A thought-experiment about the killing of the abortionist
-
Ilíon wrote:
If you reject this reasoning as applied to these hypothetical schools, how is it that you accept it as applied to the mass-murder going on daily in our nation?
The reason any intelligent person rejects this drivel is that two wrong don't make a right. Or, as someone once said ( although I know you're not a fan of his opinions ), you should treat your enemies with kindness and bless those who persecute you. Only a hypocrite would think that the way to stop killing, is to kill someone. I have a question, if you're against legalised killing, I take it you're against the death penalty ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question.
-
If the state declares the sacrifice to be legal and declares the father's act to be illegal, then the state must punish him. If the state declares the abortions to be legal and declares the anti-abortionist's act to be illegal, then the state must punish the anti-abortionist. The father and the anti-abortionist may be considered to have acted justly, but 'justice' is irrelevant. It was illegal of Antigone to defy Creon. The 'wrongness' of her act is up to each individual to determine.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
If the state declares the sacrifice to be legal and declares the father's act to be illegal, then the state must punish him. If the state declares the abortions to be legal and declares the anti-abortionist's act to be illegal, then the state must punish the anti-abortionist. The father and the anti-abortionist may be considered to have acted justly, but 'justice' is irrelevant. It was illegal of Antigone to defy Creon. The 'wrongness' of her act is up to each individual to determine.
Ah! So the State determines what is *really* right and wrong -- and just -- by decreeing what is legal? But, at the same time, and in some unexplained way, each individual can decree that other individuals are or are not "wrong" (note the scare-quotes) to act in illegal ways?
-
Let us suppose that there is a chain of private schools; quite exclusive in their enrollment policies, but also quite inexpensive in their tuition; and of which everyone in the nation realizes that by any objective standard they deliver an exceptional education. Naturally, we will see at once that everyone will be clamoring to get their children into one of these schools. Now, let us further suppose that after some number of years it comes to light that the *reason* these schools are so exclusive in their enrollment policies is that they're carefully pre-screening the parents before revealing to them a certain heretofore secret policy of the schools: that each year at each individual school, one incoming student is chosen to be a human sacrifice. As in, ritually killed; dead. Thus, at least one parent of all the students enrolled in these schools was aware of this and had agreed to it beforehand. Then, let us further suppose that after this horrific news becomes public knowledge, it is learned that it's all quite legal. How this enormity became legal doesn't matter to this thought-experiment; what matters is that it is legal by the laws of the land -- and that the politicians and other elites (and those who like to imagine they themselves are among the elite) have no intention of changing that. So, since we are a "nation of laws, and not of men" (never mind that that hasn't actually been true for many years), and since (as Robert P. George asserts on NRO[^]) "[n]o private individual [has] the right to execute judgment against" the staff of these schools, then ... what? Well, if Mr George[^], and Miss Lopez[^], and all the other hand-wringers are correct in their reasoning and assertions, then we must all stand by and allow these yearly human sacrifices, these "legal" murders, to contin
Come on Troy Dale Hailey, why haven't you taken justice into your own hands? If it's so right, so 'Just', then why are you so cowardly about it?
-
williamnw wrote:
[nothing at all]
Go bother someone else who is willing to have you waste his time.
So instead of reading and, God forbid, understanding what I said, you have dismissed it. Well done! Give your self another pull on the bong!
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
Let us suppose that there is a chain of private schools; quite exclusive in their enrollment policies, but also quite inexpensive in their tuition; and of which everyone in the nation realizes that by any objective standard they deliver an exceptional education. Naturally, we will see at once that everyone will be clamoring to get their children into one of these schools. Now, let us further suppose that after some number of years it comes to light that the *reason* these schools are so exclusive in their enrollment policies is that they're carefully pre-screening the parents before revealing to them a certain heretofore secret policy of the schools: that each year at each individual school, one incoming student is chosen to be a human sacrifice. As in, ritually killed; dead. Thus, at least one parent of all the students enrolled in these schools was aware of this and had agreed to it beforehand. Then, let us further suppose that after this horrific news becomes public knowledge, it is learned that it's all quite legal. How this enormity became legal doesn't matter to this thought-experiment; what matters is that it is legal by the laws of the land -- and that the politicians and other elites (and those who like to imagine they themselves are among the elite) have no intention of changing that. So, since we are a "nation of laws, and not of men" (never mind that that hasn't actually been true for many years), and since (as Robert P. George asserts on NRO[^]) "[n]o private individual [has] the right to execute judgment against" the staff of these schools, then ... what? Well, if Mr George[^], and Miss Lopez[^], and all the other hand-wringers are correct in their reasoning and assertions, then we must all stand by and allow these yearly human sacrifices, these "legal" murders, to contin
This is a repost[^]. But whatever, it's still excellent. I was waiting for this. A stunning example of a "Christian" (and in the context of you, I use the term in the loosest sense) justifying murder through a poorly constructed, uninteresting and overly wordy "Lex talionis" (you can look that up) defense. I thought you were familiar with the Sermon on the Mount, no? Anyways, your's is the most intellectually barren commentary on the matter I have read; but then again, I never expected anything interesting in you from the first place. Your below average intellect has been clear to me from the outset. But I digress. There is one interesting aspect of your post - it is now abundantly clear that you are a Christian apostate.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
If the state declares the sacrifice to be legal and declares the father's act to be illegal, then the state must punish him. If the state declares the abortions to be legal and declares the anti-abortionist's act to be illegal, then the state must punish the anti-abortionist. The father and the anti-abortionist may be considered to have acted justly, but 'justice' is irrelevant. It was illegal of Antigone to defy Creon. The 'wrongness' of her act is up to each individual to determine.
