Aside from the social and legal repercussions, do you believe that murder is wrong?

Justify.


Personally, I believe it is wrong because it violates another's right to exist in the world he was born in to.

Yes. But purely because my conscience would bother me. As for the source of morality of my conscience, it was just enforced through society, I guess.

I think murder cannot be judged to be right or wrong taking it as a simple concept. IMO some murders are right, some are wrong.

I personally would never murder someone b/c of

"Treat others as you would like to be treated"

yea...its a catholic idea, but who says I can't take it?

I think murder cannot be judged to be right or wrong taking it as a simple concept. IMO some murders are right, some are wrong.

Yes, I suppose the legitimacy of anything depends upon its context.

Yes, I suppose the legitimacy of anything depends upon its context.
QFT.

I personally would never murder someone b/c of

"Treat others as you would like to be treated"

yea...its a catholic idea, but who says I can't take it?

It is actually a pre-christian notion, so it's all yours.

Yes, I think it wrong.

Murdering just because you think it is an enjoyable task is pretty fuckin' wrong, but murdering because someone raped your wife then burned down your house is a little more justifiable to me.

I personally would never murder someone b/c of

"Treat others as you would like to be treated"

yea...its a catholic idea, but who says I can't take it?

Congradulations, you are more Christ-like than 90% of Christians.

From a practical sense of survival and living? Yes.

From a philosophical, a priori stance? No. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right. Stuff just is.

Stuff just is.
Like right and wrong.

Nope, it's never wrong, I have no problem with it. Mr.Kitty gave a pretty good explanation.

If it truly came down to 'either kill or be killed' then I believe it's justified.
But in most other cases, I wouldn't condone it.

Like right and wrong.

Sounds like religion.

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

This is an online definition of murder, which is, I think, not exactly what OP meant. Going by the context of the replies, I think what we mean is simply taking another's life. But I don't like to use the words right or wrong, since at the highest level, there is no difference, and at the everyday level, the words are just labels we use to connote what we do or do not approve of. There is simply what works and what does not.

BUt the question has a lot of meaning for me, since I carry a gun and over the course of years, have had more experience with violence than I care to even think about. I sincerely hope I will never have a need to shoot anyone. However, just carrying openly at my stand has prevented two robberies--that I know of. And if I should be in a situation where I felt my life was being threatened, I would do my best to eliminate the threat.

It can be and often is.

Calling it murder is already putting a judgment on it, murder really meaning illegal killing. So murder is wrong, it's illegal. Justifying what type of killing is fine and what isn't is a thornier issue.

Yes. You have absolutely no right to interfere with some else's life, let alone take it away.

Murder can really only be justified in self defense.

Sounds like religion.
Your mom sounds like religion.

So murder is wrong, it's illegal.

Because everything thats illegal is wrong?

Aside from the social and legal repercussions, do you believe that murder is wrong?

Justify.


Personally, I believe it is wrong because it violates another's right to exist in the world he was born in to.

Absolutely murder is wrong(I am an atheist).

If you think murder is OK then you are a complete psycho(aka a socialist/collectivist).

I do not care what anyone does at all as long as they do not harm anyone or try and impose their will on someone else. They want to smoke crack and weed, thats fine, but I don't condone that either. My philosophy is libertarian pretty much.

From a practical sense of survival and living? Yes.

From a philosophical, a priori stance? No. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right. Stuff just is.

Immanual Kant is a stupid fuck, and that is wrong.

The "phenomenal" world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man's mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man's conceptual faculty: man's basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled "categories" and "forms of perception") which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man's concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are "limited," said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason's validity was switched from the objective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the "noumenal" world. The "noumenal" world is unknowable; it is the world of "real" reality, "superior" truth and "things in themselves" or "things as they are"—which means: things as they are not perceived by man.

Basically he is saying that why do anything at all because nothing matters and you can never know anything ever. Wow that will sure get the race far won't it? Why should Einstein have ever thought of relativity because it doesn't matter and you will never know anything. You can never know the noumenal world so it doesn't matter whatever you do. But he never even suggests that his "noumenal" world may not even exist! He just assumes it does. He is an idiot who has had a negative effect on everything.

As to Kant's version of morality, it was appropriate to the kind of zombies that would inhabit that kind of "Kantian" universe: it consisted of total, abject selflessness. An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action. Thus, if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.

