Why is homicide bad?

[Matteo Martini]

The point was clear enough, and just as clearly irrelevant as yelling "so's your momma." It was a derail from the start.

Irrelevant or not is questionable. Just your opinion.
I made a derail, that is true, but I thought it was needed.

Don't paint with too broad a brush. There are those of us who believe that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes.

They are still there.
Are not they?

 

[Belz...]

Why is homicide bad?

Gosh, Matteo, is there any sense to any of your posts ?

Why is stealing bad ? Why are floods bad ?

The answer is always the same because "bad" is a subjective term. Murder is bad because I don't want it to happen to me. It takes a little empathy in order to take the next step, however...

 

[Matteo Martini]

Gosh, Matteo, is there any sense to any of your posts ?

Why is stealing bad ? Why are floods bad ?

The answer is always the same because "bad" is a subjective term. Murder is bad because I don't want it to happen to me. It takes a little empathy in order to take the next step, however...

Somebody will call troll soon, I know that..
Anyways..
What you call "empathy" seems to be working selectively.
It works if the the victim is your relative (unless maybe the victim is a rich uncle and you the only heir), friend, connational.
Does not seem to work if the victim is a criminal, a terrorist (whatever this word means), or even a civilian born on the wrong wide of the border during a period of war.
If homicide is bad, it should be bad in any case. Period.
If homicide is not bad "in some special cases", then it is not bad.

 

[megaresp]

A job loss "causes the pain and suffering of not only the victim, but also the people the victim know".
(you can replace "victim" with "person who lost his job")

Your comparison is flawed, in my opinion.

There are other jobs, you can create your own job, or fall back on charity and/or welfare.

If somebody takes your life, that's it. Game over.

 

[bruto]

They are still there.
Are not they?

So here we go again. Gdnp responded to your criticism of Americans by pointing out that not all Americans are as you picture them. You respond by noting that those opposed to Bush and others have not succeeded in deposing them or getting them convicted of their crimes. What is the relevance of this? Why is this a reasonable response to gdnp's post? Do you actually take time to think about these things?

 

[gdnp]

They are still there.
Are not they?

Yes. Are you suggesting that we change this from a "why is homicide bad" to "why is assassination bad" thread? Because otherwise I'm not sure how I am responsible for the sins of an administration that I voted against twice.

 

[gdnp]

If homicide is bad, it should be bad in any case. Period.
If homicide is not bad "in some special cases", then it is not bad.

I suggest you review the fallacy of the false dilemma and then get back to us. Your assertion that homicide (left undefined) must be bad in all cases to be bad is unsupported.

 

[Primus]

So here we go again. Gdnp responded to your criticism of Americans by pointing out that not all Americans are as you picture them. You respond by noting that those opposed to Bush and others have not succeeded in deposing them or getting them convicted of their crimes. What is the relevance of this? Why is this a reasonable response to gdnp's post? Do you actually take time to think about these things?

I can't believe anyone is taking an Italian seriously when they're accusing other countries of being imperialist and having faschist leaders.
It's not like Italys invaded anywhere in the last 60 years.
I hear that the goverment there is really quite liberal as well, and its loads of fun being an ethnic minority over there. The gypsies love it so much they apparantly don't like the idea of being herded into camps and then probably mass deported.
I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy but Matteo's hypocrisy is jaw dropping.

 

[bruto]

I can't believe anyone is taking an Italian seriously when they're accusing other countries of being imperialist and having faschist leaders.
It's not like Italys invaded anywhere in the last 60 years.
I hear that the goverment there is really quite liberal as well, and its loads of fun being an ethnic minority over there. The gypsies love it so much they apparantly don't like the idea of being herded into camps and then probably mass deported.
I'm not a big fan of US foreign policy but Matteo's hypocrisy is jaw dropping.

I note that Matteo posts from Japan, and we cannot be sure that he is using his actual name. And of course, Japan never....ummmm...yeah, well anyway, as far as I'm concerned, if someone is bad, he's bad no matter how bad someone else is. I don't like Hugo Chavez, and he's' not made better by noting that he's not as bad as George Bush. I don't like George Bush, but no matter how many times I say "well, at least he's no Tojo," Bush doesn't really get any better. Understand the concept, Matteo?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Your comparison is flawed, in my opinion.

There are other jobs, you can create your own job, or fall back on charity and/or welfare.

If somebody takes your life, that's it. Game over.

Reincarnation, anyone?

