17
   

What Does it Take to Justify Violence?

Forums: Philosophy, Violence, Ethics, Morals, Fighting
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 11:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

hamilton wrote:
what makes the guy a bad guy? perspective?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
the violation of someone 's rights
Fido wrote:
I thought that was the reasonable way to discover
if you are violating some ones rights: When they objected...
No; logically, that does not work.
If it did,
then no successful pickpocket woud ever violate
his victim's rights on-the-job.




Fido wrote:
Think of all the capitalists and clergy that might have to suffer violence under your justification...
I have no idea what u mean (which is probably just as well).





David
I think the Roman's saw a difference between a mute instrament and a vocal instrament, like a slave... Oxen and mules do not complain for all the good it might do them... I think, being able to make the demand for rights is essential to having the right, and it is a problem for the environmentalist, or the PITA people that they must advocate out of sympathy for creatures that cannot advocate for themselves...

As far as pickpockets go, the complaint does not have be immediate... Hell, in injury cases they may give a person two years of more to file... Some times crimes do not become obvious, and yet they are still crimes...
0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 01:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
is it the pick pocket's fault, or the people that put him into the position of need for pickpocketing?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 03:22 pm
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
is it the pick pocket's fault,
or the people that put him into the position of need for pickpocketing?
Its the pickpocket's fault.
Note that u ASSUME the existence
of those other people that u mentioned.





David
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 03:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
because somewhere, they do...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 03:25 pm
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
because somewhere, they do...
???? Who does WHAT ???
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 03:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
sorry. mistype. i should have said that somwhere out there, there are people that screw other people, take their money, and do that sort of thing.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 05:12 pm
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
sorry. mistype. i should have said that somwhere out there,
there are people that screw other people, take their money, and do that sort of thing.
U mean Ladies of the Evening ?
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 05:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
could be them too...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 05:23 pm
@hamilton,
Thay r not always 1OO% innocent.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 05:24 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
is anyone...?
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 04:57 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

is anyone...?
No one is innocent; and few are guilty.... We all play a part, and we all know some benefit from injustice; but only a few people play an active part in it all, and I trust, very often their benefit is slight compared to their crimes...
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 06:05 am
@Fido,
what are we guitly of then? what are we innocent of?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 07:09 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

what are we guitly of then? what are we innocent of?
Nothing... We survive on death... Even plants grow in the soil of long dead plants... Life is crime... We cannot make it better; but we can make it ever so much worse..
hamilton
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 05:47 pm
@Fido,
life is no crime, or anything. your drawing a hard line between good and evil by saying that. the thing is, there is no evil, from any perspective. there just Is.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 06:14 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

life is no crime, or anything. your drawing a hard line between good and evil by saying that. the thing is, there is no evil, from any perspective. there just Is.
If life is will, then it follows that it is will against will, life against life, life against nature, self against self...
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2011 10:35 am
@Fido,
no crime, though...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2011 07:32 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

no crime, though...
I saw Clint Eastwood make that distinction for killing an Elephant in a really great movie once... When another said it was a crime, he denied it was a crime, and said it was a sin... And I am guilty of that sin... I have about a foot of tusk, so I helped to kill an elphant because I could not bear the guilt of being innocent and doing nothing to prevent their extinction... I simply joined the other side, and accepted their guilt as my own... It took a load off, really... You should try it... What you say is true, that not all sins are crimes, but in an ideal world, the world none of us would fit, all sins would be crimes because the object of every sin is the same as crime: The Destruction of Community... It is easier to be guilty than innocent... A halo weighs more than a manhole cover..
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2011 10:55 am
@Fido,
hamilton wrote:

no crime, though...
Fido wrote:
I saw Clint Eastwood make that distinction for killing an Elephant in a really great movie once...
When another said it was a crime, he denied it was a crime,
Whether it is or not is a matter of STATUTORY DEFINITION in the jurisdiction at hand.



Fido wrote:
and said it was a sin... And I am guilty of that sin... I have about a foot of tusk, so I helped to kill an elphant because I could not bear the guilt of being innocent and doing nothing to prevent their extinction... I simply joined the other side, and accepted their guilt as my own... It took a load off, really... You should try it... What you say is true, that not all sins are crimes, but in an ideal world, the world none of us would fit, all sins would be crimes because the object of every sin is the same as crime: The Destruction of Community... It is easier to be guilty than innocent... A halo weighs more than a manhole cover..
That 's nonsense.





David
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 06:26 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

hamilton wrote:

no crime, though...
Fido wrote:
I saw Clint Eastwood make that distinction for killing an Elephant in a really great movie once...
When another said it was a crime, he denied it was a crime,
Whether it is or not is a matter of STATUTORY DEFINITION in the jurisdiction at hand.



Fido wrote:
and said it was a sin... And I am guilty of that sin... I have about a foot of tusk, so I helped to kill an elphant because I could not bear the guilt of being innocent and doing nothing to prevent their extinction... I simply joined the other side, and accepted their guilt as my own... It took a load off, really... You should try it... What you say is true, that not all sins are crimes, but in an ideal world, the world none of us would fit, all sins would be crimes because the object of every sin is the same as crime: The Destruction of Community... It is easier to be guilty than innocent... A halo weighs more than a manhole cover..
That 's nonsense.





David
But; your purity is beyond doubt or reproach...

You know; I know there is a debate going on now and since the beginning about whether man makes laws, or law makes men... The way Jesus said it was; Man was not made for the law, but the law was made for men... Some times sins clearly are made illegal, though this is often an infringment upon freedom... It is more essential to make the moral argument without law when law in support of morality is destructive of the freedom all people need to be moral... Law should never be, and never is only defined by statute but is itself, and should, be a definition of a moral form called justice... We create law to make real what we desire as a moral good... You cannot slide a knife between a society and its laws any more than you can slide a knife between a man and his morals; but you can clearly see where societies have been destroyed by bad laws, and where people have been destroyed with bad morals... People should always examine their laws in the light of their morals, and their morals in the light of their men because the quality of the man is the quality of his morals...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 06:27 am
Quote:
What Does it Take to Justify Violence?


A better lawyer than the victim has..
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What Does it Take to Justify Violence?
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:29:29
▲ ▼