Ah! So the State determines what is *really* right and wrong -- and just -- by decreeing what is legal? But, at the same time, and in some unexplained way, each individual can decree that other individuals are or are not "wrong" (note the scare-quotes) to act in illegal ways?
Ilíon wrote:
So the State determines what is *really* right and wrong
Ooooh! Scare-asterisks. No, the state declares what is illegal, and thus what is legal. Rightness, wrongness, justness, are each determined by an individual's moral compass, which may be determined by christian, utilitarian, ..., values. Determine: To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation.
Ilíon wrote:
But, at the same time, and in some unexplained way, each individual can decree that other individuals are or are not "wrong" (note the scare-quotes) to act in illegal ways?
Determine, not decree. A State's law makes the practice of abortion illegal. The punishment is death. A doctor performs an abortion to save the life of his wife, without which both mother and child would die. Were I on the jury at his trial, I would find him guilty as charged. For, even though I would determine that his was the right action to take, and the punishment to be unjust (that's my moral compass bit), his action was illegal.
Bob Emmett
-
Ilíon wrote:
So the State determines what is *really* right and wrong
Ooooh! Scare-asterisks. No, the state declares what is illegal, and thus what is legal. Rightness, wrongness, justness, are each determined by an individual's moral compass, which may be determined by christian, utilitarian, ..., values. Determine: To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation.
Ilíon wrote:
But, at the same time, and in some unexplained way, each individual can decree that other individuals are or are not "wrong" (note the scare-quotes) to act in illegal ways?
Determine, not decree. A State's law makes the practice of abortion illegal. The punishment is death. A doctor performs an abortion to save the life of his wife, without which both mother and child would die. Were I on the jury at his trial, I would find him guilty as charged. For, even though I would determine that his was the right action to take, and the punishment to be unjust (that's my moral compass bit), his action was illegal.
Bob Emmett
Don't confuse him with such complicated thinking - he's not here for reasoned debate.
-
Don't confuse him with such complicated thinking - he's not here for reasoned debate.
-
This is a repost[^]. But whatever, it's still excellent. I was waiting for this. A stunning example of a "Christian" (and in the context of you, I use the term in the loosest sense) justifying murder through a poorly constructed, uninteresting and overly wordy "Lex talionis" (you can look that up) defense. I thought you were familiar with the Sermon on the Mount, no? Anyways, your's is the most intellectually barren commentary on the matter I have read; but then again, I never expected anything interesting in you from the first place. Your below average intellect has been clear to me from the outset. But I digress. There is one interesting aspect of your post - it is now abundantly clear that you are a Christian apostate.
-
Answer my question, Princess - why do you not dispense justice for your god?
-
Again, no surprise here. You continue to show your ignorance. I did, in fact, write a little more than "nothing". Indeed, I wrote a stinging critique of your rather useless "thought experiment" (although where the "thought" part was, I have yet to discern). Your silence confirms that it hurts you even more when I use arguments from (your version of) the Christian faith to debunk you. :laugh:
-
Answer my question, Princess - why do you not dispense justice for your god?
Because he's an armchair warrior coward. He prefers others take action in the name of his principles rather than himself. This is also the reason why he can't formulate his own independent ideas and must resort to plagiarising them from others.
-
Because he's an armchair warrior coward. He prefers others take action in the name of his principles rather than himself. This is also the reason why he can't formulate his own independent ideas and must resort to plagiarising them from others.
I need to stop being so angry.
-
I need to stop being so angry.
You just need to understand that he isn't an intellectual opponent.
-
You just need to understand that he isn't an intellectual opponent.
I just feel depressed or angry all the time, and his idiocy pushes me over the edge.
-
I just feel depressed or angry all the time, and his idiocy pushes me over the edge.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I just feel depressed or angry all the time, and his idiocy pushes me over the edge.
Get a job with the post office!
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I just feel depressed or angry all the time, and his idiocy pushes me over the edge.
Get a job with the post office!
73Zeppelin wrote:
Get a job with the post office!
Haha, that'd be awesome! Except that I don't think I could shoot other people.
-
Because he's an armchair warrior coward. He prefers others take action in the name of his principles rather than himself. This is also the reason why he can't formulate his own independent ideas and must resort to plagiarising them from others.
She has principles? Who knew?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
If the state declares the sacrifice to be legal and declares the father's act to be illegal, then the state must punish him. If the state declares the abortions to be legal and declares the anti-abortionist's act to be illegal, then the state must punish the anti-abortionist. The father and the anti-abortionist may be considered to have acted justly, but 'justice' is irrelevant. It was illegal of Antigone to defy Creon. The 'wrongness' of her act is up to each individual to determine.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
It was illegal of Antigone to defy Creon. The 'wrongness' of her act is up to each individual to determine.
You have hit the nail on the head. I was thinking of a slightly less classical allusion - Billy Budd. (Do you read Melville on your side of the Pond?) The difference between justice and the law can be immense, and I am not sure that the law can ever approach justice. Billy acts justly, not only by his own lights but by those of his Captain - nonetheless, Captain Vere rules Billy must be executed according to the law because the law is all we have. If someone is prepared to break the law to administer justice, we can sympathise - I do sympathise and I cannot find it in my heart to think that the world is worse off because of the death of the doctor - but we cannot tear down the rule of law and substitute a rule of opinion - That is mobocracy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Because he's an armchair warrior coward. He prefers others take action in the name of his principles rather than himself. This is also the reason why he can't formulate his own independent ideas and must resort to plagiarising them from others.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Because he's an unspeakably gutless, yellow-bellied, pseudo-intellectual, out-of-work armchair warrior coward who learned at an early age to hide from those who would confront him and has been cowering in sewers or their equivalent all his life.
FTFY ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin