Under compulsion of necessity it might become more likely that a
dictator would be killed, like a malignant tooth to be pulled. To follow
that analogy, and I don't promote capital punishment for all leadership
failures (perhaps some, to clean things up) you have the right to pull
any of your teeth at any time if you like but it wouldn't serve you to
pull any without good reason, and the longer you take to decide the
worse the pain is. So maybe pulling the tooth early would be like
ousting the schmuck and increasing to the necessity of forced removal.
It should be understood that premature force (in many areas) would
promote a degradation of society so general provisions should be in
place to identify extremists as degenerate, but also that incumbents
will position themselves as the only sanctioned theives or murderers.
I tend to like the idea of merit and what serves the evolutionary
fitness of culture, society, species. There are many angles to consider,
too many in my opinion to consider absolute or irrevocable rights. I ran
across something called 'quorum sensing' so that will occupy my thoughts
until sleep, devising clear, reliable, beneficial communication sounds
like a pipe-dream but the bees can do it..
On 1/19/2011 10:27 AM, pattern23 wrote:
My intention was not to include the State, i don't want to talk about
death penalty
I was talking in a more theorical way, considering the right that
every individual has. Do not include laws too, this is a human, more
important, question.
For istance, can the killing of a dictator by a terrorist be
justified? Can be this considered absolutely fair? After all, it's a
human life, and the killer decided its destiny. Does he have this
right?
If this right exists, wich are its limitations?
On 19 Gen, 12:31, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
wrote:
Ohhh no no no no not at all.
Let us look at ome words and I realise tha English is not wizards
first language so perhaps this may help him out.
Murder can be defined as the unlawfull killing of a human being by
other human beings.
So state sacntioned 'murder' must be unlawfull.
However that said let us carry on with the intent of Wizards post.
There are no people who deserve to die to my mind.
I am of course religous,but I do not belive that only God has teh
right to kill. Darwin shows us that death is part of the strugle to
live. No I belive that by killing a man you take all chocie from him,
this is a big moral no no in my book.
On Jan 19, 3:46 am, RP Singh<[email protected]> wrote:
I think the State alone should have the right to murder people , it
prosecutes whom it thinks is a menace to society and if the judge
thinks that it would be better in the interests of justice that he
should be " murdered " he passes the death sentence on him. Terrorists
also murder people and individuals also murder their enemies etc. or
murder for profit , but I think that is all wrong and cannot be
justified.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:56 PM, wizard_47_cpp<[email protected]> wrote:
Recently i was thinking about murder. I was wondering if this,
sometimes, could be the best solution to many important problems (i
obvious exclude personal and economical ones). There are some people
who we think should die, because they damage the society, the world
and other people. So, do we have the right to kill this individuals?
I'm some kind of atheist (exaclty i don't believe in an antropomorphic
god, endowed with an human-like will), so i don't think, like
somebody, only god has the right to kill humans.
My thought is we have this right, but it needs valid motivations.
But now the questions are: does valid motivations really exist? can
human understand wich are them?
The topic can become wider with the last one, it implicates the
understanding of an absolute truth.
Sorry for my english- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