He says never do anything for yourself because YOU DO NOT MATTER! Yea lets live life thinking that I don't matter and I should do everything for everyone else. Lets attack Iraq and "help" them while sacrificing myself. I really want to be a slave to someone else because I should not do things for myself because I don't matter.

It is ludicrous.

Because everything thats illegal is wrong?

No, of course not. Explained myself badly, couldn't explain in detail without being too long and detracting from the point of the thread.

In short, murder is the name for killing we (meaning everyone) find unacceptable. So of course it is unacceptable. The law SHOULD be (but often isn't) an expression of what we find acceptable/unacceptable.

Absolutely murder is wrong(I am an atheist).

If you think murder is OK then you are a complete psycho(aka a socialist/collectivist).

I do not care what anyone does at all as long as they do not harm anyone or try and impose their will on someone else. They want to smoke crack and weed, thats fine, but I don't condone that either. My philosophy is libertarian pretty much.

What about killing someone to prevent massive killing?

I believe humans are hard wired NOT to kill one another. Most militaries recognize this and go to great lengths to train a person to murder as a reflex.

I believe we have an evolved social mind, in which murder is not readily accepted in most of us.

If you think about how this evolved, it is quite simple. I imagine at the dawn of human awareness there existed societies that had no punishment for rape, murder, child molesting, or theft.

It is quite obvious why these tribes were either conquered, slaughtered, and bred out...OR it is obvious that they destroyed themselves. Either way primitive genes that allow a person to not feel remorse for killing, or other such acts, were for the most, part bred out of society.

Most people lack these genes. This is probably why serial killers (the rare few who possess minds that feel no remorse) facinate us so. I believe they were less facinating to the people at the time 10 thousand years ago.

------------

So I believe murder is wrong because I am possessed of the ability to feel remorse and regret. I believe murder is wrong, as it leads to societal decline, and I place value on having a functioning society.

What about killing someone to prevent massive killing?

Now you are in to some murky waters, and that can be a tough question to answer.

How do you know that the someone will kill other people? It is legal to say that someone is going to kill other people, you can say whatever you want. That is freedom of speech.

Please elaborate your question a little bit. That is too broad to answer in general terms. Questions like these need to be specific in order to have a rational answer that isn't general and can be misinterpreted into something that is totally unrelated.

So I believe murder is wrong because I am possessed of the ability to feel remorse and regret. I believe murder is wrong, as it leads to societal decline, and I place value on having a functioning society.

I agree because I think that feeling of regret is evolutionary as well. We realized that if we worked together thousands of years ago we could accomplish much more than any one of us could do alone.

We realized things like murder were never good in a "uncivilized" state of being because anyone who was willing to be our friends we learned to care and help one another in turn in order to survive. If we didn't work together we were doomed t fail.

However in todays "civilized" world (civilized my ass) some people see killing another person as beneficial to them in order for them to get ahead. Take for example politicians murdering each other for power or personal gain or people killing their mothers or fathers in order to get their wealth or people who kill in order to get what was left behind. Some people see other religions as evil and bad and the people who practice them need to be murdered in order for them to go on etc. etc. I could go on for days.

Not only that the whole system drives that into us, that violence is good(look at the TV and the video games that morons play) that we all need to do anything we can for money(including killing) and we are told never to question the system, when it is the system that is fucked up, not humans.

In short murder is bad and this guy is right and we need to go back into a "uncivilized" state of being civilized in order to rout out the faults in our system and perhaps bring down the numbers of people willing to give into their emotions and act on those instead of their intellect.

Right and wrong can be solid things in the context of, for example, building a functional society or trying to find your way in that society. But from a more objective view, it seems to me that a life is just a web of relationships and interactivity between various things... and the destruction of this web would in its self be a complex system with as much or as little 'right' to exist as the person dying.

The way I see it there are are few rules instinctively hardwired into the human brain. These rules are essential for us as social animals to get along and not let ourselves go extinct.
Things such as "thou shalt not murder" and "thou shalt not steal" may seem ten commandment-y but in almost all cultures and societies they prevail.
Of course, in order for us to survive, we have to be biologically capable of killing.
This leads into the nitty-gritty right/wrong scenario which is annoying at the best of times.

