fishin wrote:fishin wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:It was once the western norm that life is sacred, that a man does not have a right to take another man's life, only God does.
Really? When was that exactly?
I don't recall any period in western history when there wasn't a war of one sort or another taking place and I've never seen any accepted norm that killing another person in self-defense wasn't a legitimate recognized right.
tap tap tap
Still waiting....
Post: 3304885 is my response. Humans have always killed each other, and sometimes this killing has been deemed justified. we are talking here about killing evil people, and I am making the point that is was never allowed for individuals to take it upon themselves to kill evil people. Man can however kill in response to evil acts, individuals in vengeance for a killed family member, society for any evil act.
If the thread topic is can we kill people because they have beliefs and feelings that are outside of acceptable norms and thus are evil, the answer is that we have never before thought so but when America feels justified in assassinating those that it deems to be terrorists with out even any information about any evil acts that they have committed as an individual then we no longer hold to this moral code that held at least through 2000 of christian civilization.
I heard it costs upwards of one million dollars to execute one prisoner; that sure buys a whole lot of years in prison.
cicerone imposter wrote:I heard it costs upwards of one million dollars to execute one prisoner; that sure buys a whole lot of years in prison.
a problem that many have been working to correct, by putting in an express lane to the execution chamber. If the appeals process can be limited, the process expedited, the costs go way down.
It is hilarious to see Rapist-boy describe Friedrich Nietzsche as "one of the most radical philosophers around." Leaving aside that rather extravagant, hilarious and unfounded assertion, it is worth noting that Nietzsche was academically a philologist, not a philosopher, although, of course, the study of philology lead him into many philosophical speculations. It was his decision to challenge the philosophical assumptions of the 19th century which lead him to write the works which are considered to be philosophical treatises.
Beyond Good and Evil is a work in which he expounds his philosophical view that there is no actual, absolute morality. But the point for bringing it up here is that it begins with a philological examination of the dichotomies good/bad, and good/evil. There is a point to be made that the good/bad dichotomy hinges upon utility (that which benefits me is good, that which harms me is bad), but that the good/evil dichotomy is an appeal to an absolute moral standard.
So, as usual, Rapist-boy is talking out of his ass when he denies that the concepts of good and bad can refer to utility, which is all that i was saying. As usual, Rapist-boy's "arguments" are bankrupt.
If you don't like the way i talk to and about you, Rapist-boy, then don't puke up your witless remarks about what i have posted which had never been addressed to you.
Setanta wrote:DrewDad wrote:Setanta wrote:Silly question.
Why Setanta, how judgemental of you.
So the f*ck what? You're judgmental from the time you arise in the morning until you go to bed at night. You make a judgment about what would be best to wear, you make a judgment about what would be best for your breakfast, you make a judgment about the best route to get to work. There's nothing wrong with being judgmental, and you'd be up the old sh*t crick lickity-split if you weren't judgmental all day long, every day.
It is hilarious when people use the word judgmental as thought it were a pejorative, hoping to condemn those to whom it is applied.
My God you're humorless today.
Perhaps you're just mental.
hawkeye10 wrote:fishin wrote:fishin wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:It was once the western norm that life is sacred, that a man does not have a right to take another man's life, only God does.
Really? When was that exactly?
I don't recall any period in western history when there wasn't a war of one sort or another taking place and I've never seen any accepted norm that killing another person in self-defense wasn't a legitimate recognized right.
tap tap tap
Still waiting....
Post: 3304885 is my response. Humans have always killed each other, and sometimes this killing has been deemed justified. we are talking here about killing evil people, and I am making the point that is was never allowed for individuals to take it upon themselves to kill evil people. Man can however kill in response to evil acts, individuals in vengeance for a killed family member, society for any evil act.
If the thread topic is can we kill people because they have beliefs and feelings that are outside of acceptable norms and thus are evil, the answer is that we have never before thought so but when America feels justified in assassinating those that it deems to be terrorists with out even any information about any evil acts that they have committed as an individual then we no longer hold to this moral code that held at least through 2000 of christian civilization.
