A thought-experiment about the killing of the abortionist
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Firstly, my intention wasn't to offend. I am fascinated by Moby Dick.
Far from being offended, I was delighted to be asked to think. Too much of what we talk about in here turns into pissing contests. However, in the same vein, if i said something that made you think i was offended, I apoligise.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Did you ever read any of Melville's personal correspondence to authors like Hawthorne?
Nope. I wasn't even aware of them. Thanks!
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
Oakman wrote:
Far from being offended, I was delighted to be asked to think. Too much of what we talk about in here turns into pissing contests. However, in the same vein, if i said something that made you think i was offended, I apoligise.
Just making sure I came off the way I wanted to. Also, in a first reading of your post I missed the part about the cats. How many do you have? I've got four.
Oakman wrote:
Nope. I wasn't even aware of them. Thanks!
I have an annotated copy of Moby Dick - in the back is ample commentary, analysis and reprints of Melville's letters to numerous others (Hawthorne included). They provide insight into his mindset and reasons for writing Moby Dick. I found them fascinating; like the story behind the story.
-
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.
-
Oakman wrote:
Far from being offended, I was delighted to be asked to think. Too much of what we talk about in here turns into pissing contests. However, in the same vein, if i said something that made you think i was offended, I apoligise.
Just making sure I came off the way I wanted to. Also, in a first reading of your post I missed the part about the cats. How many do you have? I've got four.
Oakman wrote:
Nope. I wasn't even aware of them. Thanks!
I have an annotated copy of Moby Dick - in the back is ample commentary, analysis and reprints of Melville's letters to numerous others (Hawthorne included). They provide insight into his mindset and reasons for writing Moby Dick. I found them fascinating; like the story behind the story.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I've got four
Four - 2 blind, one diabetic, and one who had been stepped on as a barn kitten by a horse and had his leg smashed.
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
-
Christian Graus wrote:
He's heard of it, but thinks it's a bunch of left leaning, socialist drivel.
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
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
-
That's what I thought.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Many in the "pro-life" anti-abortion movement seem to me to only be pro-life in the case of abortion -- unlike those who hold an ethic of life across a range of moral issues, not only abortion but also war and the death penalty, This makes "pro-life" in regard to abortion not only an inconsistent ethic, but an unstable one.
I'd have to disagree, John. In war and in the case of the death penalty the life that is extinguished has given cause for what happened to it, and has had warning that it could happen. A viable fetus is truly the most innocent of the innocent. Late-term abortion is the ultimate form of child-abuse, and the only one condoned by society.
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
Point taken - although I am not sure that the author was referring specifically to late term abortion, but rather to the overall ideology of the pro-life movement. In any event, I would agree with you. I was providing counterpoint to Ilion's original post.
-
Point taken - although I am not sure that the author was referring specifically to late term abortion, but rather to the overall ideology of the pro-life movement. In any event, I would agree with you. I was providing counterpoint to Ilion's original post.
73Zeppelin wrote:
although I am not sure that the author was referring specifically to late term abortion, but rather to the overall ideology of the pro-life movement
Both sides like to paint the issue with a broad a brush as possible. All pro-lifers are. . .All pro-choice are. . .Truth to be told, very few people are for either the wholesale use of abortion as birth-control or the wholesale denial of abortions to people who need them. And those who are totally in favor or totally opposed are not people I like to associate with, snob that I am. Early term abortions are for me, something else altogether. I have some qualms about the idea, but I cannot claim that I know enough to make any kind of a knowledgeable judgement.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I was providing counterpoint to Ilion's original post.
I admire your willingness to enter into a never-ending battle.
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
-
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?
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off. I find it less than acceptable to publicly post someone's real full name without their consent. You have just now put yourself on par with Josh, as he was the one who ousted Red.
This statement is false
-
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off. I find it less than acceptable to publicly post someone's real full name without their consent. You have just now put yourself on par with Josh, as he was the one who ousted Red.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off.
Y'know, I actually kind of miss the guy. He might have been a pretentious, obstinate, snarky, trolling jackass, but he at least occasionally showed both a wit in insult and a talent for sophistry that we'll never see from the likes of the Ilion-bot (I'm still convinced that his replies are at least partially automated) or Bonghit McWafflehouse.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
Only a hypocrite would think that the way to stop killing, is to kill someone.