That said, im sick of people assuming that because we are atheists we have no moral standing. We are nice people because we want to be, not because of fear of eternal hellfire. :)

I believe humans are hard wired NOT to kill one another. Most militaries recognize this and go to great lengths to train a person to murder as a reflex.

I like what you're thinking.

I disagree in the sense that murder is hardwired to be wrong. It seems to me that it's hardwired to be avoided, unless it would be beneficial.

e.g. food supplies are short, rivals want to eat, you kill the rivals, you survive. Your children are threatened, rivals are intruding on territory nearby etc.

But you're totally right about how it's something which wild humans would try to avoid. It's more evolutionarily stable to obey a pecking order, and murder would not be so frequent as some people might believe.

^ "It seems to me that it's hardwired to be avoided, unless it would be beneficial" is very true.

"Altruism—benefiting fellow group members at a cost to oneself—and parochialism—hostility toward individuals not of one's own ethnic, racial, or other group—are common human behaviors. The intersection of the two—which we term "parochial altruism"—is puzzling from an evolutionary perspective because altruistic or parochial behavior reduces one's payoffs by comparison to what one would gain by eschewing these behaviors. But parochial altruism could have evolved if parochialism promoted intergroup hostilities and the combination of altruism and parochialism contributed to success in these conflicts. Our game-theoretic analysis and agent-based simulations show that under conditions likely to have been experienced by late Pleistocene and early Holocene humans, neither parochialism nor altruism would have been viable singly, but by promoting group conflict, they could have evolved jointly. 1"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5850/636

Really interesting. It reminds me of the superorganism theory, it seems like the same evolutionary drive responsible for tribal interests could be responsible for everything from nationalism to sports fanatacism.

Immanual Kant is a stupid fuck, and that is wrong.

The "phenomenal" world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man's mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man's conceptual faculty: man's basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled "categories" and "forms of perception") which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man's concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are "limited," said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason's validity was switched from the objective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the "noumenal" world. The "noumenal" world is unknowable; it is the world of "real" reality, "superior" truth and "things in themselves" or "things as they are"—which means: things as they are not perceived by man.

Basically he is saying that why do anything at all because nothing matters and you can never know anything ever. Wow that will sure get the race far won't it? Why should Einstein have ever thought of relativity because it doesn't matter and you will never know anything. You can never know the noumenal world so it doesn't matter whatever you do. But he never even suggests that his "noumenal" world may not even exist! He just assumes it does. He is an idiot who has had a negative effect on everything.

As to Kant's version of morality, it was appropriate to the kind of zombies that would inhabit that kind of "Kantian" universe: it consisted of total, abject selflessness. An action is moral, said Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it, but performs it out of a sense of duty and derives no benefit from it of any sort, neither material nor spiritual; a benefit destroys the moral value of an action. Thus, if one has no desire to be evil, one cannot be good; if one has, one can.

He says never do anything for yourself because YOU DO NOT MATTER! Yea lets live life thinking that I don't matter and I should do everything for everyone else. Lets attack Iraq and "help" them while sacrificing myself. I really want to be a slave to someone else because I should not do things for myself because I don't matter.

It is ludicrous.

A conspiracy theorist calling Kant a "stupid fuck"? Don't make me laugh tin foil boy. Kant was a far better philosopher than you can ever be...

go home boy

A conspiracy theorist calling Kant a "stupid fuck"? Don't make me laugh tin foil boy. Kant was a far better philosopher than you can ever be...

go home boy

You make a very compelling argument. I am overjoyed that you have contibuted something enlightening and truly useful to this discussion.

Aside from the social and legal repercussions, do you believe that murder is wrong?

Justify.


Personally, I believe it is wrong because it violates another's right to exist in the world he was born in to.

Nothing is wrong if I am capable of doing it/getting away. And if someone wants to murder me, they are only wrong if I can stop them.

The intersection of the two—which we term "parochial altruism"—is puzzling from an evolutionary perspective because altruistic or parochial behavior reduces one's payoffs by comparison to what one would gain by eschewing these behaviors. But parochial altruism could have evolved if parochialism promoted intergroup hostilities and the combination of altruism and parochialism contributed to success in these conflicts. Our game-theoretic analysis and agent-based simulations show that under conditions likely to have been experienced by late Pleistocene and early Holocene humans, neither parochialism nor altruism would have been viable singly, but by promoting group conflict, they could have evolved jointly. 1"

Perhaps I am not understanding the concept, but it seems to me that a group of humans who attack another group of humans do benefit. If they win they will get the lands and women of the opposing tribe, for example.

I understand that the benefits of working together would be greater, but my line of thinking is that these people are told what to do by a ruler in their society. The ruler dictates who they war with, and the ruler is benefits more greatly than he would by eschewing these behaviors.

Those are just my initial thoughts reading what you wrote, and perhaps I am not fully understanding what your saying.

Perhaps I am not understanding the concept, but it seems to me that a group of humans who attack another group of humans do benefit. If they win they will get the lands and women of the opposing tribe, for example.

You're not taking into account the other scenarios though. Fighting is a gamble. If they fight and lose, well, there's the opposite of a benefit right there. Even fighting and winning may cost them. It's like how the Nazis could have easily beaten Switzerland in a war. But what's the point if what they lose isn't worth what they'd gain?

However when the stakes are low and the gains are high, there's almost always a war. When there's no clear head of the pecking order, a power vacuum as they'd call it, fights and wars occur. The sudden death of a powerful leader, or the toppling of a superpower.

It's not about working together vs. fighting. It's about working together vs. fighting vs. neither. Most often, neither is the better option.


I think you get the jist, though. When land is limited, particularly fertile or valuable land, fighting occurs. Japan gets hungry, they invade China. Even artificially valuable land. Just look at Jerusalem or Acre.

i think "wrong" is just doing something against your own moral beliefs. for me, i only think murder is wrong if it is the murder of a person who is a positive factor in society and hasn't done anything to provoke it

just realized you didn't specify what the murder was of. if we're talking animals, killing for food, self defense purposes, or sparing it a life of pain/starvation would be the only moral reasons for doing so.

Perhaps I am not understanding the concept, but it seems to me that a group of humans who attack another group of humans do benefit. If they win they will get the lands and women of the opposing tribe, for example.

Just to be clear: I'm quoting a study, not writing something myself.

The study does not say that "humans who attack another group of humans do not benefit". It says that neither altruism nor parochialism by themselves perform as well as parochial altruism. That parochial altruism outperforms both of them in the simulations they made.

A conspiracy theorist calling Kant a "stupid fuck"? Don't make me laugh tin foil boy. Kant was a far better philosopher than you can ever be...

go home boy

Refute my points instead of calling names.

And you must live in a very simple world don't you? You think things just happen by accident and "pshh cheney and bush had no motive for 9/11 and 2 planes took down 3 buildings while defying laws of physics and also hit the pentagon with a hole that was made that was not even as large as the plane." A few brown people in cave orchestrated the most elaborate attack ever on the United States(the most powerful nation on earth) without a hitch and attacked the pentagon, of which it is impossible to get 150 miles from that thing without planes from Andrew's Airforce base going up. Sure buddy. You must also believe in god don't you? Ignorant fool.

Refute my points instead of calling names.

And you must live in a very simple world don't you? You think things just happen by accident and "pshh cheney and bush had no motive for 9/11 and 2 planes took down 3 buildings while defying laws of physics and also hit the pentagon with a hole that was made that was not even as large as the plane." A few brown people in cave orchestrated the most elaborate attack ever on the United States(the most powerful nation on earth) without a hitch and attacked the pentagon, of which it is impossible to get 150 miles from that thing without planes from Andrew's Airforce base going up. Sure buddy. You must also believe in god don't you? Ignorant fool.

Speaking of ignorant fools, you do realize that this doesn't constitute proof, right? Having a motive means shit if they didn't do it, and the fact that the whole story didn't come out isn't proof. The stupid crack about "brown people in caves" is the kind of shit moronic racists spit out.

So really, perhaps you should practice what you preach to others until you employ those skills of logic fully?

One day I expect we'll treat 9/11 as we do the Reichstag fire.

Anyway, back to the thread...

One day I expect we'll treat 9/11 as we do the Reichstag fire.

Anyway, back to the thread...

Nah I doubt it because the NWO is going to win and history will be re-written on wikipedia and they will make sure that the schools are dumb down so eventually everything will be everyone talking on screens and they can make sure that all the landless peasant fucks can't read anymore like the good ol days in the middle ages.

