The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The right to harm or take life. What justifies it, in your opinion? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3248 Posts

Profile of gaddy
And here I thought it was about God's will. Silly me...
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 16:12, landmark wrote:
No. That's part of the reason for religion--to express a societal moral code about important issues.
*due to The Magic Cafe's editorial policies, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
I'm medicated, I don't wanna kill!

Off meds reasons to kill are they are in front of you at the grocery store, they drive a car you don't like, they are there....you know, the normal stuff.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 18:34, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 16:12, landmark wrote:
No. That's part of the reason for religion--to express a societal moral code about important issues.


Oh do tell us more about the behavior of those who claimed that there are "inalienable rights of man as bestowed by their creator". Genocide using biological weapons. Cultural imperialism. Nuclear weapons used and the threat thereof kept as a right in reserve. ROFL.

We hold these truths be self evident. The words and pretensions are ... extra.

I quite agree with you and gdw that religion is often an instrument of oppression.

I never said anything about behavior or that the code was rational, democratic, desirable, or observed. Merely saying I don't find it ironic that religion talks about killing, anymore than I find it ironic that religion talks about first causes. That's what religion is.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 17:54, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Plaque has rights. I want you all to stop brushing your teeth.

John


Conversely, there's nothing wrong with Dahmer killing and eating people; he was able to, and he thought they tasted good.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 17:17, gdw wrote:

I'd disagree. I'd say it's reason is to control people. If it was to express a moral code about important issues, most religions would not have the many horrible edicts they do, and the subservient commands they do, and the restrictive ones, and the non compete clauses as well.

But doesn't US secular law do exactly the same thing? Religious codes were an earlier (? chicken, egg) attempt at the same.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
The discussion has strayed a bit from the O.P.'s question. However, let me just say this regarding the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

The Declaration declares that the fundamental rights of man are endowments from the Creator, and may not be infringed by any government.

That's the main point. The founders recognized that there is an Authority over the world, greater than any human power. And they understood that however you conceive of that Authority, it endowed all men with inalienable rights. And the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect those rights from being taken away by tyrants of whatever kind.

That understanding should prevent any American government from attempting to change human nature the way so many tyrannies have tried and failed.

In this context, I would say that in addition to defending one's life, or another person's life, which is in imminent danger, it is acceptable both to give up one's own life to defend the basic liberties of the human being, or to take the life of a tyrant, or a tyrant's minion, who would by force of violence deprive human beings of the rights with which their Creator endowed them.

Peace Out.

Woland
critter
View Profile
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2551 Posts

Profile of critter
The price. I have a pneumonic device to remember it:
"Nobody should kill/
For less than 10 mill."
Oh yeah, also revenge, defense of self and family, or if they cut you off in traffic. Maybe those people who yell into their cell phones in f-bomb strewn ebonics in a crowded mall or restaurant, I say we should get a free pass on them.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 20:04, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 17:17, gdw wrote:

I'd disagree. I'd say it's reason is to control people. If it was to express a moral code about important issues, most religions would not have the many horrible edicts they do, and the subservient commands they do, and the restrictive ones, and the non compete clauses as well.

But doesn't US secular law do exactly the same thing? Religious codes were an earlier (? chicken, egg) attempt at the same.


100% agree, I don't think I'd argue otherwise.

Remove religion and governments, and, well, I'm sure some would still find some excuse to kill each other, but it would certainly remove a lot of the reasons.

Quote:
On 2010-10-22 20:10, Woland wrote:
The discussion has strayed a bit from the O.P.'s question. However, let me just say this regarding the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

The Declaration declares that the fundamental rights of man are endowments from the Creator, and may not be infringed by any government.

That's the main point. The founders recognized that there is an Authority over the world, greater than any human power. And they understood that however you conceive of that Authority, it endowed all men with inalienable rights. And the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect those rights from being taken away by tyrants of whatever kind.

That understanding should prevent any American government from attempting to change human nature the way so many tyrannies have tried and failed.

In this context, I would say that in addition to defending one's life, or another person's life, which is in imminent danger, it is acceptable both to give up one's own life to defend the basic liberties of the human being, or to take the life of a tyrant, or a tyrant's minion, who would by force of violence deprive human beings of the rights with which their Creator endowed them.

Peace Out.

Woland

Yes, a bit off topic.

