Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 9:27:05 GMT -5
If you believe that justice SHOULD be founded upon morality, then you have to take the view that ALL nations have a right to object to the practices of other countries.
Were people wrong to condemn the behaviour of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao?
If a national government can behave in this way with impunity, by what right can we dare to condemn individuals who commit acts of murder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 12:55:48 GMT -5
If you believe that justice SHOULD be founded upon morality, then you have to take the view that ALL nations have a right to object to the practices of other countries. Whose morality? Whose "justice?" What's just and/or moral in one country is unjust/immoral in another. There are no moral absolutes. Were people wrong to condemn the behaviour of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao? No, but you can bet the condemnations were lost on the Germans, Russians, Cambodians and Chinese. They all committed genocide, but so have Americans. If a national government can behave in this way with impunity, by what right can we dare to condemn individuals who commit acts of murder? Because we hold governments do a different standard. We assign to government the moral authority denied to individual citizens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 13:25:30 GMT -5
That's true of the US, and of some nations, but certainly not all. It's true everywhere, particularly in Iran. They shouldn't because we're all alike. We all agree on sovereignty and the primacy of the nation-state. When push comes to shove, it's always about a nation's self-interest. We can't complain about someone else stoning a woman to death if we turn around and lethal-inject to death one of our own.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Jul 8, 2010 16:23:51 GMT -5
So you reckon that it's OK for governments to murder but not for individuals, Joe?
Yeah, right.
As always, you show yourself up as being soft on crime, pro-predator and anti-victim!
What a load of hypocritical bullshit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 17:03:42 GMT -5
So you reckon that it's OK for governments to murder but not for individuals Governments, by definition, do not and cannot commit murder. Murder isn't the premeditated killing of another. Murder is the killing of another without permission. As always, you show yourself up as being soft on crime, pro-predator and anti-victim! Everyone who murders is a predator. Everyone who dies by murder is a victim. The one who is pro-predator, therefore, makes excuses for murder. The one who is anti-victim, therefore, picks and chooses which victim deserves protection under the law.
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Jul 8, 2010 17:04:29 GMT -5
Ok....I just saw where Iran says she will not be put to death by stoning.................but that doesn't really say that they won't use another method, does it?
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Jul 8, 2010 17:20:50 GMT -5
Governments, by definition, do not and cannot commit murder.
Murder isn't the premeditated killing of another. Murder is the killing of another without permission.
Governments commit murder all the time. You're obviously an anarchist now!
If murder is 'the killing of another without permission' then execution ALSO by definition falls into the SAME category.
I don't agree with your definition but that's another matter.
On your OWN 'principles,' the ONLY logical position for you to be is AGAINST the death penalty.
Which, of course, you ARE and just PRETEND not to be!
Everyone who murders is a predator. Everyone who dies by murder is a victim. The one who is pro-predator, therefore, makes excuses for murder. The one who is anti-victim, therefore, picks and chooses which victim deserves protection under the law.
On your OWN principles, the executioner IS a murderer and a predator.
YOU constantly make excuses for murder, especially when it's committed by the state.
You obviously support a state in which NO inhabitant enjoys ANY protection under the law.
Like I said, you ARE pro-predator, anti-victim and soft on crime.
You're also an anti PRETENDING to be a pro and it's about time you ADMITTED the truth!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 18:03:28 GMT -5
Governments commit murder all the time. You're obviously an anarchist now! I'm anything but. I'm authoritarian and proud of it. If murder is 'the killing of another without permission' then execution ALSO by definition falls into the SAME category. No, the person being executed gave his consent when he murdered. He knew the job was dangerous when he took it. the ONLY logical position for you to be is AGAINST the death penalty. I used to be. I got over it. On your OWN principles, the executioner IS a murderer and a predator. No, the executioner has the moral authority to kill, as do correctional officers and members of law enforcement. The executioner is just doing his job, just like the fat lady at the DMV. YOU constantly make excuses for murder, especially when it's committed by the state. Again, the state cannot murder. To suggest that it does is laughable. You obviously support a state in which NO inhabitant enjoys ANY protection under the law. The inhabitants have the right to define those protections. If the people of a state say the penalty for murder is to be torn to pieces with a pair of pliers, that penalty is just simply because the people say it is just. That is the bargain every citizen makes with the state. That is the social contract, pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by liberaljoe on Jul 9, 2010 0:56:16 GMT -5
Stoning TO death is not all doom AND gloom; it does have an upside (although I might be inclined to agree that it would be quite difficult to SING 'Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life' with stones bouncing off your bonce) The UPSIDE is (so I hear - I have no personal experience) that if at the end when YOU are stoned (presumably when the pile OF stones is exhausted) you are still alive, then you are let off. Now I hear THAT some crafty-bastards try to play the system BY wearing crash-helmets (on religious grounds), but the authorities became suspicious and now GIVE religious applicants papier-mache crash helemts.