Speaking of ignorant fools, you do realize that this doesn't constitute proof, right? Having a motive means shit if they didn't do it, and the fact that the whole story didn't come out isn't proof. The stupid crack about "brown people in caves" is the kind of shit moronic racists spit out.

So really, perhaps you should practice what you preach to others until you employ those skills of logic fully?

I agree, motive does not mean proof, where the fuck do you think I got that idea? Numbnuts. But you have to agree that the world wouldn't be in the situation it is in today without 9/11. There would be no such things as Patriot Acts and military commissions act and "Global War on Terror." And the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's defenses" that was written in 2000 said that they wanted to use the military to achieve full spectrum dominance of the world.

Also read former secretary of the treasury Paul O'neill book "The price of Loyalty." He said the very FIRST cabinet meeting that the Bush admin had in 2000 they discussed "when and how are we gonna attack Iraq?"

They were planning it from the beginning.

Not only please explain how ALL of our planes were not used that day? They government could have easily told them to stand down, and Norman Mineta said thats what Cheney said to do in his underground bunker that day in his testimony to the 9/11 commission.

You need to examine the evidence more clearly.

And I'm not racist. Do not put that venom into my mouth. I said that because the government is using the fact that the people in the middle east are different and using that to divide the population, therefore people will hate them more easily. "THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T LIKE US! THEREFORE THEY MUST BE BAD!" Most people think like that.

Please explain to me how WTC 7 came down, too. That is if you believe the governments report. OH WAIT!!! WTC 7 is not EVEN MENTIONED in the 9/11 commission report. HMMMMMMM

There was a motive and there was a means (they are in control of the entire military). I believe that there should be MUCH more questioning. That doesn't mean that I am saying they did it(even though it looks like they did), but the story they give is not possible and the evidence and especially WTC 7 is damning.

If it barks like a dog, walks like a dog and looks like a dog, it is probably a dog.

I agree, motive does not mean proof, where the fuck do you think I got that idea?

Because you attempted to dismiss your opponent and break down the entire argument into a single summary with a ridiculously simple and ignorant-sounding premise.
Not what you really believe? Okay, fair enough.

But you have to agree that the world wouldn't be in the situation it is in today without 9/11. There would be no such things as Patriot Acts and military commissions act and "Global War on Terror."

This is an effect, not a cause. While I agree that those are indeed shitty results, those things aren't even covered in your "motive". I realize that at some point you probably decided Bush and company are closet fascists, but you do need proof to back up any such claims about motive, and those results are not proof.

And the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's defenses" that was written in 2000 said that they wanted to use the military to achieve full spectrum dominance of the world.

Sure, that's nothing new. 9/11 doesn't accomplish that, nor does it offer them a springboard to accomplish that. Having READ the document and commentary on it, I'd point out that it comes nowhere near close. Perhaps you'd like to show me how destroying Iraq gives them the world?

Also read former secretary of the treasury Paul O'neill book "The price of Loyalty." He said the very FIRST cabinet meeting that the Bush admin had in 2000 they discussed "when and how are we gonna attack Iraq?"

So what? It was blatantly obvious that they exploited the opportunity. There's a lot of reasons for them to do it, and the possible motive is clear. Just like with the terrorists.

They were planning it from the beginning.

Still looking for proof, and as I just pointed out - that's a motive, not proof.

Not only please explain how ALL of our planes were not used that day? They government could have easily told them to stand down, and Norman Mineta said that they were in his testimony to the 9/11 commission.

You're attempting to use circumstantial evidence as proof. You don't know why it happened the way it did anymore than anyone else, and you're exploiting that ignorance
the way Bush's administration exploited 9/11 to achieve one of their interests.

You need to examine the evidence more clearly.

Show me some solid evidence rather than circumstantial speculation and I'll listen.

And I'm not racist. Do not put that venom into my mouth. I said that because the government is using the fact that the people in the middle east are different and using that to divide the population, therefore people will hate them more easily. "THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T LIKE US! THEREFORE THEY MUST BE BAD!" Most people think like that.

