Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Leaving aside the other ethical questions which this raises, one might simply point out that the state is an abstraction, and that it is pretty much impossible for the state to treat an individual cruelly without individuals treating that individual cruelly. Some particular person had to sentence Jesus, another had to flog him, another to nail him to the cross. Can the entire moral guilt be placed upon that abstraction, "the Roman Empire", or should we say that those particular individuals were doing something that they ought not to have done?

Well, not usually. The Nuremberg trials, for example, did not consist of a whole bunch of Nazis saying "I'm not Hitler" and being told in return "Oh, in that case you have no moral guilt and are free to go." Faith. Surely it is not your opinion that that actually works.

Yes we do, namely his attitude towards the death penalty for adultery. That's not chopped liver, Faith.Suppose you see a Jewish man eating prawns and lobster. You are asked how he would react if he was offered a bacon sandwich. You reply "He would reject it because it isn't kosher".Now, while it is not completely clear that he would eat the sandwich, it is clear that the reason you've given why he wouldn't does not stand up to scrutiny.The parallel is fairly exact, I think.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. But I would say that no-one would be a good theologian if and when he used your particular argument --- that Jesus would support the death penalty for murder because it was in the Mosaic Law --- since the same argument fails if you apply it to adultery. An argument that breaks down in one instance should not be relied on in another. Also there's the law given to Noah about not eating flesh with the blood in it.

You spelled it wrong.

BTW, has anyone pointed out yet that Trump's story about Pershing is completely made up?

Then as now it was perfectly legal for Pershing to do imaginary things that he didn't actually do. The law is quite clear on the fact that there is no culpability for things that happen exclusively in Donald Trump's head.

Yeah, we keep wanting to talk about facts when you want to discuss fiction. That's so typical of the difference between leftists and righties. And since you have declared the fictional events in Trump's head to be the topic, so it must be, and only our mental problems keep us from taking his delusions seriously. But you'd still like me to do your research for you?Listen carefully. Whether or not Pershing's imaginary action in shooting the prisoners did or did not fall within the parameters of civilized warfare as understood in Pershing's day would depend on the exact facts of the situation. But there are no exact facts, because there was no situation. This is like trying to decide whether, when you killed the Emperor Napoleon, it was murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide. To decide this, we would need to know much more about the circumstances under which you killed Napoleon, we might even need to know your mental state when you did so. And the fact that you did not kill Napoleon makes these data extremely hard to acquire.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes there is. Trump's ramblings were not detailed. Detail is not his mtier. The task of "constructing a putative reality" I leave up to you, Trump, and any other right-wing loonies who want to have at it.

Not really, but if you insist I can add a few details and construct a "putative reality".On the fateful morning of April 5th, 1911, a group of about 50 Filipino women and children approached Pershing's encampment with the shy request that they might gaze upon that imperishable symbol of liberty, the American flag. His second in command roused "Black Jack" Pershing from his sodden alcoholic stupor and disentangled his limbs from those of his underage prostitute. Staggering bleary-eyed from his tent, the enraged General glared at the natives and slurred: "Terrorishts! They're all terrorishts! Bring me my pig'sh-blood bulletsh!" His aide-de-camp (a grovelling toady) complied, and before the appalled eyes of his soldiers, "Black Jack" murdered the Filipinos in what is even today remembered with horror as the putatively real Massacre of Mindanao.I think what he did was wrong, how about you? But it's so typical of Trump to admire a man of this stamp.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Like reality. Apart from making it clear that it was, y'know, false. Sorry, can't find that bit, can you quote it? Thanks.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sheesh.

Don't get your hopes up. I've been hearing persistent rumors that he'll most likely be a libertarian.

In a bid to win over evangelical voters, guess which of the following Trump has pledged to do:* Forgive his enemies.
* Sell all he has and give the money to the poor.
* Demonstrate a shred of contrition for being an adulterer.
* Attend church.
* Anything at all mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount.
* Abolish the rule that makes churches' tax-exempt status contingent on them not being political organizations.You've got to hand it to the man, he knows what his audience really wants.