So here we go again. Gdnp responded to your criticism of Americans by pointing out that not all Americans are as you picture them. You respond by noting that those opposed to Bush and others have not succeeded in deposing them or getting them convicted of their crimes. What is the relevance of this? Why is this a reasonable response to gdnp's post? Do you actually take time to think about these things?

I was thinking my reply was easily understandable.
Apparently, it is not.
My fault.
If Bush and Cheney are still there, that means that the majority of the Americans, are not angry (enough) for the behaviour of the current administration to jump in the streets, write to their congressman, organize events against the current government so that they have to go out.
If only, let` s say, 10%-20%-30% of the American people were really, really angry about the current administration, they could organize any sort of protest.
They do not.
Anti-war meetings are only attended by a strong minority of the total US population.
George Bush (son) has been even revoted in 2004, when it was already clear that he lied about many things.
McCain, who supports the war, is going strong in the polls.
And I bet that, with a stronger economy, he would be leading Obama.
There is a minority of the American people who is strongly against the war in Iraq, and who has the will to strongly oppose it, but, differently from what happened during the Vietnam war era, it is a very small minority.

Yes. Are you suggesting that we change this from a "why is homicide bad" to "why is assassination bad" thread? Because otherwise I'm not sure how I am responsible for the sins of an administration that I voted against twice.

Assassination is the targeted killing of a high-profile person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination
??
When did I speak about assassination?

I suggest you review the fallacy of the false dilemma and then get back to us. Your assertion that homicide (left undefined) must be bad in all cases to be bad is unsupported.

Left undefined?
Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing another human being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

About the point that homicide can be allowed in some cases, I have already pointed out at this problem.
How do you define when homicide is allowable and when it is not?
There are no ultimate and definite criteria for this, all criteria can be somehow questioned.

I can't believe anyone is taking an Italian seriously when they're accusing other countries of being imperialist and having faschist leaders.
It's not like Italys invaded anywhere in the last 60 years.
[..]

Faschist?
Italys?

I note that Matteo posts from Japan, and we cannot be sure that he is using his actual name. And of course, Japan never....ummmm...yeah, well anyway, as far as I'm concerned, if someone is bad, he's bad no matter how bad someone else is. I don't like Hugo Chavez, and he's' not made better by noting that he's not as bad as George Bush. I don't like George Bush, but no matter how many times I say "well, at least he's no Tojo," Bush doesn't really get any better. Understand the concept, Matteo?

I understand your concept.
You apparently do not get mine.
I was noting that people (especially Americans) are very quickly to point out to the bad things that happen in other countries (or when they just do not happen to like another country or leader for any reason) and very slow to point out to the bad things they have done.
I will requote the sentences:

Because he's a budding little communist who is just dying to spread his fascism outside of Venezuela. The guy's turning back the clock in his country by decades because he is too stupid to realize communism does. Not. Work. Ever. And he's risking the lives and finances of some of my friends' families both in Venezuela and across the border in Colombia - both by seeming to be pushing for a war with the US, and funding FARC.

So the answer is yes, Chavez is worse than Kissinger. Because Kissinger did things for realpolitik.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

He should be hanged from a lamppost along with Castro and Kim Jong Il.
[..]

I am sorry to say that Polaris is a total idiot for having said what he said.
Anyone who supports his opinion is not that much different from the "terrorists" he pretends to fight.
I am so annoyed by such people..
And there are such people in any country, not just America, by the way!!

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Primus]

He supports Ron Paul. He likes big troll like circular arguments. Does this not seem oddly familiar to anyone?

 

[gdnp]

Left undefined?
Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing another human being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

About the point that homicide can be allowed in some cases, I have already pointed out at this problem.
How do you define when homicide is allowable and when it is not?
There are no ultimate and definite criteria for this, all criteria can be somehow questioned.

Ah. So you seen to be using homicide in its broadest definition, that of one human killing another for any reason, rather than in the colloquial definition of murder, as I was assuming.

Let us then go back to first principles, then.

Is death bad? Not human death specifically, but the death of any creature. I would argue "no", since without death there could be no evolution. We would be limited to plants, for no creature could eat another creature. All the nutrients would have been used up by immortal bacteria and growth would have stopped. Not a good thing. So death is good at least in some cases.

Is human death bad? Well, without human death we would have the same problem. Humans would fill up all available space and use up all available resources. To have evolution you have to have death, with useful traits passed on to progeny who thrive and detrimental traits weeded out. Without this process we wouldn't even be here, so human death is good, at least in some cases. I don't think this is particularly controversial.