Bullshit, you resorted to the exact same kind of racist mindset. You dismissed them as ignorant brown people in caves incapable of pulling it off. You are suggesting that they couldn't POSSIBLY have done it and that people are fools to think otherwise. I could quote it, but you know damn well what it said. The sad thing is, you're so caught up in your own brainless hatred of the Bush administration that you'll resort to any garbage, no matter how base. These people are an organized terrorist group, with contacts all over the planet, and supposedly large amounts of funding. Yet to you, they're just brown folks in caves, kind of like ignorant neanderthals. Don't justify your own ignorance by using the Bush Administration's exploitation of other people's actions.

This is the point: They are capable, but you insist they are not, and that we are fools to think otherwise. Tell us why, or shut the fuck up, because so far you've offered nothing.

Please explain to me how WTC 7 came down, too. That is if you believe the governments report. OH WAIT!!! WTC 7 is not EVEN MENTIONED in the 9/11 commission report. HMMMMMMM

You know what? Even if it didn't come down the way they said, it isn't proof. You know why? Because it was blatantly obvious that they did not want the full scope of their failure to come to light. What does it mean if the WTC had some help in the form of explosives coming down?

It means that not only did they infiltrate our airlines, the terrorists managed to infiltrate the financial nervepoint itself in order to guarantee success. Fear is a useful tool, but uncontrollable fear, like that fear that terrorists could actually pull that off, would be counter-productive. That gives them a motive NOT to fully investigate. They got what they want, why should they bother? They want to be able to tell people they can protect them, but if it becomes clear that they can't, that's deathblow for their agendas.

There was a motive and there was a means (they are in control of the entire military). I believe that there should be MUCH more questioning. That doesn't mean that I am saying they did it(even though it looks like they did), but the story they give is not possible and the evidence and especially WTC 7 is damning.

There's also a means and a motive for them to cover-up a fullblown failure. I think you know that, and are simply ignoring the truth of the matter because you've gone and blinded yourself.

If it barks like a dog, walks like a dog and looks like a dog, it is probably a dog.

If it bleats like a sheep, walkslike a sheep and acts like a sheep, it probably is a sheep. Know what? That doesn't just apply to the ignorant people that accept the government's word as god's own truth. It applies to conspiracy-minded fuckheads who blindly accept the word of other mindless Bush-haters as gospel.

You haven't shown proof that they were responsible for 9/11 and I don't think you can. Your insistance that this garbage you've presented somehow constitutes proof is symptomatic of someone with a closed-mind. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to hear your own version of it, and you want other's to take your word for it.

http://www.linenoiz.com/pics/funny/its_a_conspiracy.jpg

Bullshit, you resorted to the exact same kind of racist mindset. You dismissed them as ignorant brown people in caves incapable of pulling it off. You are suggesting that they couldn't POSSIBLY have done it and that people are fools to think otherwise. I could quote it, but you know damn well what it said. The sad thing is, you're so caught up in your own brainless hatred of the Bush administration that you'll resort to any garbage, no matter how base. These people are an organized terrorist group, with contacts all over the planet, and supposedly large amounts of funding. Yet to you, they're just brown folks in caves, kind of like ignorant neanderthals. Don't justify your own ignorance by using the Bush Administration's exploitation of other people's actions.

This is the point: They are capable, but you insist they are not, and that we are fools to think otherwise. Tell us why, or shut the fuck up, because so far you've offered nothing.


OK I am not even going to address your other points because you are incapable of thinking, and telling me that I am a racist when I told you myself I am not. YEA OK IM RACIST, THANKS FOR TELLING ME BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW I WAS! YOU REALLY HELPEDZ ME!! OHH I NOW SEE THE ERRORS OF MY WAYYYZ!

I think there is no such thing as race if you look down beneath the skin and examine the DNA. 99.9% of everyones DNA IS THE SAME!!! So from a scientific standpoint I think race is just an organism's perspective from living in a "middle world" where they do not normally see each others DNA and how closely we are ALL related on a molecular level.

So I think that you really do not understand anything.

Also no where did I say that people because of their "race"(remember now I do not think race exists and it is only something made up in a human's head, please stay with me) could not pull this off.


This is an effect, not a cause. While I agree that those are indeed shitty results, those things aren't even covered in your "motive". I realize that at some point you probably decided Bush and company are closet fascists, but you do need proof to back up any such claims about motive, and those results are not proof.

WOW YOU REALIZED THAT I PROBABLY DECIDED?!?!?!?!?!?

All you really do is ad hominem attack me and not address the issues.


