Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 302 (198568)
04-12-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by AdminJar
04-12-2005 11:03 AM


Oops!
Oops, sorry. I started writing before your message was posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by AdminJar, posted 04-12-2005 11:03 AM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by AdminJar, posted 04-12-2005 11:11 AM Chiroptera has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 302 (198570)
04-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Chiroptera
04-12-2005 11:09 AM


Thank you
I will now rescind the Death Penalty.
That was close. Wheew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2005 11:09 AM Chiroptera has not replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 288 of 302 (198571)
04-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by AdminJar
04-12-2005 11:03 AM


Re: A really great question BUT!!!!!!
Okay dokay!
I created a new coffee house topic, title "Society without property?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by AdminJar, posted 04-12-2005 11:03 AM AdminJar has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 289 of 302 (198572)
04-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by contracycle
04-12-2005 10:07 AM


Re: uh-oh
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 10:07 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 11:36 AM Silent H has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 302 (198583)
04-12-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by kjsimons
04-12-2005 10:31 AM


Re: What about Jessica Lunsford?
quote:
You seem to advocate some sort of communism, which has never worked as it goes against human nature.
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:
The only people on the planet without property are primitive hunter/gather tribes and not even all of them are without property/possessions.
Sure. But personal posessions are most sertainly NOT equivalent to private property at all. Private property is a specific system of absentee ownership.
quote:
Yes, and as so it is ignored because that is not a valid argument. So I win that point.
Er no, I deconstructed your argument and thus I win the point.
quote:
Not murder by the standard definition, just by yours.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by kjsimons, posted 04-12-2005 10:31 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by kjsimons, posted 04-12-2005 11:34 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 295 by Phat, posted 04-12-2005 3:03 PM contracycle has not replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 291 of 302 (198587)
04-12-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by contracycle
04-12-2005 11:24 AM


Re: What about Jessica Lunsford?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 11:24 AM contracycle has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 302 (198592)
04-12-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Silent H
04-12-2005 11:11 AM


Re: uh-oh
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Suicide bombers do NOT in any sense "fight in their own defense".
Yes they most certainly do.
quote:
They are not killing in the midst of an attack on themselves.
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:
The difference between war and an execution is the target, one is internal and the other external.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 11:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 2:00 PM contracycle has not replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 293 of 302 (198594)
04-12-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Chiroptera
04-12-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Communist Primative Societies
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2005 11:08 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 294 of 302 (198659)
04-12-2005 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by contracycle
04-12-2005 11:36 AM


Re: uh-oh
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 11:36 AM contracycle has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 295 of 302 (198687)
04-12-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by contracycle
04-12-2005 11:24 AM


Say Again?
contracycle writes:
I am a communist, and you are quite wrong: communism worked with relentless success for almost all of human history.
I missed this lesson in my Western Civ class. Were my teachers mere Capitalist tools??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 11:24 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2005 3:12 PM Phat has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 302 (198692)
04-12-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Phat
04-12-2005 3:03 PM


My apologies to Adminjar
Actually my high school teachers were quite clear that communism accurately describes a wide variety of indigenous cultures. And the earliest Christians, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Phat, posted 04-12-2005 3:03 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 3:29 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 301 by Phat, posted 04-12-2005 3:39 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 297 of 302 (198701)
04-12-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Chiroptera
04-12-2005 3:12 PM


Re: My apologies to Adminjar
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2005 3:12 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Chiroptera, posted 04-12-2005 3:33 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 299 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 3:36 PM Silent H has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 302 (198705)
04-12-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Silent H
04-12-2005 3:29 PM


Re: My apologies to Adminjar
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 3:29 PM Silent H has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 299 of 302 (198707)
04-12-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Silent H
04-12-2005 3:29 PM


Re: My apologies to Adminjar
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Silent H, posted 04-12-2005 3:29 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by AdminJar, posted 04-12-2005 3:38 PM coffee_addict has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 302 (198710)
04-12-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by coffee_addict
04-12-2005 3:36 PM


Once again
Let's head back towards the general direction of the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by coffee_addict, posted 04-12-2005 3:36 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024