Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:46:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1028 times
|
| |
|
|
> So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a
> sovereign nation and you fully support that?
Not comparable. And I'm not talking about my support - but rather the legality
of international law.
> > Think of it this way: If i had killed Timothy McVey I would be guilty of
> > *murder*, despite McVey kill 150 other people.
>
> McVey is about to blow up a another building with hundreds of people in it. I,
> not authorized by the U.N., U.S., or anybody else, pop him with two to the chest
> and one to the head. It would not be murder even though I wasn't directly
> threatened.
You're changing my scenario. But even then, you'd still be a murderer for
killing him. The correct thing to do would be to call the police and let them
know why you think he is going to blow up another building.
I don't believe in vigilantes or vigilante style justice. The rule of law is
what keeps us civilized and not barbarians.
> > The only entity with the right
> > to execute McVey, or any murderer, is the government. Anyone else who does so
> > is doing so illegally.
>
> And has Saddam been executed? I'm not sure where you are going with this.
I was comparing the legality of what happened to McVey with the legality of what
has happened to Saddam (execution or not). And even if Saddam hasn't been
executed yet, thousands of his people have died because of the War.
> > > > Are you're saying that Saddam was a jerk and therefore waging war to overthrow
> > > > him was just?
> > >
> > > I merely disputed the assumption that David made that the war was "unjust".
> > > I'll also dispute "illegal". I won't dispute "stupid", "unsanctioned",
> > > "trumped-up", and any number of terms uncomplimentary to Dubya.
> >
> > For the reasons mentioned above, the war was illegal.
>
> Unsanctioned.
Semantics. The UN's sanction is what makes an aggressive military action legal
or not if nation sovereignity is not an issue (ie, All nations have the right to
defend themselves from foreign invasion)
> > The war was immoral and
> > unjust because the 'ends' do not justify the 'means.' • -snip-
> I am more concerned about the cure being worse than the disease,
> myself.
Ends do not justify the means. Call it wisdom or morality: same thing.
> > When evaluating a war, we have to weigh the good that will be done against the
> > bad - and then can we determine the justness.
>
> You are confusing wisdom with justness. They are not the same thing, and your
> confusion of such is why you both misunderstand the situation and my views on
> it.
I'm sure my confusion is the root of this. I think wisdom of doing an action
and the justness of said action are very closely connected. Indeed, most
"unwise" actions are immoral.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
