I agree in a way, it would diminish and affect me greatly, but in my
case violence is difficult to deal with so it likely wouldn't happen. If
it did happen there would be little doubt where the fault lay. Spiritual
stuff aside instinct can be blinding, imagine a dog acting agressively
toward a child (a mostly universal example) I won't illustrate what I'd
shout but it would be a loud and agressive announcement that his head
would be unceremoniously removed. Maybe in the case of a dictator I
would vie for others to do the work but in the other case mentioned of a
family member, he wouldn't get the warning that the dog got.
On 1/20/2011 1:53 AM, iam deheretic wrote:
Killing a dictator might be deemed needed and happen ,, it does not
justify murder. and it would in my view would be spiritually incorrect,
Allan
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Ash <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>"<[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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 -
--
(
)
I_D Allan
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
