News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

TWO HOURS?!?!?!

Started by Nam, July 24, 2014, 01:11:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gawdzilla Sama

We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

aitm

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 06:26:16 PM
Morals are based on what is right and what is wrong ethically. Is it ethical to kill someone because they killed someone?

Both deaths are attributed to the want of one (or many) to terminate another's life based on illogical reasoning.

"He slighted me therefore he should die."

"He slighted society therefore he should die."

How is the same thing ethical and unethical simultaneously?

-Nam

Firstly, I would argue that society does not want to kill anyone, thankfully. Society did not start out saying, " if you kill someone, we will collectively kill you". I believe society started out saying, "you killed someone, why? For what reason? You killed for the simple act of killing, we do not want your type around and cannot trust you not to kill again so we as a collective, must rid you." And society has every right and in my opinion the implied demand to act to protect the society.
It is not wrong to kill the killer, but it is irresponsible to society and to each individual to appease a temporary moral to allow the very possible chance of that person killing again. And perhaps that, over time, is indeed the lesson learned. If you can guarantee safety but refuse, then why would an individual wish to be part of a society not willing to work to protect the collective?
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Nam

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 08:15:05 PM
Firstly, I would argue that society does not want to kill anyone, thankfully. Society did not start out saying, " if you kill someone, we will collectively kill you". I believe society started out saying, "you killed someone, why? For what reason? You killed for the simple act of killing, we do not want your type around and cannot trust you not to kill again so we as a collective, must rid you." And society has every right and in my opinion the implied demand to act to protect the society.
It is not wrong to kill the killer, but it is irresponsible to society and to each individual to appease a temporary moral to allow the very possible chance of that person killing again. And perhaps that, over time, is indeed the lesson learned. If you can guarantee safety but refuse, then why would an individual wish to be part of a society not willing to work to protect the collective?

So "getting rid of" now equates to "killing you" only? I can take exactly what you said and throw it right back at you and that proves my point, I believe.

I understand your point but let's not say, "killing is wrong*" <--- and have the asterisk. Because then, anything can be attributed to the asterisk.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Aupmanyav

Killing is not wrong at many times. What does one do when his/her country is invaded by another? Should we disband our armed forces even if such a danger exists?
"Brahma Satyam Jagan-mithya" (Brahman is the truth, the observed is an illusion)
"Sarve Khalu Idam Brahma" (All this here is Brahman)

aitm

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 10:46:29 PM
So "getting rid of" now equates to "killing you" only? I can take exactly what you said and throw it right back at you and that proves my point, I believe.

I understand your point but let's not say, "killing is wrong*" <--- and have the asterisk. Because then, anything can be attributed to the asterisk.

-Nam

I don't actually know what that means. Non-the-less, I, again, believe that killing a killer is morally right , cannot be equated with killing in general, and is necessary for the better protection of the society.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 04, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
Killing is not wrong at many times. What does one do when his/her country is invaded by another? Should we disband our armed forces even if such a danger exists?
Is assisted euthanasia "murder"? If someone has their arm trapped under a car that's on  fire is it okay to cut their arm off?

It's just lazy to say "murder is ALWAYS bad", or that "evil" is commonly defined across cultures.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

doorknob

I believe right and wrong is subjective and often times situational.

I also feel the justice system is not real justice in the first place. When ever you have a jury deciding who is innocent or guilty you are just having people judging other people. That's not justice. In the day and age of science and provable evidence the evidence should be what convicts a person not a jury. If there is no proof you can not convict the person no matter guilty any one thinks the person is. Yet that is not how the system works. Even if the evidence is shaky and even sometimes there is no evidence at all people are still convicted. That to me seems wrong.

Is the death penalty wrong? I can't say but it is often inhumane. And I see no reason to go about things in a way that is inhumane.

The Skeletal Atheist

Killing is wrong, until it isn't. If I need to defend myself or someone I care about, I will use whatever force necessary including lethal force. That being said if the death penalty was only used on guilty people 100% of the time I would probably support it more.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Mermaid

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on August 04, 2014, 08:36:31 PM
Killing is wrong, until it isn't. If I need to defend myself or someone I care about, I will use whatever force necessary including lethal force.
You bring up an interesting point here.

You remind me of the time when I was ambushed and assaulted by a stranger who grabbed me while I was walking in a dark and secluded place. I was 15, and I remember very clearly knowing that given the chance, I would have killed my attacker without hesitation, because he was threatening my life. I am very glad I did not because it would have fucked me up in the head, but if I am ever in that situation again, I am pretty sure my feelings would be the same. Nobody has the right to kill anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I had to. Morally wrong? Yeah. I think it's morally wrong, but I'd still do it.

This is such a complicated question.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Mermaid on August 04, 2014, 08:53:12 PM
You bring up an interesting point here.

You remind me of the time when I was ambushed and assaulted by a stranger who grabbed me while I was walking in a dark and secluded place. I was 15, and I remember very clearly knowing that given the chance, I would have killed my attacker without hesitation, because he was threatening my life. I am very glad I did not because it would have fucked me up in the head, but if I am ever in that situation again, I am pretty sure my feelings would be the same. Nobody has the right to kill anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't if I had to. Morally wrong? Yeah. I think it's morally wrong, but I'd still do it.

This is such a complicated question.
That is the basis for my claim that I could convert ANY pacifist to violence given a free hand. I had to get my troops into a killer mindset or we would have all still been there. It's not always easy but I never failed.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Nam

Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 04, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
Killing is not wrong at many times. What does one do when his/her country is invaded by another? Should we disband our armed forces even if such a danger exists?

Does an armed force have to kill to secure their country?

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Nam

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on August 04, 2014, 08:36:31 PM
Killing is wrong, until it isn't. If I need to defend myself or someone I care about, I will use whatever force necessary including lethal force. That being said if the death penalty was only used on guilty people 100% of the time I would probably support it more.

That says it all, "Killing is wrong until I say it isn't."

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Mermaid

#102
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 04, 2014, 09:18:04 PM
That is the basis for my claim that I could convert ANY pacifist to violence given a free hand. I had to get my troops into a killer mindset or we would have all still been there. It's not always easy but I never failed.
Convert? If I had killed my attacker, I would have spent the rest of my life all fucked up in the head. I don't think that act would "convert" me from a pacifist to a warrior. The instinct to protect myself with deadly force would not change anything about me fundamentally, and I would have suffered a great deal for it.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

Mermaid

Quote from: Nam on August 05, 2014, 02:49:41 AM
Does an armed force have to kill to secure their country?

-Nam
I strongly feel the answer to this is no.
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life’s realities â€" all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. -TR

pioteir

Quote from: Nam on August 05, 2014, 02:55:26 AM
That says it all, "Killing is wrong until I say it isn't."

-Nam

Where do you get off by saying that killing is ALWAYS wrong? Like there are some universal objective truths or whatever.

Quote from: Mermaid on August 05, 2014, 07:59:47 AM
I strongly feel the answer to this is no.

The invading troops wouldn't care less about how You feel. The question is What would You do if some foreign army marched straight into Your town and started killing people? Would You give up and die in peace? Would You run? Would You fight them to protect Yourself and loved ones?
Theology is unnecessary. - Stephen Hawking