Really? If you held a gun to the head of Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot would you still say the same? If you are opposed to killing, but you choose to do so once to stop someone who does nothing but kill, then you have stopped killing by killing. Even if someone took offense and chose to kill you out of vengeance, it would still be far less killing that if you hadn't intervened in the first place. Not that I condone vigilante justice, but I can still see the argument. If a guy walks into a packed McDonalds, whips out an assault rifle and starts pouring lead into people all around him, and another person just happened to have a gun on them... If they decided to pull their gun and shoot the attacker, and then later were quoted as saying "he was killing all those people, I had to do something", would you just call him a hypocrite? Would you suggest that he just watch the festivities and patiently wait his turn to be shot instead? I don't believe you intended it to be taken that far, but your statement is just not fair. Maybe stopping a killer with deadly force is hypocritical. But that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong thing to do. However, we're dealing with a situation where half those engaged don't think a death occurs. I don't think shooting abortion doctors is the correct way to handle things. Neither is legislation from the bench by judicial activists (or judicial proxies for activists). The law is all important. I feel for Dr Tiller's family, but I won't shed any tears for him. He killed around 60,000 babies in his 35 years of practice. And he made a lot of money in the process. As for the death penalty 'argument', I get tired of hearing this one as if it's some clever catch 22. Yes, you can call people hypocrites for apposing abortion and standing for the death penalty. But you are far more of a hypocrite to appose putting killers to death and standing up for the right to kill babies. The death penalty today is reserved for killers who show no sign of remorse or possibility of rehabilitation. Which means they will always be killers, and if they were to be set free, they would kill again. Putting such people to death is purely about social self preservation. Babies are innocent, and the least threatening people you will ever meet. Sorry you had to catch all of my venting, but your statement caught me wrong.
-
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off. I find it less than acceptable to publicly post someone's real full name without their consent. You have just now put yourself on par with Josh, as he was the one who ousted Red.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off. I find it less than acceptable to publicly post someone's real full name without their consent. You have just now put yourself on par with Josh, as he was the one who ousted Red.
And as I recall, Red wasn't shy about throwing Josh's personal details around either. He could dish it out, but couldn't take it. No sympathy.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Christian Graus wrote:
Only a hypocrite would think that the way to stop killing, is to kill someone.
Really? If you held a gun to the head of Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot would you still say the same? If you are opposed to killing, but you choose to do so once to stop someone who does nothing but kill, then you have stopped killing by killing. Even if someone took offense and chose to kill you out of vengeance, it would still be far less killing that if you hadn't intervened in the first place. Not that I condone vigilante justice, but I can still see the argument. If a guy walks into a packed McDonalds, whips out an assault rifle and starts pouring lead into people all around him, and another person just happened to have a gun on them... If they decided to pull their gun and shoot the attacker, and then later were quoted as saying "he was killing all those people, I had to do something", would you just call him a hypocrite? Would you suggest that he just watch the festivities and patiently wait his turn to be shot instead? I don't believe you intended it to be taken that far, but your statement is just not fair. Maybe stopping a killer with deadly force is hypocritical. But that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong thing to do. However, we're dealing with a situation where half those engaged don't think a death occurs. I don't think shooting abortion doctors is the correct way to handle things. Neither is legislation from the bench by judicial activists (or judicial proxies for activists). The law is all important. I feel for Dr Tiller's family, but I won't shed any tears for him. He killed around 60,000 babies in his 35 years of practice. And he made a lot of money in the process. As for the death penalty 'argument', I get tired of hearing this one as if it's some clever catch 22. Yes, you can call people hypocrites for apposing abortion and standing for the death penalty. But you are far more of a hypocrite to appose putting killers to death and standing up for the right to kill babies. The death penalty today is reserved for killers who show no sign of remorse or possibility of rehabilitation. Which means they will always be killers, and if they were to be set free, they would kill again. Putting such people to death is purely about social self preservation. Babies are innocent, and the least threatening people you will ever meet. Sorry you had to catch all of my venting, but your statement caught me wrong.
As for the death penalty thing, it turns out that there is no *good* argument against the death penalty. For, any argument against the death penalty is also an argument against all laws, and against all government. I've written about this here, many months ago. I'm sure you understand how it was received.
-
Ilíon wrote:
So, Gentle Reader, does the reasoning really work? 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? Where is the difference? What am I missing?