Anyway, AS I say, its not all bad news if you are sentenced to death by stoning, so don't be so glum!
HOWEVER there is one sexist element I would find upsetting, and that is that men are buried up to their waist and females to their neck (presumably TO retain their modesty during the stone-chucking ceremony). This, of course,does lessen THE possibility of females surviving in comparison to males.
Personally I think that females are taking this modesty thing a BIT too far for their own interest, but I am not one to interfere in feminist issues, much LESS cultural concerns.
If Johnny foreigner wants to stone people to death , then WHO am I to complain in this multicultural cultural-relativist age?
Each to their own says I
If the US, for example, WANTS to celebrate the arrival of the British in America by eating turkey in November, then that is their concern, NOT mine. I would hesitate long before attempting to interfere with such a long-held tradition, despite its absurdity
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 9, 2010 10:16:32 GMT -5
and wht moral authority did any one give tony blair to conduct an ilegal war......what moral authority have the iranians given their government ?? in that their goernment governs on a fixed election
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 9, 2010 10:20:03 GMT -5
think your missing the point.....if any state wishes to put its citizens to death for various acts..then that state has the right to do so.....the citizens know the rules and have a choice of abiding by or breaking those sociatal rules what is being questioned is the method of death and the way the verdict was reached
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 9, 2010 10:26:55 GMT -5
to say the state cannot murderr is some what naive.... states can and do murder.....the german state murdered with impunity..jews..gypsys..slavs..the disabled..nuns ..priests ..... etc etc non of those people had broken ANY existing law in that in germany it was not ilegal to be jewish..disabled..slavic roman catholic or gypsy....am not sure if homosexuality was ilegal it certainly was here in the uk..and am not sure if being a comunist was ilegal..but possibly could have been seen as treason or some such
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2010 17:16:46 GMT -5
Joseph's egregious remarks, as well as being somewhat bizarre, are also factually incorrect.
As soon as any government signs an international agreement - such as the Geneva Convention, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or ANY kind of treaty with another nation or with an international organisation - by the very act of signing it gives up some of its freedom of action.
As such, a government that violates an international agreement which it has signed is by that simple fact alone guilty of breaking the law.
It thereby becomes a criminal regime and as such belongs in the dock and under arrest rather than flouting the law and murdering people in defiance of laws to which it is itself a signatory.
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jul 9, 2010 23:38:30 GMT -5
think your missing the point.....if any state wishes to put its citizens to death for various acts..then that state has the right to do so.....the citizens know the rules and have a choice of abiding by or breaking those sociatal rules what is being questioned is the method of death and the way the verdict was reached But the citizens also know the methods used to kill them for those crimes, before choosing to commit them. It seems just as fair (to me) to say 'we're gonna stone you to death if you commit adultery' as it does to say 'we're gonna stick a needle in your arm and kill you with kindness if you commit adultery'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 0:03:41 GMT -5
the Geneva Convention, the UN Declaration of Human Rights or ANY kind of treaty with another nation or with an international organisation - by the very act of signing it gives up some of its freedom of action. Those are irrelevant, toothless and illegitimate institutions. a government that violates an international agreement which it has signed is by that simple fact alone guilty of breaking the law. Again, so what? Who's going to enforce "international law?" And since when is it against "international law" to stone someone to death? It thereby becomes a criminal regime and as such belongs in the dock and under arrest rather than flouting the law and murdering people in defiance of laws to which it is itself a signatory. You actually believe this crap?
|
|