions of people they didn't like, or 1 or 2 would they
    just because they could? That is different than working towards that
    goal, but what would one do is something only power can reveal.
    It wasn't Hitler personally that was lining people up to gas them,
    it was a bunch of other people; it wasn't Hitler who abused masses
    of people while they had power over them, it was a bunch of other
    people.
    Kelly
  8. Standard member Thequ1ck
    Fast above
    29 Jul '05 12:27
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'd say we none of knows that really, if one was given the power to
    do away with millions of people they didn't like, or 1 or 2 would they
    just because they could? That is different than working towards that
    goal, but what would one do is something only power can reveal.
    It wasn't Hitler personally that was lining people up to gas them,
    it was a bun ...[text shortened]... used masses
    of people while they had power over them, it was a bunch of other
    people.
    Kelly
    It's a bit like giving 9/10 people in a firing squad
    blanks and one the real bullet.

    Individuals don't like killing but groups will do it.
  9. Subscriber invigorate
    Only 1 F in Uckfield
    29 Jul '05 12:29
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Says you? Why do you believe that?
    Kelly
    I believe that because:

    Any state or human that kills condones killing and I believe killing is always wrong.

    If the monster is killed he cannot, atone, repent, show remorse or be punished for his actions.

    Society cannot find out why he was driven to take his actions or make any further progress in understanding the dangers of the next monster unless it controls and monitors the captured monster.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Jul '05 13:58 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by STANG
    There is no evil. Hitler was antisocial toward the extreme.
    Why are you quibbling over semantics? The dude was certifiable,
    what the pigheaded hell does it matter if you call it evil, demented,
    poor tortured soul in need of healing, if you don't stop this kind
    of individual, it will kill again, so you off it. There are serial
    killers in jail now who know full well they will kill again if they are
    let loose and tell the authorities just that. So when the idiot parole
    board reviews the case, sometimes they don't even listen to what
    the parolee has to say, they just think, we need the space in the
    jail, we have so many pot smokers being convicted we have to clear
    these jails out so they put the serial killer out on the street in
    a halfway house and sure enough, six months later he kills again.
    Thats not a made up story, that actually happened. This dude KNEW
    he would kill again. So there are reasons to kill monsters no matter
    what you label them. When you say there is no evil you are putting in
    in religious terms, emotional response having nothing to do with
    reality.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jul '05 14:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    This is dangerously close to getting-to-know-the-Secret-Service territory, no1. More to the point, they'd be getting to know you. And when they get to know you, they do it with a rectal probe. Oh, what satisfaction that would give ...[text shortened]... ency I can think of and report a threat to our commander-in-chief.
    Go ahead. Maybe they'll send a good rat like you some extra government cheese. So much for that "freedom" you want everybody in the whole wide world to have; you're acting like the neo-Nazi you are - ready to inform on your fellow citizens to "Dad". Hitler and Stalin would have been proud of ya, Junior!

    It's beyond your capacity to understand, but my question was in response to others justifying the killing of people because they are "evil" and it would stop them causing the deaths of others. The question is: why doesn't this criteria extend to Bush? Of course, we all know that the mere removal of one "monster" in any modern society is unlikely to change government policy.

    More to the point, simply labelling people "evil" and then killing them, doesn't solve the problem. What you need to know is why some (a small minority) of people do "evil" acts and what you can do to prevent them for having such attitudes that cause them to do so. The answer is many cases may well be that there is nothing to be done, but it is a simple fact that some societies have higher instances of certain acts which are "evil". Thus, societal influences have at least some bearing on such outcomes. While indiividuals are still ultimately responsible for their acts, societies are also responsible for the society they have which lead, in part, to such acts. Thus, if it can be determined with a fair degree of certainty that certain actions by society have a tendency to lead to "evil" acts, then society has an obligation to end these actions. This is provided that this can be done without invading the fundamental rights of the individual that societies are set up to protect (Lockean theory again).

    EDIT: BTW, Sasquatch, I know you've never read the Constitution of the United States and neither has Bush, but the President is NOT "our commander in chief". Article 2, Section 2 (1): "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Unless we're actually presently in the armed forces, which neither of us are, it is incorrect to call the President "our" commander in chief. He is an elected official occupying a temporary job and he has no power to command me to do anything but what the law allows.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    29 Jul '05 14:37
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Anyone can justify anything in their own heads, that does not mean it
    is right.
    Kelly
    That is of course true, but the question was one specifically asked to those who were justifying the killer of various "monsters" in order to save lives that such "monster" will cause to be killed in the future. The point being the criteria isn't very well defined and once we determine in our own heads A is a "monster" and is going to cause people to be killed, then according to these views it is OK to kill him. My point is that this principal doesn't have to be taken very far before you can justify the killing of most leaders and probably almost anybody in a position of power.
  13. 29 Jul '05 14:50
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Would killing Bush be justified "so more people won't be killed"?
    no; because Bush is not a monster. an example of a monster would be.... o, i dont know..... Saddam?
  14. 29 Jul '05 14:51
    Originally posted by lioyank
    no; because Bush is not a monster. an example of a monster would be.... o, i dont know..... Saddam?
    On what paramters do you distinguish Bush from Saddam in the ring of monstrousness?
  15. Standard member xs
    Incroyant
    29 Jul '05 14:55
    Originally posted by Starrman
    On what paramters do you distinguish Bush from Saddam in the ring of monstrousness?
    Probably just simple ignorance of leftist views.