If mass murder is taking place and the legal authorities are so morally corrupt as to not attempt to stop it, then there is indeed potentially a case for murdering the murderers. Before doing so, however, you might pause to consider two things. 1. Is what you call "murder" really murder? I won't waste time attempting to argue this with you, but will observe, as a matter of interest, that there is no Biblical statement that abortion is murder. 2. There are people who would consider that the waging of aggressive war is murder and that George Bush is morally responsible for the murder of many thousands of people. They would think that many others share that responsibility. Should those who think that way have attempted to assassinate Bush and other Republican leaders? Should they have attempted to sabotage US military efforts? Democracy is a valuable thing. Punishment by law rather than by vigilantes is a valuable thing. Tempting though it may be to resort to illegal extreme measures when democracy and the law produce outcomes that you think morally repugnant, such temptation should generally be resisted. One reason is that the illegal measures may not work, e.g., murdered abortionists may simply be replaced by new ones and George Bush by Dick Cheney. A second and more important reason is that if the culture comes to accept that vigilanteism is OK, then it won't only be people you agree with who choose to exercise it and something very precious --- the commitment to resolve issues by peaceful, lawful means --- will have been lost.
John Carson
-
The issue is not the morallity of the person who is killed (the "victim" in this particular unique event), but the morallity of the individual who, with no authority granted by the victim, and in violation of the legal code he expects to be protected by, appoints himself both judge and executioner. It would be moral, and propper to oppose and change the legal system (however arduous the task), then prosecute the "baby killer". It is not moral for a single individual to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner, then carry out his private judgement with no due process. This does not argue that the Abortion Doctor is moral and his killer not, but only that the killer is not moral and is subject to the prevailing legal rule. In a perfect world, the abortionist would be in violation of the law, and be prosecuted appropriately; even then, a single killer who executed him ouside of the legal system (say while he was imprrisoned awaiting trial) would be guilty of murder, and deserving of punishment. Either one believes in the rule of law or one does not. If you choose to be in the camp of those who choose to believe the latter, then you choose anarchy.
Rob Graham wrote:
The issue is not the morallity of the person who is killed (the "victim" in this particular unique event), but the morallity of the individual who, with no authority granted by the victim, and in violation of the legal code he expects to be protected by, appoints himself both judge and executioner. It would be moral, and propper to oppose and change the legal system (however arduous the task), then prosecute the "baby killer". It is not moral for a single individual to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner, then carry out his private judgement with no due process. This does not argue that the Abortion Doctor is moral and his killer not, but only that the killer is not moral and is subject to the prevailing legal rule. In a perfect world, the abortionist would be in violation of the law, and be prosecuted appropriately; even then, a single killer who executed him ouside of the legal system (say while he was imprrisoned awaiting trial) would be guilty of murder, and deserving of punishment. Either one believes in the rule of law or one does not. If you choose to be in the camp of those who choose to believe the latter, then you choose anarchy.
Finally, a rational response/statement from someone here. :cool: (or, should I be :suss: ?)
-
Washington Post[^] Many in the "pro-life" anti-abortion movement seem to me to only be pro-life in the case of abortion -- unlike those who hold an ethic of life across a range of moral issues, not only abortion but also war and the death penalty, This makes "pro-life" in regard to abortion not only an inconsistent ethic, but an unstable one.
-
John Carson wrote:
1. Is what you call "murder" really murder? I won't waste time attempting to argue this with you, but will observe, as a matter of interest, that there is no Biblical statement that abortion is murder.
Well! That settles it, doesn't it?
Ilíon wrote:
Well! That settles it, doesn't it?
I said that it was "a matter of interest", not that it settled anything.
John Carson
-
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off. I find it less than acceptable to publicly post someone's real full name without their consent. You have just now put yourself on par with Josh, as he was the one who ousted Red.
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
You have just now put yourself on par with Josh, as he was the one who ousted Red.
Actually, I think it was Kyle that did it...not that it really matters.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
Synaptrik wrote:
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off. I find it less than acceptable to publicly post someone's real full name without their consent. You have just now put yourself on par with Josh, as he was the one who ousted Red.
And as I recall, Red wasn't shy about throwing Josh's personal details around either. He could dish it out, but couldn't take it. No sympathy.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Synaptrik wrote:
While I'm sure not too many would miss him, this is how Red was run off.
Y'know, I actually kind of miss the guy. He might have been a pretentious, obstinate, snarky, trolling jackass, but he at least occasionally showed both a wit in insult and a talent for sophistry that we'll never see from the likes of the Ilion-bot (I'm still convinced that his replies are at least partially automated) or Bonghit McWafflehouse.