If it bleats like a sheep, walkslike a sheep and acts like a sheep, it probably is a sheep. Know what? That doesn't just apply to the ignorant people that accept the government's word as god's own truth. It applies to conspiracy-minded fuckheads who blindly accept the word of other mindless Bush-haters as gospel.

You have called me a "bush hater" and a "conspiracy minded fuck head" instead of addressing the issues.

More ad hominem.

You haven't shown proof that they were responsible for 9/11 and I don't think you can. Your insistance that this garbage you've presented somehow constitutes proof is symptomatic of someone with a closed-mind. You don't want to hear the truth, you want to hear your own version of it, and you want other's to take your word for it.

So you actually believe the governments story on the 9/11 commission report? It defies scientific laws. Again I do not think this is PROOF!!! These are questions that the government can answer and they simply won't. I want a new independent investigation of 9/11.

People like you are too narrow minded, and I noticed how you couldn't say anything to me with out swearing at me and calling me a lia and telling me to "shut the fuck up," a good symptom of someone who is incapable of thinking.

Please go back to my original post and address the issues instead of swearing at me and calling me a "bush hater" and a "racist" or I am not going to address anything else you post. A good part to start at is explaining the collapse of WTC 7 and why the government never even reported it, and then they say that "debris from WTC 1 and 2 took down a 55 story building that is a few city blocks away, and it fell down 8 hours later." Not only that WTC 7 housed CIA documents and other governmental money records.

Not only that there were put options put on United and American Airlines by Raytheon, Merril Lynch, Swiss RE and Axa Re insurance companies and this was done through deutche bank, whose president was Buzzy Kronguard, the former head of the CIA. These put options were bought on sept. 7 8 and 9th. Not only that Larry Silverstein took out a 7 billion dollar insurance policy against terrorism 5 weeks prior to 9/11.

Some people made BILLIONS of dollars that day. A little curious isn't it?

well, this thread's officially derailed. A couple of idiotic attention whores are the culprits once again.

well, this thread's officially derailed. A couple of idiotic attention whores are the culprits once again.

Fair enough. For some stupid reason, I mistook this for the 9/11 thread that SoTB just reinvigorated. Dropping it now.

xxx 9/11 xx etc xxx

If you really want to pursue this argument, copy/paste your latest reply to the appropriate thread on the Conspiracy! (or Humanities, if they'll allow it) boards, and we'll take it there.

I don't have a problem with deeper discussion of this issue, but you didn't really seem interested in that.

Now you are in to some murky waters, and that can be a tough question to answer.

How do you know that the someone will kill other people? It is legal to say that someone is going to kill other people, you can say whatever you want. That is freedom of speech.

Please elaborate your question a little bit. That is too broad to answer in general terms. Questions like these need to be specific in order to have a rational answer that isn't general and can be misinterpreted into something that is totally unrelated.

Well a simple example would be the mentally ill American school boy shooting everybody. A more elaborated one will be something like taking some action that would kill someone as a side effect, but will prevent a great catastrophe (I'm a bit lazy now to think in an actual case, but you get the point)

Fair enough. For some stupid reason, I mistook this for the 9/11 thread that SoTB just reinvigorated. Dropping it now.

Yea you are dropping it because I defeated you quite easily. Shitty wok is not a mod...why are you listening you him?

Well a simple example would be the mentally ill American school boy shooting everybody. A more elaborated one will be something like taking some action that would kill someone as a side effect, but will prevent a great catastrophe (I'm a bit lazy now to think in an actual case, but you get the point)

Well I believe that life is something that only comes once, therefore it must be preserved and cherished, and that we have found no other alien intelligence suggests that maybe life doesn't arise to often in the universe, which speaks to its exquisiteness.

That being said I will answer now. I think the government is a reflection of the people and since you some people are saying we need to "preempt" things in order for them not to happen is a reflection of the government preempting wars. Now if you know a person has a gun and they are going to kill people with it then yes, it is OK to defend yourself and maybe even kill them. It is why we have the second amendment, to defend our liberties and lives from others who may try and steal them from us, its not there for hunting and fishing.

