Originally posted by DelmerHey Del, would it be ethical or legal to discuss shooting (insert name of poster here) ?
I don't know what you mean by "okay", Gnats. In my opinion, if you seriously want to kill someone, or see them killed by someone else, then by all means talk about it if you want. If it's just more of the usual bullshit then why waste the time. What's more, if it's just bullshit you may trigger a murder you didn't envision or get into serious trouble and all for spreading bullshit.
Originally posted by lukemcmullanLet's widen the discussion, Luke. It's obviously legal to produce and market material in which killing is an integral factor, such as video games, movies, books etc. Do you think producing, selling, buying, using such material is ethical?
If you're discussing it with a view to whether it would be ethical, that's okay.
However, discussing shooting someone with an aim towards carrying it out is wrong, and illegal (conspiracy to murder).
Originally posted by STANGIn that case, there exists a significant difference in the ethics.
The question concerns ethics rather than legalities.
Let us assume leader A and leader B have taken teh exact same actions.
Leader A is a despot. His rule is absolute. He answers to no one, and need not ask anyones permissions to take any action what so ever.
Leader B comes from a democracy. His rule is subject to the approval of the populace. He must glean support from another branch of government in order to accomplish many/most/all of his wishes.
The personal ethical responsibility between these two imaginary leaders is obviously and clearly different.
Thusly, and in direct relevance to this thread, I should think it would be rather difficult to base an ethical arguement of discussing the shooting of a democratic leader based upon the permissibility of shooting a despot.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Originally posted by STANGBut the people were stupid enough to vote that way. And it wasn't just the marketing. Many churches told their parishoners that they would go to hell if they didn't vote for Bush. He was elected fair and square, it is the fault of the idiotic people of my country that he is in office, not Bush himself. And the democrats are as much at fault as the republicans in my opinion. I think more of the borderline people would have voted for someone like Wesley Clark. Kerry didn't really bring anything to the race except his wife's ketchup money.
What democracy ?!?!?
Bush won with a multi-hundred million dollar marketing campaign.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowLike they say, you get what you pay for.
But the people were stupid enough to vote that way. And it wasn't just the marketing. Many churches told their parishoners that they would go to hell if they didn't vote for Bush. He was elected fair and square, it is the fault of the idiotic people of my country that he is in office, not Bush himself. And the democrats are as much at fault as th ...[text shortened]... sley Clark. Kerry didn't really bring anything to the race except his wife's ketchup money.
Stang, since you seem obsessed with "shoot your (insert president
here)", why don't you just do it?
Originally posted by STANGI assume this is in response to my post, but it would be clearer if you actually quoted me. Regardless, I assume as much and thusly shall comment.
What democracy ?!?!?
Bush won with a multi-hundred million dollar marketing campaign.
My view is much aking to that of UmbrageOfSnow. If we are talking ethics, then your point is moot. If Bush got elected because he promised bean burritos in high school cafeterias every Friday, it makes no difference. He is in his position because the people he governs put him there. His moral responsibility as an individual is rather nominal, being that he was placed in the position to take his actions by a decision of the masses.
When Bush acts, it is not just one man acting. It is the butterfly effect of a vast number of small, mundane, actions. A simple check mark on a piece of paper, done many times over, has sealed the fate of the world as far as the influence and actions of the US goes, for four years. Every single person who made that check mark (or did not!), bears personal ethical responsibility for what occurs due to the decisioins of Bush. Bush is just a man. If he is exceptionally fallible and morally bankrupt, so are his people who placed him there. That is all.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Originally posted by STANGsure because shooting saddam is way to nice. He should be tortured over the course of a year, then hung on the streets of Iraq.
You've probably seen the "Who would shoot Saddam ?" thread (created by windmill).
Would it be ethically less to ask "Who would shoot {insert name of your president} ?"
If we allow one, should we allow the other ?
Should the "Who would shoot Saddam ?" thread be deleted by the moderators ?