Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:03:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1133 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> > 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.
A dodge, but I'll go with the flow: then you believe that international law
supports that any nation recognized by the U.N. is free to slaughter its
inhabitants at will and no intervention is just?
>
>
> > > 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'll lay it out to you the same way I did to David - you found the explosives,
traced the wire back to McVey who just finished hooking up the cables to the
detonator and is set to push the plunger. You have identified that you are
armed and will shoot if he doesn't step away from the detonator immediately. He
starts to push.
1. You can call the police (Beep..9...1,,,BOOOOOOOM...oops, lots of dead, but
you have your sense of superiority).
2. You can refuse to shoot because you feel that to do so would make you a
murderer under any conditions (BOOM!).
3. You can shoot - he's dead but you saved lots of lives (and by the way, in the
fussy State of California which is a lot stricter than most states about
shooting, I would not be guilty of murder under this scenario)
I expanded on your scenario for a reason. You are implying that because of one
scenario, all scenarios are "murder", and I am illustrating that that is not the
case.
> I don't believe in vigilantes or vigilante style justice. The rule of law is
> what keeps us civilized and not barbarians.
So, if we pass a law to slaughter all people with Germanic names you are okay
with that? I mean, it wouldn't be vigilante or anything like that. It would be
a law - even passed by elected representatives.
>
> > > 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.
You are still arguing that Saddam and his supporters can kill whomever they want
and that there are no "just" scenarios for stopping him.
>
> > > > > 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)
Semantics, yes, but on your part. The invasion has no approval by the U.N., but
you have not established in any way that 1) Only the U.N. can establish
"legality", 2) That in fact that the U.N. has declared it "illegal", 3) That in
any way such a U.N. decision is binding on the U.S., Britain, etc. 4) That U.N.
lack of approval for Reason A in any way stops Reason B from being valid (i.e.
you are still confusing "legal" with "just").
>
> > > 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.
So, a U.N. led invasion would not be justified since the ends do no justify the
means (which is to illustrate that you are just throwing out a phrase and not
supporting it).
>
> > > 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.
So, if I am miles away from any aid, and a 300 pound weight lifter starts
beating you to death, and I unwisely (and unsuccessfully) try to save your life,
I've done something immoral? As I said, you are confusing wisdom with justness,
and I've already said the war was stupid and unwise. I'll even say Bush's
approach to the war is unjust, but removing Saddam inherently being unjust?
Nonsense.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