If death is some human death is good, then what does is say about homicide? Well, it says we can't simply write off homicide as bad because it causes human death, because we have already accepted that not all human death is bad. So I would argue that homicide that leads to improvement of the human race is good, and homicide that leads to deterioration of the human race is bad.

Now this does not mean we should start rounding up and exterminating all undesirables. A society where people live in fear that others will do so is not one conducive to growth, IMHO. So societies make laws so that bad homicides are punished and good homicides are accepted. Those that find the correct balance flourish, and those that do not dies out or change.

So I cannot give you an absolute. Murder is bad. Homicide is not necessarily bad.

 

[slingblade]

Americans are very very slow to admit the crimes that their own leadership does at home and, most important, abroad.

You got some of that paint on me. I submit you're using far too broad a brush.
I know I'll have to clean up the mess you made on me, but an apology from you might help.

 

[Polaris]

Chavez has been elected in regular elections.
Whether you like or you do not like his policies in Venezuela, it is not your damn business.

I am making it my business as you have made it your business to whine every time America farts in the wrong direction, and I will say anything I damn well please. Got it? And I'm inclined to ask, how is funding FARC in Ecuador so they can murder people in Colombia a "policy in Venezuela?"

Listen, amico, to the best of my knowledge you are not an American residing in America, but you're all too happy to criticize the American government's policies inside America. Pleased to meet you, my name's Kettle.

I am sorry to say that Polaris is a total idiot for having said what he said.
Anyone who supports his opinion is not that much different from the "terrorists" he pretends to fight.
I am so annoyed by such people..
And there are such people in any country, not just America, by the way!!

I'm happy to say that criticism by the ardent supporters of rising little communist, populist despots is a fair sign someone's doing something right.

I may hate terrorists, but I do not fight them. Not in combat at least. I'm not in the military or any paramilitary, and have never claimed to be.

Oh, and you've been reported. Have a nice day.

 

[bruto]

I understand your concept.
You apparently do not get mine.
I was noting that people (especially Americans) are very quickly to point out to the bad things that happen in other countries (or when they just do not happen to like another country or leader for any reason) and very slow to point out to the bad things they have done.

Of course I get your concept, and you need not requote. In rational discourse it's called "poisoning the well," suggesting that some unrelated belief or flaw of those you're arguing against disqualifies their opinion. So I repeat: your introduction of American war criminals into the discussion of Hugo Chavez was irrelevant, no matter how great their evil, and would be so even if Chavez were a saint being maligned. Are you sure you really do get the concept?

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
Listen, amico, to the best of my knowledge you are not an American residing in America, but you're all too happy to criticize the American government's policies inside America. Pleased to meet you, my name's Kettle.

I'm happy to say that criticism by the ardent supporters of rising little communist, populist despots is a fair sign someone's doing something right.
[..]

1) I am not your "amico";
2) Chavez is not a despot (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/despot);
3) I am not a supporter of Chavez;
4) You do not understand what you are talking about..

add:
5) being reported by people like you is a personal honour

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]So I would argue that homicide that leads to improvement of the human race is good, and homicide that leads to deterioration of the human race is bad.
[..]

One may argue that this sentence resembles (sorry to say that) the some Nazi`s reason for killing the Jews as they "deteriorate" the human race (http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/darwin_and_holocaust.asp)..

You got some of that paint on me. I submit you're using far too broad a brush.
I know I'll have to clean up the mess you made on me, but an apology from you might help.

Most of the Americans (not including SlingBlade) are very very slow to admit the crimes that their own leadership does at home and, most important, abroad.

[..]So I repeat: your introduction of American war criminals into the discussion of Hugo Chavez was irrelevant, no matter how great their evil, and would be so even if Chavez were a saint being maligned. Are you sure you really do get the concept?

It is just a matter of opinions, I consider it a pertinent comparison (straight to the point).

 

[bruto]

One may argue that this sentence resembles (sorry to say that) the some Nazi`s reason for killing the Jews as they "deteriorate" the human race (http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/darwin_and_holocaust.asp)..

It resembles it, I suppose, in having a noun, a verb and a predicate, but in little else really. Imagine that I say anything that improves the appearance of my house is good. Mr X says "smearing it with dog feces would improve its appearance." Is an idea or principle made wrong whenever someone interprets it in a preposterous and distorted way?

Most of the Americans (not including SlingBlade) are very very slow to admit the crimes that their own leadership does at home and, most important, abroad.

I believe, though I cannot prove, that your estimate of "most Americans" is not accurate, and that to the degree it is, it is a trait characteristic of "most everyone" in the world.

It is just a matter of opinions, I consider it a pertinent comparison (straight to the point).

