Should DeLay resign

Homicide and Murder are two names for the same thing. The only difference is in perception and judgement.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Actually, law and ethics are composed almost entirely of shades of grey. Very little pure white or black in those worlds.

Tell me,where is the gray area in "murder is wrong,theft is wrong,stelaing is wrong"?
Where is the gray area in any of those statements?

Perhaps the murder was justified.

That would be homicide. Not illegal in cases of self defense. just splitting a straw.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

well MM, how about if my house decides that I am to come to your house and murder you and your family. We vote on it. It passes 4 to1. I guess as far as my house is concerned it's not unlawful and therefore it's not murder.

I suspect however, that at your house you might have a different feeling about it and might even possibly consider it unlawful.

So I guess lawful and unlawful sort of depends on whose house you're in and what end of the bullet you're on.

And since we're all in God's house, I don't believe His/Her law is concerned with the adjective lawful.I've never seen that describer mentioned anyhow.

Thats a silly analogy,but lets play it out.
After you try and murder me,then I have the right to come to your house,burn it down,destroy every living thing in it,and it is justified and called self defense.
Do I have your analogy correct?

mysteryman wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

well MM, how about if my house decides that I am to come to your house and murder you and your family. We vote on it. It passes 4 to1. I guess as far as my house is concerned it's not unlawful and therefore it's not murder.

I suspect however, that at your house you might have a different feeling about it and might even possibly consider it unlawful.

So I guess lawful and unlawful sort of depends on whose house you're in and what end of the bullet you're on.

And since we're all in God's house, I don't believe His/Her law is concerned with the adjective lawful.I've never seen that describer mentioned anyhow.

Thats a silly analogy,but lets play it out.
After you try and murder me,then I have the right to come to your house,burn it down,destroy every living thing in it,and it is justified and called self defense.
Do I have your analogy correct?

First please tell me why my analogy, in your opinion, is silly.

No, you do not have that right because my murder was committed legally. We voted on it. However I'm sure you will vote that it is self defense and legal.

Will you attack and slaughter many of my neighbors simply because they were my friends and not yours and because they don't like you even though they had nothing to do with my actions?

woiyo wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

Actually, law and ethics are composed almost entirely of shades of grey. Very little pure white or black in those worlds.

Tell me,where is the gray area in "murder is wrong,theft is wrong,stelaing is wrong"?
Where is the gray area in any of those statements?

Perhaps the murder was justified.

That would be homicide. Not illegal in cases of self defense. just splitting a straw.

The killing of a human being is a homicide, but might not be murder. Murder is a crime, and homicide is a necessary element of murder, but is not in and of itself a crime. I agree.

But whether it is murder -- as opposed to a justified homicide -- might be grey. Agreed?

woiyo,
Thats easy to do.
If you attack someone else,and they kill you in self defense,thats justified.
If a mugger attacks a little old lady,and gets killed by a passerby,thats justified.
If you break into someones home,and get killed by the person living there,thats justified.
If you attempt an armed robbery,and get killed by the shop owner,thats justified.

woiyo,
Thats easy to do.
If you attack someone else,and they kill you in self defense,thats justified.
If a mugger attacks a little old lady,and gets killed by a passerby,thats justified.
If you break into someones home,and get killed by the person living there,thats justified.
If you attempt an armed robbery,and get killed by the shop owner,thats justified.

Unbelievable, me and Tico are on the same side for once.

Cycloptichorn

so how do you reconcile that with the current administrations hard on for preemptive strikes and the many casualties they cause?

That's not self defense.

And in my (for the purposes of discussion only of course ) murdering of you and your family would be okay because we met, voted, and declared war on you, and murder in the course of war is okay according to you.

I guess it follows then that the murder of Daniel Ellsburg was okay because he was captured and executed during the course of the war on terror.

so how do you reconcile that with the current administrations hard on for preemptive strikes and the many casualties they cause?

That's not self defense.

And in my (for the purposes of discussion only of course ) murdering of you and your family would be okay because we met, voted, and declared war on you, and murder in the course of war is okay according to you.

I guess it follows then that the murder of Daniel Ellsburg was okay because he was captured and executed during the course of the war on terror.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Unbelievable, me and Tico are on the same side for once.

Cycloptichorn

That, too, is a grey area.

So, it's okay to murder someone as long as your Gov't says it is okay. Gotcha.

Doesn't seem quite as black-and-white as people make it out to be, when the gov't is the ultimate authority on morality...

Cycloptichorn

Those sho think they know all about the differences of killing in war and murder--all about the differences between a "just war" and an "unjust war" are invited to look at the GreatBooks section on War.

Most of the charges about collateral damage are nonsense,

In World War II, we bombed Dresden and caused a fire storm that killed at least 100,000 civilians>

Barbaric?
Ask the survivors we liberated from the Nazi Concentration camps.