alchresearch Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 You appear to be saying that some peoples lives are worth less than others - that is one of the traits of a sociopath. But has Conrod shown more than one of these "traits"? I think not. Looks to me like petty name calling rather than arguing against his point. It is about as valid as Hitler vegetarian analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I thought there were two threads on the same subject. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834421 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Execution is not murder -fact. Of course it is. Euthanasia is murder, but we can be intelligent enough to reason around it. If you're arguing for the death penalty then that is something that you have to navigate around, but it can't be dismissed.Oh dear, this now becomes tiresome. You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you cannot differentiate between killing and murder. Murder is the unlawful deliberate killing of a human being. Note the word unlawful, it's rather pertinent. Here are a couple of definitions for you: "Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforthought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wo, or hurt etc. die of the wound or hurt etc. . ." Or, in simpler terms for the benefit of the SF average intake level: "to commit the crime of intentionally killing a person" And this seals it legally: 'the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen's peace, with malice aforethought'. Please note the bits I underlined - crime, unlawful, unlawfully. Killing is only murder if it is the result of an act committed against the law, a crime. If it is done lawfully, whether in self defence or by state approved euthenasia or officially sanctioned execution, killing is not murder. Do get your facts straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I thought there were two threads on the same subject. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=834421 We usually get at least a couple of threads a year asking for the return of the death penalty. First time I've seen one calling for the hanging of baskets though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 If it is done lawfully, whether in self defence or by state approved euthenasia or officially sanctioned execution, killing is not murder. Do get your facts straight The law follows morality, it doesn't trump it. If killing is amoral then you can't argue that with a law the act is moral. Any state can pass laws to justify anything then, because they are doing so legally. A state can legally lock people up without trial, but it is still wrong to do so. You have the choice of arguing that killing is sometimes justified, in which case you can state that not all killing/murder is wrong. A utilitarian argument, per se; Or the 'always justified' and 'never justified' stance, of which I believe the latter is the better of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Total Chaos Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I spy for the FBI. Federal bureau of intimidation.Yes it should be brought back for pedos,murderers and rioters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 You have the choice of arguing that killing is sometimes justified, in which case you can state that not all killing/murder is wrong. A utilitarian argument, per se; Or the 'always justified' and 'never justified' stance, of which I believe the latter is the better of the two. I'm sorry but as a fellow bleeding heart liberal I totally disagree with you. Killing is not absolutely wrong, and it is sometimes justified. Absolute morals are silly. Killing someone to prevent them from killing others is not only not wrong, it is a morally good act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Killing someone to prevent them from killing others is not only not wrong, it is a morally good act. I'm arguing from Kant, which when pushed to absolutes does fall down. I'd have to agree. Also in the act of war or self-defence the argument falls down. There is a time and a place for human rights, and in the calculated act of the state killing people as a form of justice then I think it fits. No law could justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I'm sorry but as a fellow bleeding heart liberal I totally disagree with you. Killing is not absolutely wrong, and it is sometimes justified. Absolute morals are silly. Killing someone to prevent them from killing others is not only not wrong, it is a morally good act. If you are in a kill or be killed situation, then killing the other person(s) to preserve your own life is the lesser of the two evils. Doesn't necessarily make it right,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joiner andy Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 bring back bullseye!!!! smashing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.