I don't think you will ever get my point there. The aptness of the comparison does not make it relevant in every context.

 

[slingblade]

Reincarnation, anyone?

Someone tells you that if you lose your job, you have other employment/money-making options, but that if you die, you are out of options, and your reply is to offer a fantasy? Reincarnation is actually a viable option for the dead?

Is that the best you can do?

I was thinking my reply was easily understandable.
Apparently, it is not.
My fault.

It's perfectly understandable. It's just another fantasy, like reincarnation.

If Bush and Cheney are still there, that means that the majority of the Americans, are not angry (enough) for the behaviour of the current administration to jump in the streets,

Plenty of people have protested this administration, at various times and for its various acts. That these morons are still in office is because it takes a lot more than "jumping in the streets" to remove a sitting president, and/or his cronies in crime.

Some of them, you may note, are gone (Rove, Rumsfeld), and others have simply gone dead quiet (Cheney).

write to their congressman,

You are buying into some other fiction here. Truth is, the government is a machine, and few of its parts will risk their futures to throw out the machine in which they live. I mean, you're asking the apple to reject its core. Not gonna happen.

organize events against the current government so that they have to go out.

They are going out. In about 2 months, and most are content to wait. And then, we'll have a whole new set of money-grubbing, power-mongering liars who will think only of themselves and screw the rest of us with sharp, pointed sticks. It doesn't even matter which side wins.

You're buying into a huge fiction if you honestly think one politician is different from or better than another. In their particulars, maybe, but not in their substance.

If only, let` s say, 10%-20%-30% of the American people were really, really angry about the current administration, they could organize any sort of protest.
They do not.

Could be because we already know that protest alone won't remove a sitting president.

Fact remains, though, that many Americans have protested, and been largely ignored. The only successes we may count, may, would be the departures of Rove and Rumsfeld. I'm pretty sure the stink of what they've done drove them out before we could find out all of it, and since they are gone, it's now a moot point to most people.

Anti-war meetings are only attended by a strong minority of the total US population.

You do know how many of us there are, right? A "strong minority" is about all we can show for most any issue.

George Bush (son) has been even revoted in 2004, when it was already clear that he lied about many things.

I must admit, and readily, that one puzzles me as much as it does you.

The only thing I can figure is that enough people bought the line about "not changing horses in midstream," and didn't think it wise to change presidents in mid-war--or at least not with the alternative we were offered.

(And it's 're-elected,' not 'revoted.' I thought you'd written 'revolting,' at first glance, and was going to tell you I found Bush revolting long before 2004. )

McCain, who supports the war, is going strong in the polls. And I bet that, with a stronger economy, he would be leading Obama.

What does it mean to be "going strong in the polls" if you aren't in the lead? You mean, by this, that he's gaining on Obama? Well, I wouldn't worry--the economy is getting worse, not better, so if American opinion is being driven by this, McCain will never lead.

There is a minority of the American people who is strongly against the war in Iraq, and who has the will to strongly oppose it, but, differently from what happened during the Vietnam war era, it is a very small minority.

It was a small minority then, too. A vocal minority that got a lot of on-air time because of the novelty of protesting a war instead of staunchly supporting it, as we had just finished doing in WWII. Did their protests alone stop that war, or did it end for other reasons? Just how much did the protests inform Nixon's decision to end the war? Do you know?

I was noting that people (especially Americans) are very quickly to point out to the bad things that happen in other countries (or when they just do not happen to like another country or leader for any reason) and very slow to point out to the bad things they have done.

I'm laughing, now. Honey, this is sheer human nature, not something inimical to Americans. You show me one place on the planet where people don't see the foibles of their neighbors more clearly and quickly than their own. And I'm talking everything from our families, to our clubs, to our businesses, to our colleges, to our nations...you name it: if it comes in groups, they'll each compare, contrast, and then condemn the other. That's just folks for ya.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It resembles it, I suppose, in having a noun, a verb and a predicate, but in little else really. Imagine that I say anything that improves the appearance of my house is good. Mr X says "smearing it with dog feces would improve its appearance." Is an idea or principle made wrong whenever someone interprets it in a preposterous and distorted way?

You said that homicide could be accepted if it improves human race.
Nazi killed people for that reason specifically.

I believe, though I cannot prove, that your estimate of "most Americans" is not accurate, and that to the degree it is, it is a trait characteristic of "most everyone" in the world.

With the difference that not many countries go out to invade Iraq..

I don't think you will ever get my point there. The aptness of the comparison does not make it relevant in every context.

Again, think as you like.