Total posts: 706
-->
@disgusted
The State's interest in life does not outweigh the fundamental rights of Americans. If it did, we wouldn't actually have rights. The ruling class could be satisfied with throwing the dog a bone and political parties could use human lives as barter and leverage for tyranny. Basically, you are asking of the generations of today to sacrifice the generations of tomorrow when they inevitably face hardship and and have to make hard decisions. It is vital that the American people retain the rightful power to endure in their hour of need.
Note also that the USA has never been a dependant country, like some of it's closest allies. It is comprised of diverse citizenry spread over a large area, and today the most powerful country in the world. There is a massive amount of influence surrounding our national politics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Raping is not more immoral than stealing. Morality isn't relative in that fashion.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
If you have a home invasion, call the police. If you are a leftist, pray in the name of equality for the police. Oh, and this is for science, so do try to control yourself. I said leftist, and to me it is a pejorative term I wanted to differentiate because of how I've seen people use "the left" I didn't mean to put words onto the op, but instead not that people are individuals and that left is a political construct.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
I know of one too, where a man came to the door asking for water, and after being taken in and helped, beat the single home owner to death. How can we reconcile a society where such men can not learn to help themselves, that they are left to their own destruction?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
You shouldn't warn someone who's broken into your house. That's insane, as any reasonable person would be proactive and you can't expect people to risk their wellbeing. Killing doesn't have to be justified as its not the intent, but self defense does need to be reasonable or you'll be charged with a crime. So, if the survivor has a duty to retreat, and a witness provides contradictory evidence, then they would have to explain themselves before a judge. Now there's a burden of proof placed on them, guilty until proven innocent. Suspicious circumstances would warrant a court appearance as well, like a poor choice of words with investigators, or in the case of homicide, knowing the deceased and a procecuter will develope a case against you based on facts. But, for a home invasion, by not saying anything stupid, someone might be able to avoid a court appearance or getting arrested, which to a reasonable degree is how it should be, because they certainly don't deserve any further harassment and there is no way to prove guilt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Yeah, it was disgusting. I think that was in 2005
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Actually I would suspect a democratic lean coinciding with a more law enforcement oriented police department, reputedly being more sensitive to issues of brutality in urban areas, and less supportive of domestic war on evil commodities.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There is no left. "Leftists" apparantly worship government and many seem to believe police are like sacrificial warrior ants. You need to have grant by the queen to be a sacrificial warrior ant, and everyone should have an equal right to a sacrificial warrior ant. All rights come from the government, and it's profoundly disturbing that some ants actually have lesser rights than others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
How long ago was Trump bragging about being able to grab someone like Trudeau by the pussy? Why was that filmed anyway? I think I recall a video, where he was just walking off a bus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Joseph was in the business of carpentry and likely died before Jesus began his ministry. I think it fits nicely assuming he was significantly older than Mary. Without a doubt, Jesus was perceived as a legitimate threat among individuals positioned in the elite establishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
That's a traditional belief that's been handed down for 2000 years, so its held in the Roman Catholic church as well as the respective protestant denominations. I'm failing to see why this bothers you. Logically, she must have been a Virgin after they were born, otherwise she wouldn't have always been a virgin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What do you mean by meaningless? What do you mean by fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So tell me, how could Mary remain a "virgin" after the birth of Jesus, when your own New Testament scriptures categorically state different. Were all these siblings immaculately conceived too?
I don't know of a reliable source for the precise hereditary relationship Jesus has with them. Where in the scripture have you found the catagorical difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Christians should not be telling you that people are evil, or that free will is the source of evil. Actually I'm suprised you don't get the impression of a profoundly positive image.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
You know, there might not be a whole lot of difference between the people calling others white nationalists because of some belief in their skin tone, and the people who call themselves white nationalists.
White nationalist means one who holds the view of white nationalism. They believe in a white race and that it should be protected, or that nations are better off ruled by a white race, the white race should be in solidarity as a political bloc, or something like that.
If the belief meant what you say it does, "white" would be redundant to the people saying it. They would just say nationalist because skin tone obviously doesn't make a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You know I could probably say that based on the marginal evidence we have available, there is some proof that the dead guy is responsible for the homicide. I don't think we need to call that murder.
