1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightWell, it's a very debatable issue. Too bad we're not in the debates forum here. But I'll give you three good arguments to ponder none the less:
Hey Cash, can you believe that people are really ready and willing to debate this point with me?
1. How come most people (in fact, everyone I've ever spoken to) think it's ok to take the lives of pedos, rapists, massmurderers and so on? That would be murder (in any sense of the word living in the western world), and yet none that I've heard of consider it really wrong. Thus, murder is not always wrong to everyone.
2. Someone wants to make the point that murder is killing without law's consent. That is, if you kill someone it could still be ok if the law is on your side. Doesn't that say a whole lot about humanity; that we can have laws permitting us to perform an otherwise considered wrong act?
3. By murder, did you mean killing? To kill someone is wrong? Well, ponder this. You are attacked. During the attack you manage to protect yourself by stabbing the attacker in the chest with his knife. Was that wrong?
So you see, the idea that murder is wrong (even if I agree with you) is an abstract one, constructed by us humans (or God if you believe that) to make it possible for us to live in larger societies. If we really went about killing each other as we pleased, there would be no way for societies to grow big and strong.
Even if you consider the word murder in the sense that law can differentiate between taking a life without the right to do so and otherwise, you have to agree that a law is nothing but an agreement between the elite or majority of the population of a society. In another society the law may be quite different. So, there's nothing universal about such a law.
In short, murder is not always wrong if you meant the act of killing. And if you're talking about murder as a legality issue, then the exact same act can be wrong in one society but not the next. In one society it would be ok to take the lives of known sex offenders, whereas in another it wouldn't. Murder is wrong in both, yes, but the meaning of the word quite different. And so, when you say murder is wrong and a member of this other society agrees with you, (s)he's really not agreeing with you in point.
See?
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashI was making a joke and observation at the same time. Killing people (even innocent ones) from another country is apparently not against the law if you can convince the people of your own country that it's necessary (no matter how false your arguments turn out to be later). Never mind the laws of that other country. And so I see no reason why, if I dislike Bush for being a maniac I shouldn't be allowed to at least torture the bastard. All I really have to do is get enough people (a country pro torture) on my side and the act as such would be ok.
So you are pro torture?
Or, there should be an international court of law that can put Bush through a trial for violating innocent people and abusing the power invested in him by the american people (in part by willfully deceiving the same people).
The point being, again, that murder is not always considered wrong by everyone. It's a matter of how you define murder, and even then the statement is grayish at best.
Originally posted by cashthetrashAmazing! When I said, kill them all anybody with half a brain would know that I was talking about child molestors! .
Nodleys, let me try to explain this to you since it apparently went over your head. Arrakis made a quote. My response to his Quote was because of his choice of words. It sounded like it he could have meant he thinks that the rapists and the children who were raped should all be killed. I am almost positive that is not what he meant, but I was only tryi ...[text shortened]... ong Nordleys in the same way I knew Arrakis didn't mean what it almost sounded like he said.
Allow me to add your name to the 'stupid list'.
Originally posted by stockenI'm against murder, torture, and Bush. I am also against the idea of justifying a wrong with a wrong. That doesn't mean I am a pacifist by any means. I think of killing strictly as a last resort. When it is a matter of self preservation or to save the lives of others. If we want to call ourselves intelligent beings then we need to act like it and stop living with fear and hate. If we as humans are supposed to have evolved from animals, what I can never seem to understand is why we are the most destructive of all the beasts of the earth. If we evolved, we evolved as greedy, evil, and savage Monsters. At times, I feel we have evolved to less than Animalistic beings, much less.
I was making a joke and observation at the same time. Killing people (even innocent ones) from another country is apparently not against the law if you can convince the people of your own country that it's necessary (no matter how false your arguments turn out to be later). Never mind the laws of that other country. And so I see no reason why, if I dislike B ...[text shortened]... yone. It's a matter of how you define murder, and even then the statement is grayish at best.