|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 502 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Oops, sorry. I started writing before your message was posted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
I will now rescind the Death Penalty.
That was close. Wheew.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Okay dokay!
I created a new coffee house topic, title "Society without property?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You are appealing to moralism. You should know by know I don't consider that compelling as an argument. If our population used to be X, and is now X-1, how does it help to go to X-2? This is not moralism, it is practical. It helps to go to X-2 when if the extra one eliminated created the first situation (X-1) and is likely to continue that subtraction process.
I don't need to, because your position is an absolute. All I need is a contradiction. What absolute? Mine is a conditional and a very restricted conditional at that.
What you fail to consider, is that a person who arrogates to themselves the right to kill the proven killers thereby becomes a proven killer. Now you have just contradicted yourself. First you claimed that a person cannot be charged with a crime before it has been commited, now you say that a court which allows itself the right to kill has become a proven killer. Why don't you try going back to step one. Who was the first person to grant themselves tha right to kill and actually do so? The murderer. A court steps in if and only if someone has granted themselves a right to kill, and has done so. That's a conditional, and ironically initiated only at the action which you yourself condemn.
as if I oppose people fighting in their own defence. That is not at all the same issue as establishing in principle the legitimacy of homicide as a tool of public policy; that must necessarily produce killers. Suicide bombers do NOT in any sense "fight in their own defense". They are not killing in the midst of an attack on themselves. They have what amounts to a court trial and convict an "enemy" and then go out to mete punishment. The difference between war and an execution is the target, one is internal and the other external.
I consider it arrant fantasy to demand passivity from people under oppression. But merely because violence happens does not mean I have to enshrine it in a social order and call it good. You lauded AQ and Hamas. They are just as much enshrined social orders as any gov't. You are right that one should not demand passivity, nor should one glorify the violence necessary to protect onesself from oppression. A murderer is an oppressor. Some take great satisfaction in oppressing great numbers for their own ego. Society has a right to defend itself. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Specifically, I am a communist, and you are quite wrong: communism worked with relentless success for almost all of human history. Its the very recent development of heirarchical, property-owning societies that is contrary to human nature. As such, it is only a temporary aberration, and a communist mode of production will return.
quote: Sure. But personal posessions are most sertainly NOT equivalent to private property at all. Private property is a specific system of absentee ownership.
quote: Er no, I deconstructed your argument and thus I win the point.
quote: Its the deliberate killing of another, by someone who has power over them, and who is not themselves in danger. It's murder, plain and simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Sure. But personal posessions are most sertainly NOT equivalent to private property at all. Private property is a specific system of absentee ownership. That's a new definition of private property that I'm not familiar with. So property is land, and private property is land I'm not living on? By this definition I'd be a communist except for a parcel of land in Oregon my grandmother gave to my brother and I, not hardly!
Er no, I deconstructed your argument and thus I win the point. Oh please! You made a ridiculous slippery slope argument as a comeback and say that you deconstructed my argument, surely you're not serious?! By the same argument I could say those who are for life imprisonment for convicted murderers are also for life imprisonment for jaywalkers, what a joke and what an invalid argument. It's very hard to have a reasoned discussion with someone who has their own personal definitions for every word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Key point is IS LIKELY. It is NOT LIKELY if they are imprisoned, is it? As such, going to X-2 is a net loss with no benefits.
quote: Are you suggesting they have not killed? If they have passed a sentence, and it was carried out, they are observably known to have killed, its all in the public record. You can't escape the fact that your proposal is Just As Bad as the alleged crime you claim to be correcting.
quote: So what? You just claimed above you are not resorting to moralism, and here you are resorting to moralism! You are saying that two identical acts of killing can be dinstinguished on the moral basis of "fault". that is unimportant. I don't care who started it - thats a childs retort.
quote: Yes they most certainly do.
quote: Yes, they are. In Palestine, in Iraq, and at the Twin Towers, suicide bombers were and are fighting in self defence as any soldier in an army does. The fact that they accept a 100% chance of dying in the doing only highlights their bravery and commitment.
