Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Jul 2004 01:47:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1054 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > 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?
>
> "no intervention" - the UN has repeatedly placed economic sanctions on countries
> for human rights abuses.
This does not answer my question. Because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't.
>
> "slaughter" is a loaded term. A nation has a right to defend itself from
> insurgents and rebels. A nation has a right to enforce its own laws, including
> by execution.
Or a genocide against different tribe from the ruling one? Or those of a given
religion that aren't rebeling? Or a people or region that were forced into the
nation in the first place? You keep stopping short in your examples.
>
> But let me be clear - I do not support human rights abuses of any sort. However,
> the *need* to invade a country must be very high before any country has the
> right/justness to do so. *ALL* other options must be tried first.
I'll accept that.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> The issue is self defence. And like Scott said, I'd prefer a non fatal wound.
> But I would kill because the situation is immeadiate.
>
> Tying this back to Iraq - Iraq posed no immeadiate threat to the US, therefore
> the attack was unwarranted and unjust.
From that standpoint, I agree. However, that was not the standpoint that I have
been refering to.
>
>
> > > 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 opposite of vigilantes is not unchecked mob rule. I don't see how the two
> issues are even related. Vigilantes take the law into their own hands (wrong) -
> Killing Germans Law is an abuse of elective power and unconstitutional (also
> wrong).
I didn't bring up the McVey example. Anyway, 75% can change that what is
unconsitutional, and there are other countries besides the United States.
>
> If elected representatives passed such a law, I would do everything in my power
> to fight it. Mainly because I have a Germanic name.
But going by what you have said, as a sovereign nation, you would hold that no
other nation would have the right to come to your aid?
>
> > You are still arguing that Saddam and his supporters can kill whomever they want
> > and that there are no "just" scenarios for stopping him.
>
> There are plenty of just scenarios for stopping Saddam. None of them include a
> unilateral invasion of Iraq by the US.
So, is it okay for Saddam to slaughter his people unless the U.N. says
otherwise? The U.N. is infallible?
>
> > > 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.
>
> I did not say all unwise actions are necessarily immoral. Unwise does not equal
> immoral. This is level one logic here. You're trying to reverse my statement
> when clearly the reverse is not logical.
How about if I say that I don't see where you have established that, "most
"unwise" actions are immoral."
>
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore Socrates is mortal. (valid)
> Therefore any mortal man is Socrates. (reverse of the conclusion is invalid)
Wonderful example, but I didn't say that. You said most unwise examples are
immoral, and I presented one that wasn't. I have little doubt I could come up
with thousands. I think that you are skipping the proof and going onto the
(unsupported) conclusion.
>
> Furthermore, if you were being beaten by a 300 lb weight lifter - the only wise
> choice for me (successful or not) is to try to save you.
>
> It seems you're saying the attempt to save my life is unwise.
>
> I hope we haven't gone that far down the dark path.. have we Bruce?
Heck, I *tried* to save you. Should've had that gun I used against McVey. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