What I wondered, with regards to the "rights" they hold self evident, and attribute to "natures god," well, how do they know that? Who says? Beside them of course. What supports that claim? This is not really a religious issue, IMO, it doesn't matter what they claim endowed them with the rights for the purposes of what I am asking.
It seems like a mere assertion. As I mentioned, I don't recall much similar in the bible, or any other holy book (of course I have not read them all.)

Of course, we must also remember that the Declaration, and the Bill of Rights were done separately, and some did not think there should have even been an explicit bill of rights. Not to prevent limiting the government, but the opposite, to avoid limiting the rights of the people, or so I understand.

Though I think there definitely can, and is, an objective standard from which to argue (hu)man's rights, I think it was, in some ways, done arbitrarily.

"And the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect those rights from being taken away by tyrants of whatever kind."
Well, the declaration and constitution sure have done a great job preventing that so far . . .

And now, back to your regularly scheduled topic:

I must add that I agree with having the "right" to take a life in the terms of assisted suicide, and pulling the plug, in as far as it is, done with the consent of the person who's life is being "taken," merely an extension of that person's rights to their own life. In as much as one can defer defending them self to another to act on their behalf, such as security, one can pass on the duty (tee hee, 'duty') of taking one's own life as well.


Posted: Oct 22, 2010 10:09pm
-----------------------------------
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 21:02, critter wrote:
The price. I have a pneumonic device to remember it:
"Nobody should kill/
For less than 10 mill."
Oh yeah, also revenge, defense of self and family, or if they cut you off in traffic. Maybe those people who yell into their cell phones in f-bomb strewn ebonics in a crowded mall or restaurant, I say we should get a free pass on them.

Better be careful of those pneumonic devices. Much worse than one's with just a cold.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27158 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 20:10, Woland wrote:...
The Declaration declares that the fundamental rights of man are endowments from the Creator, and may not be infringed by any government.

That's the main point. The founders recognized that there is an Authority over the world, greater than any human power. And they understood that however you conceive of that Authority, it endowed all men with inalienable rights. And the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect those rights from being taken away by tyrants of whatever kind....


Which is obviously inconsistent with their behavior toward those they met, disenfranchised and treated as chattel. There comes a time when flowery language finds its place in a museum and we look at things as they are or do.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Chrystal
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada/France
1552 Posts

Profile of Chrystal
Wow what a thought provoking question!

You know lots of us have used the expression, I'm gonna kill him/her but it's often said with intonation that we are saying it in jest.

Others may be angry when they say it but would never act on it.

Parents may say it in terms if a pedofile ever touched their kid. Sadly one mom acted on it years ago, and killed her sons attacker. In the end, she served 10 years , her son suffered more and turned to crime himself as a young man and her daughter grew up without her brother or mom. So while people may have understood her reaction but not condoned it ..it showed the rest of us that it doesn't pay to take justice in our own hands.

Protecting ourselves or loved one? I think the law allows one punch but no more. As for guns, I live in Canada and we only carry harpoons up here. I think we'd be allowed to use it if we were defending ourselves and able to then escape. We wouldn't be allowed to kill our attacker however, if he had been disabled by our mighty harpoon blow.
gaddy
View Profile
Inner circle
Agent of Chaos
3248 Posts

Profile of gaddy
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 22:38, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-10-22 20:10, Woland wrote:...
The Declaration declares that the fundamental rights of man are endowments from the Creator, and may not be infringed by any government.

That's the main point. The founders recognized that there is an Authority over the world, greater than any human power. And they understood that however you conceive of that Authority, it endowed all men with inalienable rights. And the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect those rights from being taken away by tyrants of whatever kind....


Which is obviously inconsistent with their behavior toward those they met, disenfranchised and treated as chattel. There comes a time when flowery language finds its place in a museum and we look at things as they are or do.
Well said, Johnathan!
*due to The Magic Cafe's editorial policies, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Jonathan,

There is no ideal or set of ideals expressed in any culture or tradition, to which men always perfectly adhere.

Without the ideals expressed in our founding documents, there is only limitless and unfettered tyranny and oppression -- as Maurice Merleau-Ponty observed in a somewhat bizarre context with respect to the illusory ideal which he cherished.

The self-loathing of the west as inculcated for example in one of the most popular "textbooks" of American history -- the "people's" history fathered by a clandestine communist who followed the KGB's line -- is a poison, intended to make it spiritually and morally impossible to defend the west from barbarism.

A depressed, discouraged, self-loathing elite has already surrendered morally to forces whose violence, inhuman rage, misogyny, misanthropy, racism, and treachery surpass anything of which even you could accuse our founders.