quote: Seeing as you should know by now that I do not accept the distinction, I can't understand why you bothered advancing this argument.
quote: I have not glorified it - I have merely refused to join in the Western hubris of criticising of people defending themselves, merely because they are defending themselves against us. Furthermore, I don't think Hamas or AQ - if it exists - are much like governments. They are military resistance movements and have the appropriate structure, just like the ANC and IRA. If you don't want the resistance, relieve the oppression.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Chiroptera, I responded to this message in the "Society without property?" thread in the coffee house forum if you would like to continue this discussion. I don't wish to incur the wrath of the admins by continuing here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It is NOT LIKELY if they are imprisoned, is it? Why not? People kill others in prison, as well as get out (escape or release) and kill people. They are less likely to, in that they have been hampered to some degree, but it isn't impossible, and evidence is people do.
As such, going to X-2 is a net loss with no benefits. Let's be realistic. Once in prison they will effectively be out of breeding and variation categories for "benefitting" the population. Dead they pose no more threat at all, inlcuding to guards who are in the pool for breeding and variation.
You can't escape the fact that your proposal is Just As Bad as the alleged crime you claim to be correcting. Nope, that doesn't get you out of your hole. You said no one should be blamed for a crime without first having actually done it. Now you are saying that proposing is just as bad as a crime? You are the one that has to pick a position and stick with it. But to address your other point, no a court which has just been formed has NOT killed anyone.
You are saying that two identical acts of killing can be dinstinguished on the moral basis of "fault". that is unimportant. I don't care who started it - thats a childs retort. You are projecting your moralism onto me. You are the one with the "thou shall not kill" thing going. I'm talking about practicalities. In some cases one should be able to destroy physical threats to the community. A court becomes a threat if it is able to destroy without a contingency that it wait until a physical threat is proven. You forget that I do not have "evil/good" morals at all. Killing to me is the same for both morally (not taking into account other factors around the killing). It is simply in the legal arena that one becomes practically defined as murder, and the other a sanctioned killing of a threat who has already violated another person's rights.
Yes, they are. In Palestine, in Iraq, and at the Twin Towers, suicide bombers were and are fighting in self defence as any soldier in an army does. The fact that they accept a 100% chance of dying in the doing only highlights their bravery and commitment. Okay this is exactly where I stop taking you seriously. Last things first, I do consider them "brave", even if I disagree with their cause and I've told you that before. First things last, you said that only killing in the heat of being attacked is permissable and I said these guys weren't being attacked. Now you say they can do so by going out and following orders to kill people when there is no attack going on. Pick a position my friend. The people in the WTC attacks were certainly NOT under attack by anyone, if you absolve them and their commanders then you logically should be absolving executioners and their commanders.
They are military resistance movements and have the appropriate structure, just like the ANC and IRA. If you don't want the resistance, relieve the oppression. They are like any other organization, which are like tiny gov'ts. I can't believe you are even questioning that fact, or now (apparently) that AQ is real? By the way I support Palestinian liberation, though oppose specific tactics. How ironic that you are now blasting those same tactics... as long as it isn't Palestinians doing it. This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-12-2005 12:05 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
contracycle writes:
I missed this lesson in my Western Civ class. Were my teachers mere Capitalist tools??
I am a communist, and you are quite wrong: communism worked with relentless success for almost all of human history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Actually my high school teachers were quite clear that communism accurately describes a wide variety of indigenous cultures. And the earliest Christians, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
That can't be what contra is referring to. In an earlier debate with me he made it quite clear that communism (as he is) is only possible in an industrial, or otherwise technically advanced civilization.
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You might be right. I vaguely recall, from conversations months ago, that contracycle is a very classical Marxist. In fact, I get the impression that he's a Leninist, but I might be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 502 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
I think I was the one that said communism only works in an industrialized and technically advanced society. I posted somewhere on here that the reason past communist experiments have failed were because those societies, most notably China and Russia, went straight from feudalistic-like to communism. That's not what Marx theorized.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Let's head back towards the general direction of the topic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024