Yes, of course, innocent until proven guilty. There is absolutely no proof of murder here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see no way of proving which party escalated to the use of lethal force here, so there is no way to prove that anyone is responsible for the homicide. You shouldn't intend to kill the guy though being the defender, so that's a really poor choice of wording for using lethal force with purportionality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, who are the involved parties, and who is responsible? Someone is probably responsible for the intentional killing. The blood is on them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Prove guilt for lethal force in the parties responsible. If you rob a bank, and someone gets killed in the process, their death is on your hands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The arguement states that there is no inherent reason to justify. Murder is unjustifiable, and so naturally it will not be justified, but it's not contingent upon our justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you see the word "unjustified" in that process being conflated with murder? The point is that there is not an inherent reason to justify the killing, in order for the legislature, and the court to not have sufficient proof that it's justified in throwing you in the slammer. Justification is a process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You worship the government? Someone charges you with a crime, the court presumes innocence, and you are proven guilty. Proving justifiability might be practical way of defending yourself and getting the legal process over with. That's why stand your ground laws exist, so under the right circumstances, you don't have to survive a legal battle after already surviving an imminent threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's because the particular soldier has not been charged with murder, a crime that will likely be judged in a court of law, not because the homicide has been justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can drop "unjustified" entirely. Murder is unjustifiable, so naturally it's not going to be justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Murder has intent. Unjustified killing is just a killing that hasn't been justified. The illicit definition of murder is unjustifiable by nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because robotic action is computed, it wouldn't be a robot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Don't you limit yourself to physical evidence to accept feelings?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The difference between judgement and holding yourself accountable is the difference between recognizing you hurt someone's feelings, and thinking about what you have done, apologizing to let them know you understand what is wrong, and maybe making some changes, acting until you have made everything right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It means accounting for the consequence of your actions that you are responsible, not judgement, or the determination of responsibility in itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You may, or may not be held accountable by your fellow humans. What does accountable mean to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you limit yourself to physical evidence for free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Why do people say right and wrong, instead of acceptable and unacceptable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think if you want an empirically measurable way of viewing morality, it might be a system that observes your ability to go to Afghanistan, live there, and not have grandchildren, and their children's children supportive of murdering people for apostasy. Another metric might be really tempting circumstances like taking on the role of a king and through all the influence being able to rule with grace, being able to learn from mistakes. Being able to go from riches to rags and still support a healthy family, or contribute to those around you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think low social compliance is more moral, or less?
Do you think a high desire to gain respect is more moral, or less?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Has America ever had a good president?
Created:
Created:
-->
@KingLaddy01
The green freak stuff may prove to be imperative to addressing unequal distribution of resources over the next couple hundred years. Hopefully the countries getting bombed and laid to waste have distributed property.
Created:
-->
@Alec
It's definitely going to happen at some point, maybe not the whole world, but if our way of addressing conflict doesn't change, at least one nation is going to get devestated, potentially a sizeable portion of the northern hemisphere.
Created:
Posted in:
Bombing the hell out of ISIS, putting forth a great effort to secure our borders, reducing the scope of executive overreach, and he hasn't thrown any countries into chaos or started another proxy war. The country hasn't tanked, and isn't being postured with increased liability to foreign interests. I am looking forward to seeing how "winning" evolves as he works with the "obstructionists" over the next couple of years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Consider that you are projecting your internalized views 'onto' reality based upon reflection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Given the weight of the evidence, is it more likely that God does or doesn't exist?
No
This places an equal burden of proof between affirming the positive and negative claim.When we observe the absence of something where it was claimed to exist, this is inductive evidence we can then use to justify disbelief. With a prime, eternal consciousness though this is not something observable. So we would need to rely on non-empirical means to evaluate the claim.It's worth mentioning that the source of a claim or the number of variations it has doesn't invalidate it.Is the universe indicative of design or does it seem to be the byproduct of mindlessness?
It is what it is.
Created:
Posted in:
The question in the title of this thread is absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
Lincoln instituted the IRS for an income tax to pay for the war. I guess we've been at war ever since
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
you could just define in the law how fast the gun is allowed to be shot. if it shoots too fast, then it's banned. in any case it's just a matter of using creativity to do the best you can in outlawing certain types of gun contraptions.there aren't a lot of people who die from machine gun type guns. they say only a few hundred people die from even assault rifles. but i'm sure the bulk of those deaths are from murders, and a tiny fraction from self defense use. in any case, the potential is always there, and even a smaller amount of lives is worth the effort.we can't stop every person who might go against the law or circumvent it, but we can stop some people. beleive me, having machine guns or that sort of stuff just laying around makes a difference.
A rifle does not protect you, and the murders are not caused by the rifles. The rifles were used with malicious intent, and they weren't "just lying around", obviously. Basically, the difference you are proposing is the severity of the attack. In the majority of those murders, your average assault-style rifle is less severe than your average hunting rifle/shotgun. You probably want those effectively banned too, but you are specifically addressing the interest in life in the case of mass murder, and proposing that a bump stock increases the potential amount of energy transferable to victims.
You can probably ban semi-automatics by rate of fire and send us back to the 1800s, technologically speaking. At what level of government do you think all of this should be implemented?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I think I'd rather have a gatling gun. This one is a work of art, miniature replica manufactured here in states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You don't actually pull the trigger with a bump stock. The gun pushes it into you, and that part just happens to be your finger. Imagine if its helpful that someone could invent a system where the trigger is actually the stock and you have to pull the gun which is strapped to your body for the first shot. If it was semi automatic you would have to hold it with both hands and with dexterity pull away each time from your body with one hand while maintining the position of your trigger finger to do something like that. A semi automatic requires you to actuate the trigger to engage the firing mechanism each time. I don't see the issue here. Basically, with a bump stock, you could probably duct tape a stick onto the trigger guard so it doesn't slip off and transform it into a recoil operated automatic as the law is written now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yeah, they actually need to change it through legislature because the executive branch doesn't have the authority to interpret law, and they determined it was not being applied incorrectly.
Created: