View Full Version : Thou Shalt Not Murder
So what does this mean to you?
This is what it means to me. A human shall not kill another human, forget animals because we need to eat. And bugs because they try to eat us.
I think if someone or something tries to kill you then you are justified in killing them to stop them from killing you. But thats it. I don’t think stealing justifies killing. Rape? Ask a woman. If it were me it would mean a hell of a lot of pain for whoever tried.
Murder gets you death? I agree.
War? If you are defending, ok. If you instigate? You get whats coming.
Andreal
08-18-2005, 12:57 AM
I think murder is the unnecessary killing of anything alive. Human animal or whatever, if there was no real reasonable purpose, its murder.
Killing another living being because it was trying to kill you wouldn't be murder. And I believe that would cover wars, due to the fact that more often then not, the people sent to another country aren't the leaders that decided to send them in the first place, and if they don't fight, they will die. Defenders, are just fighting to defend their lives. Note: I consider the insurgents in iraq, especially the ones that made decapitation videos, to be murderers. That was unnecessary killing as they protected noone.
Killing an animal for food isn't murder, because thats survival.
So basically, kill to survive, but if its not for protection of yourself or others then its murder.
As for the death penalty, murderers should be taken off the streets. They could escape prison, and I see the death penalty as protecting others, preemptively. Will every murderer escape and kill again? No. Is it a possibility? Anything is possible.
it means what it says do not murder. Killing and murder are fare different.
Andreal
08-18-2005, 01:07 AM
Murdering someone means you killed someone everytime. However, killing someone doesn't mean you murdered someone everytime.
Its like.. Murder always equals killing, but killing doesn't always equal murder.
The same, but not the same.
You get what I mean, right?
Bobmuhthol
08-18-2005, 01:12 AM
True statement:
If you murder someone, then you kill them.
Contrapositive (true):
If you do not kill someone, then you do not murder them.
Not necessarily true or false statements:
If you kill someone, then you murder them. (Converse)
If you do not murder someone, then you do not kill them. (Negation)
I hope that helps your point, Andreal.
Murder, I believe, can not be justified. It can be explained, it can have reason behind it, but it is not the wisest choice for the situation.
[Edited on 8-18-2005 by Bobmuhthol]
StrayRogue
08-18-2005, 01:13 AM
No one should have the right to take another human being's life. Call it murder, killing whatever. It's wrong.
Andreal
08-18-2005, 01:15 AM
Stray, you saying that if someone was going to kill you, you have no right to take their life?
StrayRogue
08-18-2005, 01:16 AM
A classic line from a good film:
It's a hell of a thing, ain't it, killin' a man. You take everythin' he's got... an' everythin' he's ever gonna have...
StrayRogue
08-18-2005, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Andreal
Stray, you saying that if someone was going to kill you, you have no right to take their life?
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Killing someone because they're trying to kill me makes me better than them how?
Bobmuhthol
08-18-2005, 01:19 AM
You're defending your own right to live.
StrayRogue
08-18-2005, 01:22 AM
Why then would I have to kill him?
I see the little game you're trying to play. Self defense blah blah blah. It still doesn't make it any better or any more justifiable.
It's no ones "right" to kill anyone. It may be my perogotive to survive which may result in the death of my attacker, but it didn't make it my right to do so.
[Edited on 18-8-05 by StrayRogue]
Bobmuhthol
08-18-2005, 01:35 AM
<<Why then would I have to kill him?>>
Because you have no other means to stop him and/or he died in the process?
<<I see the little game you're trying to play. Self defense blah blah blah. It still doesn't make it any better or any more justifiable.>>
Saying you're defending your right to live is just as much of a game as saying you're not allowed to kill anyone under any circumstances.
<<It's no ones "right" to kill anyone. It may be my perogotive to survive which may result in the death of my attacker, but it didn't make it my right to do so.>>
Nobody is trying to pass off a justified killing as a rightful killing. I don't think anyone in this discussion is going to try to persuade you that killing someone is a good thing. It's merely a necessary one.
Andreal
08-18-2005, 01:39 AM
I think the right to self preservation supercedes the rights of others to live. Basic instinct tells you that. Because we are humans and have a better than average brain, we have such things as honor and dignity.
And I'm drunk so, someone else pick up before I type stupid things.
Bobmuhthol
08-18-2005, 01:54 AM
Andreal's post makes me think of what would happen if you were ever in a situation where you were being attacked, Stay. You might not think that taking another's life is ever an acceptable action, but if it meant you dying or your homeless, druggie assailant dying, would you really choose to die?
This is a situation where one of you has to die. To prevent any answers about how you would stop him without killing him or would kill him but be against your actions or whatever, refer to my previous posts. No one is saying that killing another person is a good thing.
Ravenstorm
08-18-2005, 01:57 AM
I see it as a very simple question myself.
Everyone starts out with a right to live. That right, however, can be forfeited by one's own actions. The quickest and easiest way to forfeit that right is to needlessly and sadistically remove that right from one or more other people.
Most if not all mass murderers fall into this category. Killing them does not make anyone better or worse than them. They should not be killed as a punishment. They should be killed like putting down a rabid dog. For the good of whomever they might hurt next - and being imprisoned doesn't suddenly make them safe. They should be killed quickly and cleanly, removed from society without rancor for the simple reason that we do not need that type of person on this world.
The same applies on a personal level. If someone is attempting to remove your right to live, you have the option of removing theirs if that's called for. No onus rests on the one who took a life to save one who has done nothing to forfeit their right.
That's the difference between killing and murder: intent and circumstance.
That's this liberals POV.
Raven
Farquar
08-18-2005, 02:07 AM
The issue of self-defense involved subtle discinctions that most fail to grasp. People believe that if someone attacks you, you can kill them. That isn't neccessarily the case. Think of self-defense as both a sliding scale and a deterrent.
Self-defense is rooted in the idea of proportionate force. If someone uses X amount of force on you, you are permitted to resepond with similar force. Presumbly, someone trying to kill you is using the theoretical maximum amount of force one can use. Thus, you are allowed to respond with the same maximum amount of force. Are you given legal license to kill? No. All the law says is that you're permitted to use equivalent force in defense while in the heat of the moment, and if the attacker dies, that is an unfortunate but justified consequence. There exist factors in each event that can award or revoke the self-defense privilege.
Let's say someone shoots at you, then drops the gun, and runs away. Then you grab a shotgun, hop in your car, and drive around till you find the guy and shoot him back. You will probably be held liable for murder.
Self defense also exists as a deterrent, which is arguably the more important purpuse. If an attacker knows that victim can strike back with the same force, then attacker is less likely to proceed with the act. The law puts potential killers on notice that their own life is possibly forfeit should they proceed with the attack.
Originally posted by StrayRogue
No one should have the right to take another human being's life. Call it murder, killing whatever. It's wrong.
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and -- thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. [People] that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.
-Robert Heinlein
[Edited on 8-18-2005 by Drew]
Originally posted by Farquar
The issue of self-defense involved subtle discinctions that most fail to grasp. People believe that if someone attacks you, you can kill them. That isn't neccessarily the case. Think of self-defense as both a sliding scale and a deterrent.
Not in Florida!
Farquar
08-18-2005, 02:19 AM
Notwithstanding the fact that Florida is on the cutting edge of American jurisprudence (sarcasm), I believe even the Florida law requires the attack to be life-threatening before the self-defense privilege triggers. I doubt that you'd have the right to shoot someone who attacks you with a giant foam finger, even in Florida.
Originally posted by Farquar
Notwithstanding the fact that Florida is on the cutting edge of American jurisprudence (sarcasm), I believe even the Florida law requires the attack to be life-threatening before the self-defense privilege triggers. I doubt that you'd have the right to shoot someone who attacks you with a giant foam finger, even in Florida.
I generally agree with your earlier post but if someone is coming after me with a knife and I have my shotgun handy (rather than it's current location, disassembled in a closet) you can bet your ass I'm going to put a round in them rather than try and club them with the shotgun. If they came after me with a baseball bat? I'd probably try to shoot them in the leg. If they came after me with fists, of course I've got Jack Johnson and Tom O'Leary ready to throw down fisticuffs.
The way I see it, if someone is geniunely threatening my life they lose the right to have me try to match their level of threat fairly. In the previous example of a guy coming after me with a knife, and I have both a gun and knife handy, I will pull out the gun. They are the ones who started this situation, if it was not for them I would not have a good chance of being killed and I don't think someone who does that deserves special consideration.
That's why I'm a staunch supporter of the Florida law. "Flee first"? Hell no, I'm not going to present my back as an easy target. If someone is stupid enough to threaten someone elses life the law shouldn't constrain the victim of the situation into a more vulnerable position.
All that being said, all the hypotheticals I've just listed involves being face to face with the criminal. If I hear some robber in my house I'm not gonna go down there guns blazing no questions asked (even though in just about any state in the Union you can get away with that in your own home) first things first is I'm gonna rack the shotgun, because that is a very threatening sound, then I'm going to yell something along the lines of "I have a gun and I will shoot. I've already called the cops!" Hopefully, if they are smart, they will flee because I have no desire to kill anyone.
I agree that proportionate force is a measuring stick for self defense; however, I dont believe it applies to all circumstances.
Millions of scenarios exist that can demonstrate justifying or non-justification. So I'll refrain from painting a picture.
My basic principal is that if I perceive that my life and the life of my family is at imminent risk (based on my perception as a sound minded individual because rationale goes out the window if you are being attacked) then I will use whatever means are available to neutralize the threat.
The key is being of sound mind, perception of the threat, imminent life endangerment, and the using of what means are available to neutralize the life threat.
Latrinsorm
08-18-2005, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
A human shall not kill another human, forget animals because we need to eat. And bugs because they try to eat us.:yeahthat:
Bob's totally right about the difference between morally right and necessary. I don't think people describe self-defense killing or the death penalty as murder because it's unnecessarily inflammatory, but I don't think it's an inaccurate description.
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Bob's totally right about the difference between morally right and necessary. I don't think people describe self-defense killing or the death penalty as murder because it's unnecessarily inflammatory, but I don't think it's an inaccurate description.
But it's not murder...it's self-defense. The intent behind each action is completely different.
And Stray, do you really believe that? I don't think you do, I just think you are talking out of your ass.
Should a guy that shoots an armed burglar in his house be prosecuted for defending his family? Who is that guy to take the burglar's life? Does he think he is BETTER than the burglar!!!???
I dunno, I just think it's an assinine opinion unless you are living in fantasyland.
Warriorbird
08-18-2005, 10:48 AM
I suppose it's from growing up in the South, but I'm with the conservatives here. I won't hesitate to use weapons for home defense. I don't try to coat it in Christian morality however. It isn't.
I couldn't stop thinking about the dude who was shot dead by the cops in our subway.
It seems all the evidence the police used or claimed to have was either fabricated or has now disapeared.
11 shots fired while he was in his seat.
7 in the head, 3 misses, 1 in the shoulder.
The first shot was alledgedly from point blank to the side of the head.
Thou shalt not kill was just a nice embellishement to an epic and very old story.
It means nothing now.
Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
Should a guy that shoots an armed burglar in his house be prosecuted for defending his family? Who is that guy to take the burglar's life? Does he think he is BETTER than the burglar!!!???
I for one will not stop to ask said burglar if they are armed or if they arent if they are inside my home in the middle of the night. Worst case scenario is automatically perceived, that he is armed and dangerous, and that his intentions are to hurt myself or my family, either as the end goal or as the means to his end goal. That is when firearms, yay 2nd amendment, will be employed. Will I shoot to kill? My training dictates that I aim for center mass, if that kills then so be it. Will I regret taking a life, of course. But when those 30 seconds are up I will be thankful that I had the ability to protect and defend my family against harms way. And I will continue to be thankful for every additional minute I spend with my family because I was able to prevent harm from befalling us.
Skirmisher
08-18-2005, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by StrayRogue
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Killing someone because they're trying to kill me makes me better than them how?
It makes you alive.
If i'm faced with a choice of killing someone who is trying to kill me or dying, well then sorry but they lose.
Latrinsorm
08-18-2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
But it's not murder...it's self-defense. The intent behind each action is completely different.If you want to define murder that way, great. I happened to bring a new Bible into the library today, and I looked up the passage. It's listed as murder, with a footnote "or kill". Seems to me the Bible's definition disagrees with yours, and we are talking about the Bible here.
I dunno, I just think it's an assinine opinion unless you are living in fantasyland.Again, we're arguing what's Right and Wrong, not what's Necessary. That's why the word "shall" is there. One of the saddest indictments of humanity that I'm aware of is that things like murder, war, and theft are actually necessary.
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If you want to define murder that way, great. I happened to bring a new Bible into the library today, and I looked up the passage. It's listed as murder, with a footnote "or kill". Seems to me the Bible's definition disagrees with yours, and we are talking about the Bible here.
I disagree with your premise that because your new Bible has a footnote "or kill", that it means that according to the Bible killing and murder are identical.
I will grant that murder involves killing. I'll also grant that self-defense involves killing. I don't agree that because they both involve killing, they are morally equivalent, which seemed to be Backlash's* original premise.
*Oops, looks like Backlash's approach is pretty level headed...it was Stray with the :hippie: talk.
[Edited on 8-18-2005 by Tea & Strumpets]
Andreal
08-18-2005, 01:28 PM
If the bible was translated exactly from its greek version (As it was to Latin) to English, it would say murder. There is no mention of Thou shalt not kill, its thou shalt not commit murder.
It is a commandment filled with contradiction if based solely on the factors described within. Don't kill, plain and simple. Right, not gonna happen and hasn't not been happening since biblical times. The perils of Moses and Pharoah as well as his first-born speak greatly of this and serve as examples of the intended meaning.
The statement is intended to morally protect the killing of INNOCENTS and well as unjustified killing.
Originally posted by Ganalon
I for one will not stop to ask said burglar if they are armed or if they arent if they are inside my home in the middle of the night. Worst case scenario is automatically perceived, that he is armed and dangerous, and that his intentions are to hurt myself or my family, either as the end goal or as the means to his end goal. That is when firearms, yay 2nd amendment, will be employed. Will I shoot to kill? My training dictates that I aim for center mass, if that kills then so be it. Will I regret taking a life, of course. But when those 30 seconds are up I will be thankful that I had the ability to protect and defend my family against harms way. And I will continue to be thankful for every additional minute I spend with my family because I was able to prevent harm from befalling us.
Interesting... my 1st thought would be, how do I get my family away from this situation rather than wheres my rifle I need to confront it.
Warriorbird
08-18-2005, 02:18 PM
The implication of the Dead Sea Scroll version comes across more as "end a life." (and that's older than the Greek). With that said, theoretically righteous wars occur in the Bible. If you believe in a new covanent, you'd theoretically ideally be about pure love, but we've all seen how that can get twisted around over the centuries. Picking and choosing parts of the Old Testament always struck me as patently ridiculous.
Latrinsorm
08-18-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by DeV
Right, not gonna happen and hasn't not been happening since biblical times. You could say that about any commandment or law that has ever been made (with the substitution of "time of creation" for "biblical times" for things like e-fraud and grand theft auto).
The perils of Moses and Pharoah as well as his first-born speak greatly of this and serve as examples of the intended meaning.As we already know, Moses wasn't perfect (neither were Aaron, Samuel, Isaiah, etc.).
Originally posted by Andreal
If the bible was translated exactly Translation is not now, nor has it ever been an exact science.
Originally posted by Tea and Strumpets
I don't agree that because they both involve killing, they are morally equivalent, which seemed to be Backlash's* original premise. I did not state that they were morally equivalent, I stated that they were morally wrong. Similarly, when I say a human will not float and an apple will not float (it comes up more often than you'd think), I'm not saying they have equal buoyancy. My premise was that for the purposes of the Commandment (solely because that's all I was citing) murder and killing are considered interchangeably forbidden in the Bible I had (I think it was a new copy of the New Revised Standard).
Gridlock
08-18-2005, 02:46 PM
Last week a friend of mine shot a guy 3 times. The guy was the ex husband of his wife.The kids they had had been with him visting.He flew them back to texas my friend and his wife picked them up. After they had left the ex husband took a cab to the town they lived.That night he came to there house and started trying to kick in the slideing glass window they called the cops. The cops couldnt find the ex husband. The cops told my friend if he had a gun and the guy got in the house to defend him self. Later that night my friend was asleep in the livingroom and heard the guy beating on the window of there bedroom where his wife was.The guy broke the window and started yelling im gona fucking kill you (his wives name) im gona fuckin kill all you .Then he started throwing glass at her from out of the window. At the point my friend looked at his choices #1 pool Q #2 gun he took the gun the main reason is if he took the pool Q and lost the fight there is a gun the guy can kill em all with.I told em if he lost guy wouldnt need a gun to kill em. So he took the gun by that time the guy was in the house his wife had ran out of the room. He started throwing glass atmy friend then picked a piece up and told em he was gona cut his fucking throat. So my buddy tells him several times to leave and the guy just keep comeing toward him.
My buddie shoots him in each arm the guy falls down gets back up and charges my buddy when he on him my buddy shoots and hits him in the throat.
I guess stray rogue would just let the guy kill him his wife and the two kids.
Originally posted by Tijay
Originally posted by Ganalon
I for one will not stop to ask said burglar if they are armed or if they arent if they are inside my home in the middle of the night. Worst case scenario is automatically perceived, that he is armed and dangerous, and that his intentions are to hurt myself or my family, either as the end goal or as the means to his end goal. That is when firearms, yay 2nd amendment, will be employed. Will I shoot to kill? My training dictates that I aim for center mass, if that kills then so be it. Will I regret taking a life, of course. But when those 30 seconds are up I will be thankful that I had the ability to protect and defend my family against harms way. And I will continue to be thankful for every additional minute I spend with my family because I was able to prevent harm from befalling us.
Interesting... my 1st thought would be, how do I get my family away from this situation rather than wheres my rifle I need to confront it.
By including my quote in your post are you inferring that reaching for my firearm is my first thought? Perhaps you could be a bit clearer?
Let me help you clarify my position. My first thought would be to get the wife and child to a secure location within the house, and at the same time (because humans can multi-task) I would also be obtaining a firearm if (IF being the optimal word) I had the time to do so. Strategically my firearms are kept in a locked safe in the same place that I would hide the other family members.
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
You could say that about any commandment or law that has ever been made (with the substitution of "time of creation" for "biblical times" for things like e-fraud and grand theft auto).No shit, that’s why I worded the sentence the way I did. It is wishful thinking on those who believe that God really intended for no one to ever die at the hands of another.
As we already know, Moses wasn't perfect (neither were Aaron, Samuel, Isaiah, etc.). No shit, again. Thanks for clearing that up for those who didn’t already know this. :thumbsup:
Latrinsorm
08-18-2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by DeV
It is wishful thinking on those who believe that God really intended for no one to ever die at the hands of another.Whereas I would say it's talk like that that is the direct cause of the problem continuing.
Thanks You're welcome! :)
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Whereas I would say it's talk like that that is the direct cause of the problem continuing.Dream on. You support talk like that. Oh the hyprocricy I mean humanity... :lol:
You're welcome! :) And don't I know it. :grin:
Gridlock
08-18-2005, 03:08 PM
i just got accused of lookin at porn cause of Devs pic
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
My premise was that for the purposes of the Commandment (solely because that's all I was citing) murder and killing are considered interchangeably forbidden in the Bible I had (I think it was a new copy of the New Revised Standard).
Well...I'll concede that your Bible has that asterik and the "or kill" at the bottom of the page, but that's really irrelevant. My point is that the commandment is referring to murder, not any time one human being is killed by another regardless of circumstances.
Parkbandit
08-18-2005, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by StrayRogue
No one should have the right to take another human being's life. Call it murder, killing whatever. It's wrong.
Someone comes into my house.. rapes and kills my wife.. and I walk in.
Tell me I don't have a right... because I sure as hell know I'll be taking it.
Landrion
08-18-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
So what does this mean to you?
This is what it means to me. A human shall not kill another human, forget animals because we need to eat. And bugs because they try to eat us.
I think if someone or something tries to kill you then you are justified in killing them to stop them from killing you. But thats it. I don’t think stealing justifies killing. Rape? Ask a woman. If it were me it would mean a hell of a lot of pain for whoever tried.
Murder gets you death? I agree.
War? If you are defending, ok. If you instigate? You get whats coming.
Im not sure if you want to discuss the moral implications or the legal ones.
Legally, I dont have interest in prosecuting crime victims. If a criminal breaks into someone's house they are taking their own chances. If someone chooses to respond with deadly force in defense of their own property and family, I am not interested in jailing them or punishing them in any way.
Morally, Id rather not hurt someone if I can help it. If I feel seriously threatened I would rather escape or incapacitate than kill. Id be less rational if my son were involved - which is natural. I would probably feel guilty if I had to hurt someone - even if they instigated it. Id wonder if I could have avoided or prevented the situation. I think I would rather give a mugger my wallet than risk either of us being injured. Maybe thats strange. Im not involved in a war, I dont know how that feels. I imagine you do what you have to.
Originally posted by Ganalon
By including my quote in your post are you inferring that reaching for my firearm is my first thought? Perhaps you could be a bit clearer?
Let me help you clarify my position. My first thought would be to get the wife and child to a secure location within the house, and at the same time (because humans can multi-task) I would also be obtaining a firearm if (IF being the optimal word) I had the time to do so. Strategically my firearms are kept in a locked safe in the same place that I would hide the other family members.
I can't tell you what would happen anymore than you could tell me what would happen in this parameterless hypothetical situation, mainly because there are limitless variables and parameters that aren't worth getting into. My point was, as someone who doesn't own a firearm because I don't see it as a necessity, that I would like to think that my 1st thought would be to remove myself and my loved ones from the situation and not how do I remove them in a manner or route that allows me to get my gun, or how can I confront the situation.
Anyway it wasn't my intention to pass judgement on you, you have your way of doing things and I have mine, and since no two situations are alike and since there is no real situation at hand here it's not possible to say that one is any better than the other. I just find it interesting that where ones guns are is consisdered a concern.
[Edited on 8-18-2005 by Tijay]
Latrinsorm
08-18-2005, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by DeV
You support talk like that.By saying nobody should ever kill another I support the idea that God intended for the opposite to be the case? :?:
Tea and Strumpets:?::?: How can what a Bible says be irrelevant to what the Commandment is?
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
How can what a Bible says be irrelevant to what the Commandment is?
I said that the fact that your Bible has the asterisk with "or kill" is irrelevant. I've said repeatedly that I believe you about the asterisk... My point is that it's referring to murder.
You seem to be arguing semantics. By your 10 Commandments, killing time is strictly forbidden.
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Originally posted by DeV
You support talk like that.By saying nobody should ever kill another I support the idea that God intended for the opposite to be the case? :?:Sure. :!:
Originally posted by Tijay
I just find it interesting that where ones guns are is consisdered a concern.
Because they are an option of neutralizing or at least equalizing the level of engagement of the aggressor. I'm not 10 feet tall and bullettproof, nor am I the ninja father from doom; therefore I will arm myself accordingly while ensuring primary objective of defense/protection is achieved. Once teleporters are invented where we can just teleport ourselves to safety, then I will consider firearms an antiquity of more barbarian times. Too bad the Gemstone method of HIDING in plain sight only works online. :lol:
Tisket
08-18-2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Latrinsorom My premise was that for the purposes of the Commandment (solely because that's all I was citing) murder and killing are considered interchangeably forbidden in the Bible I had (I think it was a new copy of the New Revised Standard).
You are so full of shit Latrinsorm. Well-intentioned shit but shit nonetheless. You seem to have your very own special little bible. This being the case I have cited a couple of actual bible passages from the standard King James version.
The bible permits self-defense but restricts an individual's right to fight for his property. Bloodguilt came upon a person who, though catching a thief in the act of breaking into his home, killed the lawbreaker in the daytime. This was evidently because thievery did not carry the death penalty, and the thief could be identified and brought to justice. At night, however, it would be difficult to see what one was doing and to ascertain the intentions of an intruder. The person killing an intruder in the dark was considered guiltless. Ex 22:2,3
Sidenote: According to the bible God AUTHORIZED capital punishment: Genesis 9:6
Skirmisher
08-18-2005, 05:01 PM
To anyone who says it is wrong to EVER kill.
I'll take for an example the BTK killer.
One of his victims, I think the lone survivor, was a young man of 19 when the sick excuse for a human that is that murderer broke in and i believe had tied up his sister and him. He was able to somehow get free and in trying to defend his sister attacked the killer. He was able to win BTK's gun from him and pulled the trigger twice and for whatever reason it did not go off. The killer overcame the much smaller young man and took the gun back shooting him twice in the head. The boy still managed to somehow struggle up and out while the serial murderer killed his sister.
Are you going to try to tell me that that young man would have been in ANY way wrong to have killed that man while defending his sister and himself?
Originally posted by Skirmisher
To anyone who says it is wrong to EVER kill.
I'll take for an example the BTK killer.
One of his victims, I think the lone survivor, was a young man of 19 when the sick excuse for a human that is that murderer broke in and i believe had tied up his sister and him. He was able to somehow get free and in trying to defend his sister attacked the killer. He was able to win BTK's gun from him and pulled the trigger twice and for whatever reason it did not go off. The killer overcame the much smaller young man and took the gun back shooting him twice in the head. The boy still managed to somehow struggle up and out while the serial murderer killed his sister.
Are you going to try to tell me that that young man would have been in ANY way wrong to have killed that man while defending his sister and himself?
Gah...
That just made me sick to my stomach.
- Arkans
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 05:21 PM
MMMmmmmm.... I love living in Florida where I can BLAST ANYONE that is a threat of great bodily harm to myself or anyone else.
I almost had to blast a crazed crack whore one night.. lucky for her I had sneakers on that night and outran her. Flip flop night might be another story.
SIG SAUER P229 .357 AUTO BABY... break into my house please.
Latrinsorm
08-18-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
You seem to be arguing semantics. By your 10 Commandments, killing time is strictly forbidden.I reckon by using murder and kill interchangeably, they made the target of the action pretty clear. Isn't arguing what a word means semantics by definition?
Originally posted by Tisket
This being the case I have cited a couple of actual bible passages from the standard King James version.You should probably do some (or more) research on the ol' King James before deciding its the most reliable version out there.
Sidenote: According to the bible God AUTHORIZED capital punishment: Genesis 9:6 According to the Bible, God authorized divorce. We all know how that turned out. :)
Originally posted by Skirmisher
To anyone who says it is wrong to EVER kill.A choice being the best alternative doesn't make it right, it makes it necessary. What we CAN agree upon is a situation such as you described should never occur in the first place, and what we MIGHT agree on is that it is our duty as humans to ensure that it doesn't.
I’m not exactly convinced there is a difference between murder and killing when applied to humankind. Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
The only difference I can see in definition is the word law or unlawfully. Forget about the bible for a minute and live in the world of humans. If humans were to decide by majority that you could lawfully kill someone because they spit on your shoe would that make it justified? An extreme example I know, but given humans bizarre behaviour at times, not altogether outside the realm of possibility.
Some say killing an innocent life is murder. Lets apply this rationalization to war. If soldiers can kill each other and its not murder then none are innocent. Lets also talk about civilian casualty, or collateral damage. How is it that the real innocents of a conflict die but its ok because its war?
I can make exceptions to what I feel is appropriate, and in doing so rationalize the taking of a life. In some cases even thinking that the taking of another humans life is a good thing for the rest of humanity. Its a huge conflict for me because life to me is the most precious thing about, well, life!
Unfortunately for me, there are those out there who do not agree and would like to see me die, perhaps even horribly. What does a person like myself do in this kind of world? The answer is simple and you don’t even need to be a human to figure it out. Survive by all means. And what is that part of the equation of life that demands survival? Its part of nature’s plan, life’s formula. I will concede to nature before man’s or supposedly God’s will.
Skirmisher
08-18-2005, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Latrinsorm
A choice being the best alternative doesn't make it right, it makes it necessary. What we CAN agree upon is a situation such as you described should never occur in the first place, and what we MIGHT agree on is that it is our duty as humans to ensure that it doesn't.
When you find a society where such things never happen let me know.
Till then I'll feel completely comfortable protecting myself by any means available to me and not feel somehow constrained by a utopian daydream.
Darwin theories were not without merit regarding survival and adaptation of humans, animals and the like.
Even if they do fly in the face of most religions.
Tisket
08-18-2005, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by LatrinsormYou should probably do some (or more) research on the ol' King James before deciding its the most reliable version out there.
Oh I forgot, you are god's mouthpiece on the PC. How silly of me.
Gridlock
08-18-2005, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
I’m not exactly convinced there is a difference between murder and killing when applied to humankind. Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
No its not . 1 the guys in his house unlawfully its not murder 2. he'd have to know exactly when the guy was coming and who it was for it to be premeditated.
Delirium
08-18-2005, 07:43 PM
Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
How would that be premeditated murder? Id assume most people buy guns for hunting or protection. Does that mean anyone in the later category is premeditating murder in your mind? He doesnt know someone will break in and possibly harm his family, he just wants the option of protecting himself.
I suppose if the guy purposely made his house attractive to burglers and had a secret agenda to "invite" said burgler just so he would have a chance at shooting someone then *maybe* you might have something.
I dont understand how Latrin can say the bible says there is no difference between murder and killing. Regardless of what his particular bible says every third crime in the bible the punishment is being stoned to death or some other thing that would result in being killed.
Hopefully, the reader can discern, even without further discussion, a clear and very important difference in meaning between these renderings. And it should be pointed out emphatically, that lexicographers of Biblical Hebrew routinely confirm that the latter, more granular rendition of the Hebrew verb in question (&#1512;&#1510;&#1495;) is absolutely preferred and intended as "murder." [ By way of further confirmation of this matter, it may be pointed out here that the Greek Septuagint translators (over 2000 years ago) understood the subtlties of this verse as well in that they too translated the Hebrew verb in question with the corresponding Greek verb for murder: ( foneuw )]
Thus, as can be seen here, due to early imprecise translation of the verb in question as "kill," many have, over the centuries, boldly (and incorrectly) espoused the notion that killing a human being (or in extreme cases, killing any living thing!) is categorically (and biblically) wrong. Such is not the case however, for the following simple reason:
If this view is to be taken, then one must deal with the glaring inconsistency which results when one reads the clear Biblical injunction that murderers themselves (for disobeying the very law being discussed) are to be put to death. (Numbers 35:16-21)
Therefore, the more precise translation indicated above puts a totally different light on this matter and makes it clear to the reader that it is murder which is categorically (and biblically) wrong, AND, according to divine mandate, must be punished by execution (i.e., [sanctioned] killing) under duly appointed civil authority. This, by the way, is why such authority "bears the sword" - by divine decree - according to the apostle Paul. (Romans 13:1-4; cf, Exodus 21:12,14)
Some webpage i googled and quoted.
Tisket
08-18-2005, 07:46 PM
Jesus, don't you know that if you post a long response to Latrinsorm he is going to quote EACH LINE SEPARATELY. Even when he doesn't actually say anything about what he is quoting....
Originally posted by Delirium
Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
How would that be premeditated murder? Id assume most people buy guns for hunting or protection. Does that mean anyone in the later category is premeditating murder in your mind? He doesnt know someone will break in and possibly harm his family, he just wants the option of protecting himself.
I suppose if the guy purposely made his house attractive to burglers and had a secret agenda to "invite" said burgler just so he would have a chance at shooting someone then *maybe* you might have something.
This is where intent comes into play. The man with the gun knowing the laws of our society may actually have the intent to kill in his mind. A man who buys a gun and says “I’ll kill any mother fucker who breaks into my house and I hope they do” definitely is premeditating murder. The man with the gun in his house does not know the intent of the man breaking in.
Gridlock
08-18-2005, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Delirium
Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
How would that be premeditated murder? Id assume most people buy guns for hunting or protection. Does that mean anyone in the later category is premeditating murder in your mind? He doesnt know someone will break in and possibly harm his family, he just wants the option of protecting himself.
I suppose if the guy purposely made his house attractive to burglers and had a secret agenda to "invite" said burgler just so he would have a chance at shooting someone then *maybe* you might have something.
This is where intent comes into play. The man with the gun knowing the laws of our society may actually have the intent to kill in his mind. A man who buys a gun and says “I’ll kill any mother fucker who breaks into my house and I hope they do” definitely is premeditating murder. The man with the gun in his house does not know the intent of the man breaking in.
Dude are you just plain retarded or what?
Doyle Hargraves
08-18-2005, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by StrayRogue
Originally posted by Andreal
Stray, you saying that if someone was going to kill you, you have no right to take their life?
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
If someone was trying to kill you and your only way out of it was to kill them, you seriously would just stand there and die?
You're either full of shit or a gigantic pussy.
Killing someone because they're trying to kill me makes me better than them how?
If you can't figure that out, you're also stupid.
No offense.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Doyle Hargraves]
Originally posted by Doyle Hargraves
Originally posted by StrayRogue
Originally posted by Andreal
Stray, you saying that if someone was going to kill you, you have no right to take their life?
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
If someone was trying to kill you and your only way out of it was to kill them, you seriously would just stand there and die?
You're either full of shit or a gigantic pussy.
Killing someone because they're trying to kill me makes me better than them how?
If you can't figure that out, you're also stupid.
No offense.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Doyle Hargraves]
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
Gridlock
08-18-2005, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Doyle Hargraves
Originally posted by StrayRogue
Originally posted by Andreal
Stray, you saying that if someone was going to kill you, you have no right to take their life?
Yes, that is what I'm saying.
If someone was trying to kill you and your only way out of it was to kill them, you seriously would just stand there and die?
You're either full of shit or a gigantic pussy.
Killing someone because they're trying to kill me makes me better than them how?
If you can't figure that out, you're also stupid.
No offense.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Doyle Hargraves]
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
Wrong. 1 you can repent sins 2 who says the person who was murdered was a innocent good person.
Backlash your definitely not a biblical scholar your interpretation of the bible and religious knowledge is probably the worst I've ever seen from someone given there opinion of it. Come down to TCU and take some classes please.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Gridlock]
Doyle Hargraves
08-18-2005, 08:58 PM
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
Since you're going biblical, I'm pretty sure God is smart enough to know the difference between murdering somebody and killing someone in self-defense.
I'm pretty sure God would classify attempted murder as a sin, so the guy's still going to hell regardless.
Though I think it's a bit ridiculous to base the difference between "killing" and "murder" on a really old story that may or may not be true anyway.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and the repent thing Gridlock mentioned, too.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Doyle Hargraves]
Latrinsorm
08-18-2005, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Tisket
Oh I forgot, you are god's mouthpiece on the PC. How silly of me.Dude, 1611??? Come on!
Jesus, don't you know that if you post a long response to Latrinsorm he is going to quote EACH LINE SEPARATELY.Well yeah. That way you know specifically what I'm talking about.
Even when he doesn't actually say anything about what he is quoting....While there are certainly times I'm not saying much at all, I don't think that occurs often enough in splinter quote mode to justify such a remark. Not that one is required to justify baseless allegations on the PC, as I'm sure you've seen by now.
Originally posted by Delirium
Regardless of what his particular bible says every third crime in the bible the punishment is being stoned to death or some other thing that would result in being killed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: humans aren't and weren't perfect. Jews are and were human.
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 09:47 PM
"Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?"
I'd say he is premeditating DEFENSE of his life and his family.
Do you want my address?
Originally posted by Doyle Hargraves
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
Since you're going biblical, I'm pretty sure God is smart enough to know the difference between murdering somebody and killing someone in self-defense.
I'm pretty sure God would classify attempted murder as a sin, so the guy's still going to hell regardless.
Though I think it's a bit ridiculous to base the difference between "killing" and "murder" on a really old story that may or may not be true anyway.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and the repent thing Gridlock mentioned, too.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Doyle Hargraves]
Thank you, Doyle. Thats really the point. Yes, society has the law of thou shalt not murder/kill, and it coincides with biblical text from every religion. Yet we insist there are ways around it.
Originally posted by Xyelin
"Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?"
I'd say he is premeditating DEFENSE of his life and his family.
Do you want my address?
In asking that question about your address, which I think we all know what that means, biblically you would be a man intent on murder.
Come to think of it, you’d be considered a sociopath by modern society as well.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Backlash]
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Doyle Hargraves
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
Since you're going biblical, I'm pretty sure God is smart enough to know the difference between murdering somebody and killing someone in self-defense.
I'm pretty sure God would classify attempted murder as a sin, so the guy's still going to hell regardless.
Though I think it's a bit ridiculous to base the difference between "killing" and "murder" on a really old story that may or may not be true anyway.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and the repent thing Gridlock mentioned, too.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Doyle Hargraves]
Thank you, Doyle. Thats really the point. Yes, society has the law of thou shalt not murder/kill, and it coincides with biblical text from every religion. Yet we insist there are ways around it.
You mean That's but what's the point again?
Oh the bible is a handbook for living. Some crazy old man went up into the mountains to enter the spacecraft that followed them around for years and came back down with Thou shall not kill. Seriously do you think the aliens knew hebrew or maybe they would have a more efficient means of writing down the commandments rather than captain caveman style??
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Xyelin
"Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?"
I'd say he is premeditating DEFENSE of his life and his family.
Do you want my address?
In asking that question about your address, which I think we all know what that means, biblically you would be a man intent on murder.
Come to think of it, you’d be considered a sociopath by modern society as well.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Backlash]
Actually I was just inviting you over for some hawt guy on guy (love your moustachio <3) but what modern society considers me is all relative.
While you're at it.. define obscenity and explain dinosaurs in relation to creationism and the bible.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Xyelin]
Originally posted by Backlash
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
From a Baptist perspective... Thou shalt not kill represents the Law of Moses and the old testament. That law was negated with the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Saying that Biblicaly you will go to Hell because you've comitted murder is false because of the law of Christ as reflected in the New Testament. You might want to review John 3:16.
I'm not anywhere near the biblical scholar, and I tolerate my religious upbringing only to a certain extent, but even I know that.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Ganalon]
Originally posted by Xyelin
Actually I was just inviting you over for some hawt guy on guy (love your moustachio <3) but what modern society considers me is all relative.
While you're at it.. define obscenity and explain dinosaurs in relation to creationism and the bible.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Xyelin]
You know, thats ok, man, really. If thats your thing. Live it up. I may come over if you have hot chicks around.
Obscenity and dinosaurs are not on fucking topic.
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Backlash
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
From a Baptist perspective... Thou shalt not kill represents the Law of Moses and the old testament. That law was negated with the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Saying that Biblicaly you will go to Hell because you've comitted murder is false because of the law of Christ as reflected in the New Testament. You might want to review John 3:16.
I'm not anywhere near the biblical scholar, and I tolerate my religious upbringing only to a certain extent, but even I know that.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Ganalon]
Bingo.
Doyle Hargraves
08-18-2005, 10:07 PM
Your avatar looks like Pee-Wee Herman with a wig.
Thought I'd point that out before I forgot.
<insert something on topic>
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Doyle Hargraves
Your avatar looks like Pee-Wee Herman with a wig.
Thought I'd point that out before I forgot.
<insert something on topic>
Yes it is very Femo is the new Screamo isn't it.
You make a very valid point in your theory of <insert something on topic>, however I must dispute the fact that <insert something on topic> really negates your premise in <insert something on topic> considering all that has transpired recently concerning <insert something on topic>.
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Backlash
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
From a Baptist perspective... Thou shalt not kill represents the Law of Moses and the old testament. That law was negated with the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Saying that Biblicaly you will go to Hell because you've comitted murder is false because of the law of Christ as reflected in the New Testament. You might want to review John 3:16.
I'm not anywhere near the biblical scholar, and I tolerate my religious upbringing only to a certain extent, but even I know that.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Ganalon]
I’m no biblical scholar, obviously... but what you said makes no rational sense at all. So Christ died and that makes murder ok? Why do so many religious people want to justify murder?
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Backlash
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
From a Baptist perspective... Thou shalt not kill represents the Law of Moses and the old testament. That law was negated with the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Saying that Biblicaly you will go to Hell because you've comitted murder is false because of the law of Christ as reflected in the New Testament. You might want to review John 3:16.
I'm not anywhere near the biblical scholar, and I tolerate my religious upbringing only to a certain extent, but even I know that.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Ganalon]
I’m no biblical scholar, obviously... but what you said makes no rational sense at all. So Christ died and that makes murder ok? Why do so many religious people want to justify murder?
Like he said.. Review John 3:16.
Blacklash you remind me of those holiday inn express commercials. "I'm no biblical scholar but I do pretend to be one on the PC"
Originally posted by Backlash
I’m not exactly convinced there is a difference between murder and killing when applied to humankind. Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
So ever soldier is a murder by your logic. Yet you support our troops who by the above logic are murderers. So you support murderers.
Think a bit before you make comments like that.
There is a line between killing and murder. Though thin, it is very important.
Originally posted by Dave
Originally posted by Backlash
I’m not exactly convinced there is a difference between murder and killing when applied to humankind. Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
So ever soldier is a murder by your logic. Yet you support our troops who by the above logic are murderers. So you support murderers.
Think a bit before you make comments like that.
There is a line between killing and murder. Though thin, it is very important.
Finally someone addresses the innocence part. Well Dave, what do you expect me to do? The people in the military of my country are my people. Again, I am rationalizing.
Perhaps you could explain to us what exactly that fine line is.
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Dave
Originally posted by Backlash
I’m not exactly convinced there is a difference between murder and killing when applied to humankind. Lets say a man buys a gun with the express purpose of killing anyone who enters his home unlawfully. Isn’t that man premeditating murder?
So ever soldier is a murder by your logic. Yet you support our troops who by the above logic are murderers. So you support murderers.
Think a bit before you make comments like that.
There is a line between killing and murder. Though thin, it is very important.
Finally someone addresses the innocence part. Well Dave, what do you expect me to do? The people in the military of my country are my people. Again, I am rationalizing.
Perhaps you could explain to us what exactly that fine line is.
This is your topic perhaps you should have the understanding and knowledge of said topic before making an ass out of yourself.
Originally posted by Xyelin
This is your topic perhaps you should have the understanding and knowledge of said topic before making an ass out of yourself.
I made the topic, but I don’t have a trademark or copyright on it.
HEY! Im the first one to say I make an ass out of myself here, not you!
Especially when so many people do it themselves.
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Backlash
I am not answering for Stray, but this is my take, IF we go biblical. The person who murders another will not enjoy the paradise of heaven. The victim will.
From a Baptist perspective... Thou shalt not kill represents the Law of Moses and the old testament. That law was negated with the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ. Saying that Biblicaly you will go to Hell because you've comitted murder is false because of the law of Christ as reflected in the New Testament. You might want to review John 3:16.
I'm not anywhere near the biblical scholar, and I tolerate my religious upbringing only to a certain extent, but even I know that.
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Ganalon]
I’m no biblical scholar, obviously... but what you said makes no rational sense at all. So Christ died and that makes murder ok? Why do so many religious people want to justify murder?
You've lost yourself again. Follow the quotes above and you'll see where you said biblicaly if you commit murder you will goto hell. I showed you John 3:16 says otherwise, biblicaly. Then you respond by saying Christ's death justifies murder? :?:
No, Christ's death does not justify murder. Christ's death, biblicaly, represents the way to heaven, regardless of what sins you've comitted, again from a biblical, christian, baptist perspective. This concept varies with other religions where heaven is achieved through good works instead of through Christ.
No where have I learned in my experience that Christ or his death justifies murdering or killing. He does represent forgiveness for it though.
Sean of the Thread
08-18-2005, 11:20 PM
You are dumb.
Originally posted by Ganalon
He does represent forgiveness for it though.
Nice out. So I can do whatever the fuck I want and because some dude died I can repent and go to heaven?
Heaven has ice cream and 72 virgins waiting for me, right?
I don’t know why I try to argue with people who are clinically insane... must be my morbid sense of humor.
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Ganalon
He does represent forgiveness for it though.
Nice out. So I can do whatever the fuck I want and because some dude died I can repent and go to heaven?
Heaven has ice cream and 72 virgins waiting for me, right?
I don’t know why I try to argue with people who are clinically insane... must be my morbid sense of humor.
LOL, you're a trip. the 72 virgins have no biblical relation. The view expressed in my previous post represent the teachings of Jesus Christ as reflected in the Bible. And you're inferring that I'm clinically insane because I'm schooling you in biblical (christian) religion 101 even though I've made no mention that its part of my own belief system is just plain ignorant and shallow.
In as much, I'll just leave you with the suggestion that you buy a fucking clue before you make judgements on people with topics you know nothing about. Your gift for gab does not intimate intelligence by a longshot.
Originally posted by Ganalon
LOL, you're a trip. the 72 virgins have no biblical relation. The view expressed in my previous post represent the teachings of Jesus Christ as reflected in the Bible. And you're inferring that I'm clinically insane because I'm schooling you in biblical (christian) religion 101 even though I've made no mention that its part of my own belief system is just plain ignorant and shallow.
In as much, I'll just leave you with the suggestion that you buy a fucking clue before you make judgements on people with topics you know nothing about. Your gift for gab does not intimate intelligence by a longshot.
So, please, enlighten us to the true path of righteousness if you know it. Some people might call you Bodisatva...
Just think of how many people you will save just but a post.
Gridlock
08-18-2005, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Ganalon
He does represent forgiveness for it though.
Nice out. So I can do whatever the fuck I want and because some dude died I can repent and go to heaven?
Heaven has <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=31&k=ice%20cream" onmouseover="window.status='ice cream'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">ice cream</a> and 72 virgins waiting for me, right?
I don’t know why I try to argue with people who are clinically insane... must be my morbid sense of humor.
no jackass if you dont repent in you heart and soul god will know and your repentance dont mean shit.
Gridlock
08-19-2005, 12:01 AM
Backlash are you angry at god?
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Ganalon
LOL, you're a trip. the 72 virgins have no biblical relation. The view expressed in my previous post represent the teachings of Jesus Christ as reflected in the Bible. And you're inferring that I'm clinically insane because I'm schooling you in biblical (christian) religion 101 even though I've made no mention that its part of my own belief system is just plain ignorant and shallow.
In as much, I'll just leave you with the suggestion that you buy a fucking clue before you make judgements on people with topics you know nothing about. Your gift for gab does not intimate intelligence by a longshot.
So, please, enlighten us to the true path of righteousness if you know it. Some people might call you Bodisatva...
Just think of how many people you will save just but a post.
You're barking up the wrong tree if you want saving. And its noble of you to want to save the world; however, I hate to tell you, the world does not want saving, and the world especially doesnt think you're esteemed enough to request anything on its behalf.
Additionally I've made no mention in my posts alluding to my desire to save the world - nice try at diversion though, unfortunately you're ignorance is still shining through like a beacon.
Oh, and the word you're looking for is: Bodhisattva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva). And I think you fit that bill more than I do. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Edited to add:
The last thing I care about whether or not my fellow man is 'saved'. There's enough information out there for my neighbor to make his own educated decision without my two cents. And the last thing I want is someone elses 2 cents regarding my soul, twisted as it is...
[Edited on 8-19-2005 by Ganalon]
You are making shit up again, as usual.
Originally posted by Backlash
You are making shit up again, as usual.
Prove it.
Sean of the Thread
08-19-2005, 12:28 AM
*REDRUM* *REDRUM*
the world does not want saving
Thats a very negative point of view.
Originally posted by Backlash
the world does not want saving
Thats a very negative point of view.
Put the scotch down and get back on topic. Negative, nah, realistic.
Originally posted by Ganalon
Originally posted by Backlash
the world does not want saving
Thats a very negative point of view.
Put the scotch down and get back on topic. Negative, nah, realistic.
Nihilist.
I don’t like scotch.
Making shit up again. It seems to be your forté.
Unless you speak for everyone.
Whatever dude.
You've obviously run out of any form of intelligent debate in this topic and are resulting to 'you're making shit up again' claims, so I'm going to let it die now.
:clap:
Look, you said I like Scotch. I said I don’t. Whats so hard about that?
Look, you obviously want to rationalize murder. Most people do from ancient times to now. I just don’t think its that easy. Fucking sue me.
Look, you said I like Scotch. I said I don’t. Whats so hard about that?
Look, you obviously want to rationalize murder. Most people do from ancient times to now. I just don’t think its that easy. Fucking sue me.
Gridlock
08-19-2005, 01:31 AM
Clam down sir. Sir calm down.
If you dont calm down sir well be forced to restrain you.
Delirium
08-19-2005, 05:58 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: humans aren't and weren't perfect. Jews are and were human.
Latrinsorm is human as well. Just by looking around online(which is probably folly) and using my experience with religious people id say most biblical scholars would agree, especially back then, there was/is a difference between murder and killing.
I dont believe for a moment God is in heaven high fiving angels when a person intent with murder is killed before he succeeds. OTOH i dont believe he thinks of the person who killed the person who was intent on murder as having commited a crime/sin.
Warriorbird
08-19-2005, 08:39 AM
I see nothing wrong at self defense. It sure as fuck isn't turning the other cheek, however.
Latrinsorm
08-19-2005, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Dave
So ever soldier is a murder by your logic. Yet you support our troops who by the above logic are murderers. So you support murderers.When the choice is murder 7000 people or let 700,000 people get murdered, who could possibly support the second choice?
Originally posted by Backlash
So I can do whatever the fuck I want and because some dude died I can repent and go to heaven?If you truly repent and do your penance, sure.
Originally posted by Delirium
Latrinsorm is human as well.WHAT?? :flamed:
id say most biblical scholars would agree, especially back then, there was/is a difference between murder and killing.I thought so too. However, when I read one of the most well-rounded Bibles out there and it says they're equivalent (at least for purposes of the commandment in question), it's hard to think otherwise.
Originally posted by Backlash
Look, you obviously want to rationalize murder. Most people do from ancient times to now. I just don’t think its that easy. Fucking sue me.
Who has been trying to rationalize murder? I don't see one post saying "Murder is okay".
I just see a lot of people trying to explain that there is a difference between "to kill" and "to murder".
Then there is another group of people that are insisting that anyone time someone is killed, the other person is a murderer.
I doubt anyone really believes that, but a few folks keep trying to say 'But that's what the Bible says!' even when it clearly doesn't.
:nono:
Gridlock
08-19-2005, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I see nothing wrong at self defense. It sure as fuck isn't turning the other cheek, however.
Well like Kenny said "Sometimes ya gota fight to be a mannnn!"
ElanthianSiren
08-19-2005, 01:06 PM
With regard to violence, I agree with Stray to a point. I feel however, that there are certain situations where deadly force is necessary. PB gave the example of someone murdering his wife. In that instance, the individual in question has already shown that 1. they are a threat to you, 2. they are acting irrationably.
I do feel however that a responsible individual applies the least amount of force necessary to disarm the situation. Additional force is the reflection of an inflated ego IMO. I think this guide on force, which I found very practical, comes from Martial Arts:
"Avoid rather than check, check rather than hurt, hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill. For all life is sacred and no one has the right to take it away."
-M
Originally posted by Gridlock
Originally posted by Warriorbird
I see nothing wrong at self defense. It sure as fuck isn't turning the other cheek, however.
Well like Kenny said "Sometimes ya gota fight to be a mannnn!"
ROFFLE
Now I have that song in my head...
"you could have heard a pin drop, when tommy stopped, and locked the door" <- my favorite line of the song.
Gridlock
08-19-2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
Originally posted by Backlash
Look, you obviously want to rationalize murder. Most people do from ancient times to now. I just don’t think its that easy. Fucking sue me.
Who has been trying to rationalize murder? I don't see one post saying "Murder is okay".
I just see a lot of people trying to explain that there is a difference between "to kill" and "to murder".
Then there is another group of people that are insisting that anyone time someone is killed, the other person is a murderer.
I doubt anyone really believes that, but a few folks keep trying to say 'But that's what the Bible says!' even when it clearly doesn't.
:nono:
We explained that to em he just ignores it and keeps trying to twist the whole thing to make him sound right and everyone else like pro murder nazi's.
I thought you were a libral Backlash there pro murder.
Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
I doubt anyone really believes that, but a few folks keep trying to say 'But that's what the Bible says!' even when it clearly doesn't.
:nono: /signed, except that unfortuantely those few who do believe it seem to be dead on serious about their personal interpretation even though evidence in that very bible they hold so dear says otherwise.
Delirium
08-19-2005, 01:26 PM
I thought so too. However, when I read one of the most well-rounded Bibles out there and it says they're equivalent (at least for purposes of the commandment in question), it's hard to think otherwise.
Hmm curious about the bible. I think there is a big difference between someone who spent their lives interpreting languages and someone who spent their lives interpreting the bible.
Originally posted by Gridlock
Originally posted by DeV
Originally posted by Tea & Strumpets
I doubt anyone really believes that, but a few folks keep trying to say 'But that's what the Bible says!' even when it clearly doesn't.
:nono: /signed, except that unfortuantely those few who do believe it seem to be dead on serious about their personal interpretation even though evidence in that very bible they hold so dear says otherwise.
Come again? Basically, I agree with everything Tea & Strumpets is saying.
Does that clear it up for you?
Latrinsorm
08-19-2005, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
"Avoid rather than check, check rather than hurt, hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill. For all life is sacred and no one has the right to take it away."
That sounds right, so long as we're not hiding ourselves away in some monastery somewhere while the world goes to hell.
Originally posted by Delirium
I think there is a big difference between someone who spent their lives interpreting languages and someone who spent their lives interpreting the bible.Me too. While the first is certainly more likely to be impartial (given that people who don't care about the Bible generally wouldn't spend their lives interpreting it), he or she doesn't necessarily have the grasp of the cultural context the second must.
Doyle Hargraves
08-19-2005, 06:56 PM
If someone tries to kill you, you're going to try to kill them if there is no other feasible option.
Anyone who denies that is a liar.
Tisket
08-19-2005, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Dave
So ever soldier is a murder by your logic. Yet you support our troops who by the above logic are murderers. So you support murderers.
Think a bit before you make comments like that.
This made me laugh.
Originally posted by Tisket
Originally posted by Dave
So ever soldier is a murder by your logic. Yet you support our troops who by the above logic are murderers. So you support murderers.
Think a bit before you make comments like that.
This made me laugh.
Sorry Dave I should have addressed this last night. Thanks for the reminder Tisket.
The troops are not the ones to decide. Again, as I’ve said, there are justifications for murder such as nature’s programmed instinct of self-defense/survival instinct.
Yes, I do have conflicts with the entire issue. Its a tough issue to resolve.
But I want to post this part again because it would be interesting to hear what people think. We have very religious people who approve of this war in Iraq. Often, the very religious will use the murder/kill semantic argument that its only murder if someone is innocent. So, by that rationale, soldiers are not innocent and are ok to kill. This makes no sense to me at all.
Tisket
08-19-2005, 07:29 PM
<<Sorry Dave I should have addressed this last night. Thanks for the reminder Tisket.>>
I live to mock...er serve.
Delirium
08-19-2005, 11:49 PM
The troops are not the ones to decide. Again, as I’ve said, there are justifications for murder such as nature’s programmed instinct of self-defense/survival instinct.
Yes, I do have conflicts with the entire issue. Its a tough issue to resolve.
But I want to post this part again because it would be interesting to hear what people think. We have very religious people who approve of this war in Iraq. Often, the very religious will use the murder/kill semantic argument that its only murder if someone is innocent. So, by that rationale, soldiers are not innocent and are ok to kill. This makes no sense to me at all.
Who is saying its only murder if the victim is innocent? If i catch a guy who stole a womens purse and hes unarmed and i beat him to death with a bat guess what? Its murder. If i see a woman beating up her kid and take a knife and cut off her fingers one by one and then watch her bleed to death guess what? Its murder. Neither of these victims are innocent.
By your reasoning it would seem there shouldnt be any degrees of a murder charge. No 1st degree, 2nd degree or 3rd degree. Heck not even manslaughter. If its all semantics and murder is murder no matter what the situation or circumstances then the guy who shoots a guy in the back of the head who was raping his wife should get the same penalty as the guy who walks into a 3rd grade classroom and shoots a 9 year old kid. Or at the very least are both morally equivelant in your eyes. You said there are some justifications because of self defense/survival instinct. Does that mean you believe somewhat in the semantic argument?
Lastly you said its different cause the soldiers arnt the ones to decide? I believe that excuse wasnt accepted for those german soldiers in ww2 who tried using it. Plus they did decide to join in the first place. Im NOT trying to argue that soldiers are murderers by stating this. What i am trying to point out is that your argument is just as inconsistant.
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Tisket
Originally posted by Dave
So ever soldier is a murder by your logic. Yet you support our troops who by the above logic are murderers. So you support murderers.
Think a bit before you make comments like that.
This made me laugh.
Sorry Dave I should have addressed this last night. Thanks for the reminder Tisket.
The troops are not the ones to decide. Again, as I’ve said, there are justifications for murder such as nature’s programmed instinct of self-defense/survival instinct.
Yes, I do have conflicts with the entire issue. Its a tough issue to resolve.
But I want to post this part again because it would be interesting to hear what people think. We have very religious people who approve of this war in Iraq. Often, the very religious will use the murder/kill semantic argument that its only murder if someone is innocent. So, by that rationale, soldiers are not innocent and are ok to kill. This makes no sense to me at all.
Troops dont decide? You think they take away free will when you join the military? You decide to pull the trigger. You chose to kill. You select a combat arms job, one that will put you in a situation more often than not to kill people.
Yeah we have a choice. We choose to do the right thing, the necessary thing and take the lives of the enemy.
It's a choice just like any other. A choice that soldiers make.
Sean of the Thread
08-20-2005, 04:02 PM
Volunteer militaries are great. That dumb Sheehan bitch protesting because her son died when he volunteered knowing all to well what it entailed.
Originally posted by Xyelin
Volunteer militaries are great. That dumb Sheehan bitch protesting because her son died when he volunteered knowing all to well what it entailed.
You are the perfect American.
Skirmisher
08-21-2005, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Backlash
You are the perfect American.
No. He's just being an insensitive ass.
No not really, it is the way it is. Her son is a Marine. The full blown infantry of the U.S. Armed Forces. The most hardcore branch there is. Always the first into battle, and with that the first to die. Her son, a brave man, chose to join the marines. He then continued that choice by going to war. He chose to fight, and in doing so gave the ultimate sacrifice. He is a hero, willing to give his life for something he believed in. If he didn't believe in the fight, he gave his life for his comrades, all equal in my book.
His mother soils that sacrifice and has turned it into a publicity stunt. Fuck her.
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Dave]
Originally posted by Dave
No not really, it is the way it is. Her son is a Marine. The full blown infantry of the U.S. Armed Forces. The most hardcore branch there is. Always the first into battle, and with that the first to die. Her son, a brave man, chose to join the marines. He then continued that choice by going to war. He chose to fight, and in doing so gave the ultimate sacrifice. He is a hero, willing to give his life for something he believed in. If he didn't believe in the fight, he gave his life for his comrades, all equal in my book.
His mother soils that sacrifice and has turned it into a publicity stunt. Fuck her.
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Dave]
Another perfect American.
Skirmisher
08-21-2005, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Dave
If he didn't believe in the fight, he gave his life for his comrades, all equal in my book.
His mother soils that sacrifice and has turned it into a publicity stunt. Fuck her.
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Dave]
So, becuase she disagrees with your myopic political view that gives you the right to decide how she should grieve for the child she brought into this world?
No, sorry, that's one right she did not lose when her son joined the armed forces.
You don't get to decide that..
Originally posted by Backlash
Originally posted by Dave
No not really, it is the way it is. Her son is a Marine. The full blown infantry of the U.S. Armed Forces. The most hardcore branch there is. Always the first into battle, and with that the first to die. Her son, a brave man, chose to join the marines. He then continued that choice by going to war. He chose to fight, and in doing so gave the ultimate sacrifice. He is a hero, willing to give his life for something he believed in. If he didn't believe in the fight, he gave his life for his comrades, all equal in my book.
His mother soils that sacrifice and has turned it into a publicity stunt. Fuck her.
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Dave]
Another perfect American.
You're damn right I am.
http://www.viewonline.com/pages/editorials/images/american-flag.gif
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Dave]
Originally posted by Skirmisher
Originally posted by Dave
If he didn't believe in the fight, he gave his life for his comrades, all equal in my book.
His mother soils that sacrifice and has turned it into a publicity stunt. Fuck her.
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Dave]
So, becuase she disagrees with your myopic political view that gives you the right to decide how she should grieve for the child she brought into this world?
No, sorry, that's one right she did not lose when her son joined the armed forces.
You don't get to decide that..
No because she disgraces her son. It is as simple as that. I don't give a flying fuck about anything else. She should be run over by a stampeding hoard of hippopotamuses.
Skirmisher
08-21-2005, 01:13 AM
A perfectly blind American maybe.
Skirmisher
08-21-2005, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Dave
No because she disgraces her son. It is as simple as that. I don't give a flying fuck about anything else. She should be run over by a stampeding hoard of hippopotamuses.
Thankfully your opinion carries about as much weight as lint.
Your arrogance and insensitivity is beyond measure.
Originally posted by Skirmisher
Thankfully your opinion carries about as much weight as lint.
As does yours.
Your arrogance and insensitivity is beyond measure.
Your level of self deprecation (in the larger geopolitical sense) and timidness is beyond measure. Grow some balls.
Skirmisher
08-21-2005, 01:36 AM
Dave,you need to realize that you are a joke.
Even conservatives are embarassed by you.
The reason for this is you are quite simply no where near as intelligent or as knowledgable as you are so sure you are.
People can love this country yet not be willing to throw away their right to think for themselves.
By swearing and speaking so derisively of this woman who has lost her son, you have once more taken the opportunity to show both your lack of class and intelligence.
You can disagree with her political point of view. You can say that you think she is being taken advantage of by pac's. You can do all of that and still do so in a way that allows an intelligent and constructive debate of ideas.
Well actually, no, most people can, but it seems to beyond you.
Originally posted by Skirmisher
People can love this country yet not be willing to throw away their right to think for themselves.
This whole time I have been saying that people have the right and ability to think for themselves. Take off the I disagree with anything and everything dave says blinders off.
By swearing and speaking so derisively of this woman who has lost her son, you have once more taken the opportunity to show both your lack of class and intelligence.
I didnt know I claimed to be classy. Especialy on an internet forum.
You can disagree with her political point of view.
I dont care what her political point of view is.
You can say that you think she is being taken advantage of by pac's. You can do all of that and still do so in a way that allows an intelligent and constructive debate of ideas.
I didnt say any of that, which was my intention.
There is a military cadence that sums up my feelings on this pretty well.
Somewhere there's a mother,
who's cryin' for her son.
For he's an Airborne Ranger,
Whose work is never done.
But don't cha cry him no tears,
He don't need your sympathy.
For he's an Airborne Ranger,
And that's what he chose to be.
Somewhere there's a daughter,
who's cryin' for her dad.
for he's an Airborne Ranger,
and a mighty one at that.
But don't cha cry him no tears,
he don't need your sympathy.
For he's an Airborne Ranger,
and that's what he chose to be.
Somewhere there's a lady,
thats cryin for her man,
for hes an Airborne Ranger,
fighting in a foreign land.
But don't cha cry him no tears,
he don't need your sympathy.
For he's an Airborne Ranger,
and that's what he chose to be.
Along came a letter,
and this is what it said.
We regret to inform you,
but your Airborne Rangers dead.
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by Dave]
4a6c1
08-21-2005, 01:49 AM
Her son did choose to sacrifice himself in that way. And he chose to serve in that way.
But a woman greiving for her lost son is bound to do, say and think rash things. It is notnice naughtyness to insult her mourning process.
I would say it is best to just ignore her and let her grieve if she hadnt already put herself in the public eye. Maybe the media is just fueling the fire.
[Edited on 8-21-2005 by JihnasSpirit]
Tisket
08-21-2005, 04:40 AM
<<Take off the I disagree with anything and everything dave says blinders off. >>
I buy them in bulk.
Oh and you reinforce your stupidity each and every time you go near your keyboard Dave. You should use your gun to destroy that pesky keyboard RIGHT NOW.
stupid? Why because you dont agree with my point of view?
I though skirmisher said that people have a right to think the way they want to.
There is/was a pretty interesting topic on Sheehan already...
http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=16878
Tisket
08-21-2005, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Dave
stupid? Why because you dont agree with my point of view?
I though skirmisher said that people have a right to think the way they want to.
Oddly enough I don't need to disagree with you to think you are an idiot. I am gifted that way.
Originally posted by Tisket
Originally posted by Dave
stupid? Why because you dont agree with my point of view?
I though skirmisher said that people have a right to think the way they want to.
So why dont you tell me what I said that was, "stupid."
Oddly enough I don't need to disagree with you to think you are an idiot. I am gifted that way.
Skirmisher
08-21-2005, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Dave
So why dont you tell me what I said that was, "stupid."
Lets review.
Originally posted by Dave
Fuck her.
Originally posted by Dave
She should be run over by a stampeding hoard of hippopotamuses.
Originally posted by Dave
Your level of self deprecation (in the larger geopolitical sense) and timidness is beyond measure. Grow some balls.
Originally posted by Dave
... she disgraces her son.
So, in the height of arrogance and presumptuousness,you take a woman who has lost her flesh and blood and decide that you have the right to decide how it is appropriate for her to feel regarding her loss.
You also can toss insults at myself and others who post here but then feel you are owed some sort of explanation as to why someone might call you stupid.
It was used because you make such adamant sweeping statements and self righteous attacks when your level of knowledge regarding this situation, the middle east and the world in general is sorely lacking.
It was used becuase it describes your posts here.
I have to assume you are not as bombastic in person as you come across here and only wish you could find a way to conduct yourself here with more grace.
Tisket
08-22-2005, 01:20 AM
Yeah, what she said, only not as nicely put.
Well.. I finally caught up with this thread and.. wow. I truly feel bad for the mother. While it would be a 'nice' thing for GW to go and speak to her, it's just not possible. Every other parent would then have the same right to demand to speak with the President.
Then again... Compared to the Battle of the Bulge, we havn't lost that many soldiers. Iraq is a cake walk compared to Normandy.. Baghad is Pleasantville, USA compared to what Operation Market Garden was, and hell, fuck Fallujah.. The Hurtgen forest was a lot bloodier...
Though tell that to every parent that lost a kid. That the amount of soldiers we lost isn't "that significant".
Listen, I support sticking it to the end in the war, but, saying "IT WAS HIZ CHOICE U CANT FEEL BAD U R WRONG 4 PROTESTING" is riduclous. It really shows the "rookie cop that aced the entrance exam and believes himself to be the king of the street" mentality that I really dislike.
Just my opinion though.
- Arkans
Mourning is not the issue. It has gone far beyond that. Making a spectacle of his death on the other hand is. USING your sons death to push your own political agenda, is despicable.
Would you want your family to act that way if you were to die in combat Arkans?
[Edited on 8-22-2005 by Dave]
Warriorbird
08-22-2005, 09:26 AM
So... hypothetically, say it were a war you disagreed with... Vietnam or some such, Dave.
Your mother agreed with your views on it, and you died. How would her trying to make your death mean something be despicable?
You did your part in fighting and all that, there wasn't any question of you being a traitor or a coward or anything like that. Say you even died courageously, in a way that got a medal.
I'm not saying I agree with what Cindy Sheehan's doing...I actually kept out of the MoveOn effort related to her (she damn well already saw Bush). I'm just saying that a parent using a child's death for political reasons is not necessarily "despicable."
[Edited on 8-22-2005 by Warriorbird]
Originally posted by Warriorbird
So... hypothetically, say it were a war you disagreed with... Vietnam or some such, Dave.
Your mother agreed with your views on it, and you died. How would her trying to make your death mean something be despicable?
You did your part in fighting and all that, there wasn't any question of you being a traitor or a coward or anything like that. Say you even died courageously, in a way that got a medal.
I'm not saying I agree with what Cindy Sheehan's doing...I actually kept out of the MoveOn effort related to her (she damn well already saw Bush). I'm just saying that a parent using a child's death for political reasons is not necessarily "despicable."
[Edited on 8-22-2005 by Warriorbird]
It cant be paralleled to vietnam. so your analogy cant be applied.
I volunteered to join the military.
He Volunteered to join the Marines, which means more likely than not your going to get shot at and shoot at people.
There is no debate about that when you sign your name. The oath you take. Your job is to kill the enemies of the united states, whenever and wherever the government sees them. Be it Bush, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, or whomever in charge. That is your job. I was not drafted, I do what I do of my own free will.
So no, vietnam is no parallel to this situation.
If i was to die in a war that i did not support. I would not want my death to "mean" something as you say.
I dont take issue with her protesting, I take issue with the political nature of it. SOandSO KILLED MY SON!!!111 No, your sons choices brought upon his death. Blame the terrorist that killed him. Blame fate, back luck, karma.
HE chose to join, He chose to fight, His choices brought upon his death, Honor him and his memory, dont exploit it, don't use it the way she is, its insulting.
Warriorbird
08-22-2005, 10:01 AM
I wasn't attempting to parallel it to Vietnam.... I was just citing a war a lot of people disagreed with, even people who are very conservative and support this war. I am sure that it is possible there'd be a war you'd disagree with. I am sure that you would still fight, as would any soldier who took that oath.
I don't believe that you would call your family using your death to achieve your goals despicable. I don't believe it would be, even though a war you disagreed with would probably be a war I agreed with.
[Edited on 8-22-2005 by Warriorbird]
Originally posted by Dave
Mourning is not the issue. It has gone far beyond that. You do not determine the mourning process of anyone, let alone a mother who has lost her child in war. You obviously cannot relate nor do you have the sense of mind to understand the process of mourning as you have so ignorantly displayed in this thread.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.