Oh please... Your just babbling here.
If someone come running at me with a knife in their hand and screaming that they are going to kill me I can decide right there on the spot that they are evil and kill them in self-defense. Your nonsensical attempt to differentiate "evil people" from "evil acts" is 100% a fabrication of your own making.
fishin wrote:.
If someone come running at me with a knife in their hand and screaming that they are going to kill me I can decide right there on the spot that they are evil and kill them in self-defense. Your nonsensical attempt to differentiate "evil people" from "evil acts" is 100% a fabrication of your own making.
how silly, you have the right to protect your life, but this has nothing to do with having any rights to kill based upon your moral judgement of the person attempting to kill you.
If a dog bites a child....
Make that a pit bull bites your child, what will you do?
hawkeye10 wrote:fishin wrote:.
If someone come running at me with a knife in their hand and screaming that they are going to kill me I can decide right there on the spot that they are evil and kill them in self-defense. Your nonsensical attempt to differentiate "evil people" from "evil acts" is 100% a fabrication of your own making.
how silly, you have the right to protect your life, but this has nothing to do with having any rights to kill based upon your moral judgement of the person attempting to kill you.
Now you're just being stupid. Do you think someone that kills another in self defense thinks "hey, he's a nice guy but he's trying to kill me so I'll kill him first!"?
The requirement for a "moral judgement" is your fabrication and isn't necessary to answer the original question.
DrewDad wrote:Perhaps you're just mental.
If anyone here were sure to be qualified to make such an estimation, based upon personal experience, it would be you.
hawkeye wrote :
Quote:If the appeals process can be limited, the process expedited, the costs go way down.
and many lawyers/judges/prison personnel are out of work and go on social assistance - that's not a good solution imo .
hbg
fishin wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:fishin wrote:.
If someone come running at me with a knife in their hand and screaming that they are going to kill me I can decide right there on the spot that they are evil and kill them in self-defense. Your nonsensical attempt to differentiate "evil people" from "evil acts" is 100% a fabrication of your own making.
how silly, you have the right to protect your life, but this has nothing to do with having any rights to kill based upon your moral judgement of the person attempting to kill you.
Now you're just being stupid. Do you think someone that kills another in self defense thinks "hey, he's a nice guy but he's trying to kill me so I'll kill him first!"?
The requirement for a "moral judgement" is your fabrication and isn't necessary to answer the original question.
the fact that when one is faced with someone trying to kill them that there is any moral evaluation to be done other than "what do i have the right to do in order to stop him?" is your fabrication. It has nothing to do with who the other person is... with their goodness or evilness, the only thing that counts is that they are trying to kill you.
The big question is do we want more working in the criminal justice system or in our military?
It's ironic that many being recruited into the military today have criminal records.
cicerone imposter wrote:Make that a pit bull bites your child, what will you do?
How about if rapist boy comes anywhere near your child? That'd do for me.
OCCOM BILL wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Make that a pit bull bites your child, what will you do?
How about if rapist boy comes anywhere near your child? That'd do for me.
Yes, but then you have shown very clearly that you lack self control.
Quote:I heard it costs upwards of one million dollars to execute one prisoner; that sure buys a whole lot of years in prison.
It can be considerably more than that.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108
Actually, I recall an article a couple of years back that put California's death penalty costs at $250M per execution, but the site above says 'only' $114M per execution. Other states don't fork out near that much.
hawkeye10 wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Make that a pit bull bites your child, what will you do?
How about if rapist boy comes anywhere near your child? That'd do for me.
Yes, but then you have shown very clearly that you lack self control.
What I've shown is that despite having an exceedingly small propensity towards actual hatred; I wholeheartedly hate rapists, misogynistic bullies and child molesters with something of a passion. You've given good reason to suspect you are all of the above. So needless to say; I despise you. Sleep well in your anonymity, you pathetic coward.
Setanta, you were right to mention "Beyond good and evil", but you did put it in a way that implied that that book was the final word on "good and evil" which of course it certainly isn't.