Now the situation where you have to kill and innocent in order to save thousands is hard to answer. I think that mostly everyone would say they would kill the person person in order to "save" other people. But I think that is a false way of looking at it. Things that do not affect you should not have any occupied space in your head. The "altruism" that you need to kill someone in order to do good I think is evil, because it does not help you in any way. You should do only things for yourself only and everyone else should do that too, therefore we do not have a system of some people being slaves to other people who use them. If everyone only did things for themselves and do deals with people because it makes sense to do them, people will only do business with people who helps them and so both parties will win. There should be no reason to get involved with external affairs that are not your business. So if I was presented with the chance to do some "good" by killing an innocent to "save" people I would not do anything about it.

Well I believe that life is something that only comes once, therefore it must be preserved and cherished, and that we have found no other alien intelligence suggests that maybe life doesn't arise to often in the universe, which speaks to its exquisiteness.

That being said I will answer now. I think the government is a reflection of the people and since you some people are saying we need to "preempt" things in order for them not to happen is a reflection of the government preempting wars. Now if you know a person has a gun and they are going to kill people with it then yes, it is OK to defend yourself and maybe even kill them. It is why we have the second amendment, to defend our liberties and lives from others who may try and steal them from us, its not there for hunting and fishing.

Now the situation where you have to kill and innocent in order to save thousands is hard to answer. I think that mostly everyone would say they would kill the person person in order to "save" other people. But I think that is a false way of looking at it. Things that do not affect you should not have any occupied space in your head. The "altruism" that you need to kill someone in order to do good I think is evil, because it does not help you in any way. You should do only things for yourself only and everyone else should do that too, therefore we do not have a system of some people being slaves to other people who use them. If everyone only did things for themselves and do deals with people because it makes sense to do them, people will only do business with people who helps them and so both parties will win. There should be no reason to get involved with external affairs that are not your business. So if I was presented with the chance to do some "good" by killing an innocent to "save" people I would not do anything about it.

mm forget the altruist part, say you are also going to die unless this inocent person is dead. Moreover think that you are the only one who is going to die... i guess you will say in that case it is the you vs me survival situtation... BTW, situation where I think you believe killing is OK right?

Yea you are dropping it because I defeated you quite easily. Shitty wok is not a mod...why are you listening you him?

better me than some dipshit.....named Xerxes35 :p

Yea you are dropping it because I defeated you quite easily. Shitty wok is not a mod...why are you listening you him?

I'm listening to him because he's right. This isn't the proper place for this discussion. The only reason I got into this argument with you HERE is because I thought it was the 9/11 thread.

So before you start yelling "Mission accomplished" and doing the Dubya Cheer over a perceived e-victory, maybe you should utilize those reading comprehension skills to understand what I am saying. I'm not impressed, and you should be embarassed for acting like the retard-in-chief.

Point? You want to continue this discussion? That's fine by me, I'll be happy to. Simply take it to the right board. Conspiracy or Humanities. This has nothing to do with religion. I'm only dropping this thread.

Get it now?

yea...its a catholic idea, but who says I can't take it?



thats what athiesm is about in my opinion, writing your own damn bible, excluding all the mystical shit.

I personally would never murder someone b/c of

"Treat others as you would like to be treated"

yea...its a catholic idea, but who says I can't take it?

Not a catholic idea.


http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i197/wakkosmakka/GoldenRule.gif

A universal one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I personally would never murder someone b/c of

"Treat others as you would like to be treated"

yea...its a catholic idea, but who says I can't take it?

It's not a Catholic idea, it's a human idea that they claim their religion to have begun. Long before even the Torah, religions created similar moral guidelines, groups wrote down similar laws, and people generally practiced similar ethics systems in most places in the world (not all, I know, and it's still not all). Those ideas were generated by the human brain and human experience, and since humans created religions they incorporated those ideas into those religion systems.

Edit: Fuck. After I posted it took me back to the page and I saw that the very post above me was addressing this. I feel like a tool. :(

It's not a Catholic idea, it's a human idea that they claim their religion to have begun. Long before even the Torah, religions created similar moral guidelines, groups wrote down similar laws, and people generally practiced similar ethics systems in most places in the world (not all, I know, and it's still not all). Those ideas were generated by the human brain and human experience, and since humans created religions they incorporated those ideas into those religion systems.

Edit: Fuck. After I posted it took me back to the page and I saw that the very post above me was addressing this. I feel like a tool. :(

You summed up the historical and cultural perspective well.