Woland
Mr. Mystoffelees
View Profile
Inner circle
I haven't changed anyone's opinion in
3621 Posts

Profile of Mr. Mystoffelees
OK, Pakar, you started this thing. Weigh in...
Also known, when doing rope magic, as "Cordini"
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20615 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Wow how is it that a question such as this provokes the "I hate religion" crowd so much? He never mentioned religion for pity sake. Let it go just for a second.

Killing...wow what a subject. Let me ask a bit of a perspective question. Has anyone ever been in a situation where killing was an option? Seriously. Ever? Ever had the option to do it? Just curious.

As for the idea that most killings would not happen without religion or government ummm... how many drive by shootings are done for religious or political reasons? Gotta get past your hatred and use your brain a bit.

Is there a difference in sorts of killings or do we just group them all in one bunch so it is easier to the the heavy lifting?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-10-23 09:49, Woland wrote:

Without the ideals expressed in our founding documents, there is only limitless and unfettered tyranny and oppression -- as Maurice Merleau-Ponty observed in a somewhat bizarre context with respect to the illusory ideal which he cherished.



Woland


What are you getting at here? Are you suggesting that Merleau-Ponty's disaffection with communism somehow leads one inexorably to the American constitution?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-10-23 11:44, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wow how is it that a question such as this provokes the "I hate religion" crowd so much? He never mentioned religion for pity sake. Let it go just for a second.

Killing...wow what a subject. Let me ask a bit of a perspective question. Has anyone ever been in a situation where killing was an option? Seriously. Ever? Ever had the option to do it? Just curious.

As for the idea that most killings would not happen without religion or government ummm... how many drive by shootings are done for religious or political reasons? Gotta get past your hatred and use your brain a bit.

Is there a difference in sorts of killings or do we just group them all in one bunch so it is easier to the the heavy lifting?


Um, in no way to belittle the many killings that happen from other motives, but do you really think, quantity wise, drive by shootings and the like compare to the millions killed in wars and religiously motivated slaughters?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Al Angello
View Profile
Eternal Order
Collegeville, Pa. USA
11047 Posts

Profile of Al Angello
Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had no hypothetical situations?
Al Angello The Comic Juggler/Magician
http://www.juggleral.com
http://home.comcast.net/~juggleral/
"Footprints on your ceiling are almost gone"
Marlin1894
View Profile
Special user
565 Posts

Profile of Marlin1894
I've carried a gun (locked and loaded) in the performance of my job and this is what we had to learn fowards and backwards. These are the rules in a security situation. Not necessarily in a combat capacity. Although in combat rule number one usually applies.

First of all what is deadly force? Deadly force is that force which when used is known, or should reasonably be known, to constitute a substantial likely of causing death or serious bodily harm. It is used only as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed.

When do you use it?

1. In self defense.
2. In defense of property involving national security.
3. In defense of property not involving national security, but inherently dangerous to others.
4. To prevent serious crimes against others.*
5. To apprehend, or to prevent the escape of persons known to have committed an offense of the nature specified above.
6. When directed by lawful order of a competent authority.

* This is one that seems to be in constant debate. What is a "serious crime" For instance, should deadly force be used in the prevention of say, rape? What do you think?
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
John,

I was thinking of his remark, (I think it is in "Humanism and Terror" but it might be in "Les aventures de la dialectique") that only the proletariat, in the Marxist-Leninist system, could absorb all other classes, and thus transcend class struggle; outside of that situation, the future of all history appeared to Merleau-Ponty to be an unending class war - quite a dreary prospect. I don't have the exact quotation in front of me. I am no longer as absorbed by phenomenology as I was 30 years ago.

My point is, without the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, without an appeal to inalienable rights which are an endowment of the Creator, and which are not created or destroyed by kings, dictators, or parliaments, government becomes an exercise in tyranny, and there are no restraints on governmental action. The Declaration establishes the purpose of government as the safeguarding of individual human rights which antedate the creation of human government, and remain more important than the wishes of any monarch, mob, or party.

Peace Out.

Woland
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
"The Declaration establishes the purpose of government as the safeguarding of individual human rights which antedate the creation of human government, and remain more important than the wishes of any monarch, mob, or party. "

And yet, governments still constantly try to violate these "rights" anyways. Even if the Declaration, and/or Constitution did not create what you have now (and there is some argument that it did help) it certainly did not prevent it.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The right to harm or take life. What justifies it, in your opinion? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.21 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL