Bad is sometimes good, yet good, is never bad?


Gordon J Torture
#1
Murder is wrong!! .. Isnt it? ... Oh wait, murder is wrong UNLESS it is in self defense, or you are at war, or the person "deserved it (death penalty). Yeah, that's it! Therefor, murder is not always "wrong". BUT ... we never think it is wrong to do such things as "feed the poor", despite the fact, me may just be strengthening the mask which covers a murderous greater evil. A greater evil such as a government that gains public support through charity such as "food for the homeless", and then through accumulative support is able to murder thousands of people in order to secure financial gain. In regards to the latter, feeding the poor, and anyone involved in it, is no morally different then the premeditated murder of an inncocent man. However we consider the death penalty as punishment for one who fed the poor as part of that government program preposterous?

It has become clear to me, that the entire world lives by the following philosophy: "What is wicked, may in any another conjuncture be just, yet what is just, may only in a completely different conjuncture be wicked"

Even with intentions revealed, we simply ignore the fact one could not be achieved without the other, and label only the more obvious as "wrong". However, it is not just the intentions, nor the actions of the villain himself that are "wrong", but also the ignorance of those who created the opportunity. Hence, if we wish our enforcement of consequences to be effective, we must enforce them equally upon every individual that enabled either directly or through ignorance, the actions we percieve as wrongdoing to occur.
 
missile
#2
The death penalty hasn't existed in Canada for several generations now,even though most of us wanted it returned to law.
 
Gordon J Torture
#3
The fact you made that blatantly impious comment greatly disappoints me. It is so utterly irrelevant in regards to my post, I can not even begin to put it into words. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I was making. In addition, I am, nor was I ever, under the impression Canada currently has the death penalty.
 
Jay
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

Murder is wrong!! .. Isnt it? ... Oh wait, murder is wrong UNLESS it is in self defense, or you are at war, or the person "deserved it (death penalty). Yeah, that's it! Therefor, murder is not always "wrong".

Self defense, war or state deterrence isn't murder.
 
Gordon J Torture
#5
Quote:

Self defense, war or state deterrence isn't murder

Yes it is, it just isn't considered so by law.

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

Since what one consideres "lawful" differs from country to country and person to person, it is nothing more than subjective.


It would have been easy enough for you to see what I really meant is "kill", but I can see you have no desire to understand or discuss my real point.
 
Jay
#6
So rather than deal with the legal definitions, we should make up our own?

I think I will stick to the legal.
 
Gordon J Torture
#7
Quote:

So rather than deal with the legal definitions, we should make up our own?

Show me where I "made up my own definition", because I have no idea what you are talking about.

I do suspect however, you are avoiding the real point, because you are not capable of understanding or discussing it.
 
Jay
#8
"It would have been easy enough for you to see what I really meant is "kill", but I can see you have no desire to understand or discuss my real point."

It isn't up to me to put word in your mouth.

Killing is the removal of life. Murder is a legal definition used to set aside one type of killing over others.
 
Jay
#9
"I do suspect however, you are avoiding the real point, because you are not capable of understanding or discussing it."

Arenít you pleasantÖ

I was pointing out that your understanding of murder is wrong.
 
Gordon J Torture
#10
Quote:

Murder is a legal definition used to set aside one type of killing over others.

If one perceives killing as unjust in any situatoin, it is completely acceptable for him to use the word "murder". There is no way you can read other people's minds my friend, so you need to just let people call it as they wish.
 
peapod
#11
Torture you have an interesting mind...you will accomplish more if you do not talk down to people....just my 00.2 cents.
 
Jay
#12
"If one perceives killing as unjust in any situatoin, it is completely acceptable for him to use the word "murder"."


Sorry but words have meanings....if you have those meanings wrong, that isn't my fault. If you have misperceptions of what words mean, that isn't my fault either. If you want to change the meaning of words, you will have to consult with Oxford, or something, but if you say murder and mean killing, you might run into some problems, and because I can't read your mind, we need to agree on what words mean.

Murder is a legal term, and carries with it consequences.
 
Gordon J Torture
#13
I know pea, something about disrespect seems to agitate me, I wonder why?

Had the attempt to understand the thread once so ever, been made, after which he pointed out what he perceived as misproper use of a word, that would have been fine. They way he did it, I find disrespectful.

"law" is not an absolute, they change both politically and religiously. The difference between murder and killing is only subjective. Rather than make any attempt to understand the post, certain people become obsessed with the irrelevant.
 
Gordon J Torture
#14
I will simplify:

In my mind, it may be murder, yet in your mind may not be murder. Either way, it would have been easy for you to see my idea of "murder" simply meant "kill" by your perception. For you to even bring it up accomplished nothing.
 
Jay
#15
Quote:

Killing is wrong!! .. Isnt it? ... Oh wait, killing is wrong UNLESS it is in self defense, or you are at war, or the person "deserved it (death penalty). Yeah, that's it! Therefor, killing is not always "wrong".

Killing is the right word to use here, as I read it to mean not murder.

And since I donít think that killing is wrong necessarily, it makes a difference, because murder is wrong.


Quote:

BUT ... we never think it is wrong to do such things as "feed the poor", despite the fact, me may just be strengthening the mask which covers a murderous greater evil. A greater evil such as a government that gains public support through charity such as "food for the homeless", and then through accumulative support is able to murder thousands of people in order to secure financial gain. In regards to the latter, feeding the poor, and anyone involved in it, is no morally different then the premeditated murder of an inncocent man. However we consider the death penalty as punishment for one who fed the poor as part of that government program preposterous?


The word murder used here implies the government, or the greater evil, is doing the killing unlawfully, and the people feeding the poor, are perpetuating this continuum, and are involved in the killing, but arenít murderous in their intent, (but I guess you wish to claim the helpful people are in fact murderous.)

Of course I don't condemn these helpers as murderous, as they are innocent in their actions, regardless if their hands are covered in blood or not.

I think using the correct words spell out a different picture than what was originally written, and doesn't lend itself to support your claim that helpers of the poor are in an aiding and abetting position. You may think it is nit picking, but I don't.

I hope this makes sence to you and clears up my position, and that you see it has in fact accomplished something.
 
Dexter Sinister
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

If one perceives killing as unjust in any situatoin...

That's where you go wrong I think. You defined murder yourself as the "unlawful killing of one human by another" but implicitly your original meaning was any killling of one human by another, which is quite a different idea. All societies throughout history that I know anything about have agreed that killing another human is acceptable behaviour under certain circumstances. The precise circumstances differ across societies, and there are heated debates in some societies every now and then about what the allowable circumstances might be (capital punishment and abortion, for instance) , but Jay's right, and so is the definition you ultimately offered. "Unlawful" is the key distinction. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
 
Gordon J Torture
#17
Quote:

And since I donít think that killing is wrong necessarily, it makes a difference, because murder is wrong.

Exactly. So, since one's perception of a certain killing may be that it was "wrong", then to him it is murder, despite the fact, it may not be considered murder to someone else.
 
Gordon J Torture
#18
Quote:

your original meaning was any killling of one human by another,

Show me.
 
Gordon J Torture
#19
Quote:

The word murder used here implies the government, or the greater evil, is doing the killing unlawfully, and the people feeding the poor, are perpetuating this continuum, and are involved in the killing


YES! .. That is my perception. That is the way I see it.
 
Dexter Sinister
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

Show me.

You wrote "murder is wrong UNLESS it is in self defense, or you are at war..." In self defence, or in times of war, or various other circumstances, it's by definition not murder, but you are implicitly assuming it is for the sake of your argument. That's called a straw man argument, and it's a fallacy.
 
Gordon J Torture
#21
Quote:

You wrote "murder is wrong UNLESS it is in self defense, or you are at war..." In self defence, or in times of war, or various other circumstances, it's by definition not murder

All those circumstances may be perceived differently by each individual subjectively. In addition, I perceive it to be unjust to kill even in self defense 99% of the time, so to me, it is indeed called murder. (The self defense ****, and the list was sarcasm) Nothing anyone can say will change that because those are my beliefs and I am entitled to them.

With that said, am I using the word incorrectly? No ... The problem is, you are thinking in terms of total absolutes.
 
Jay
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

Quote:

The word murder used here implies the government, or the greater evil, is doing the killing unlawfully, and the people feeding the poor, are perpetuating this continuum, and are involved in the killing


YES! .. That is my perception. That is the way I see it.


Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

Quote:

The word murder used here implies the government, or the greater evil, is doing the killing unlawfully, and the people feeding the poor, are perpetuating this continuum, and are involved in the killing


YES! .. That is my perception. That is the way I see it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

I know pea, something about disrespect seems to agitate me, I wonder why?

Had the attempt to understand the thread once so ever, been made, after which he pointed out what he perceived as misproper use of a word, that would have been fine. They way he did it, I find disrespectful.

So now we can get beyond this sort of talk, as you see I'm not being disrespectful, and I am going to lengths to understand the thread.

Itís called Mens Rea; a Latin phrase for guilty mind. You are innocent till proven guilty and if youíre found not to have a guilty mind even though a crime has been committed you are still found not guilty (in many cases).

Therefore the helpers of the poor, (even if they are aiding and abetting the evil murderous government), can not be guilty unless they are privy to the plan.

The law can be tricky.
 
Gordon J Torture
#23
jay, the English language has many uses outside of a courtroom. The perception of a killing can be considered "murder" by one person, yet just a "killing" by another, simply by a difference in religious beliefs.
 
Gordon J Torture
#24
Quote:

Therefore the helpers of the poor, (even if they are aiding and abetting the evil murderous government), can not be guilty unless they are privy to the plan.

I did not say they were guilty by our current laws. I basically said ignorance should lead to consequences as well. I said they should be guilty, not that they ARE in the current system. The way you are phrasing your points is directly implying things I never said.
 
Jay
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

Quote:

You wrote "murder is wrong UNLESS it is in self defense, or you are at war..." In self defence, or in times of war, or various other circumstances, it's by definition not murder

All those circumstances may be perceived differently by each individual subjectively. In addition, I perceive it to be unjust to kill even in self defense 99% of the time, so to me, it is indeed called murder. (The self defense ****, and the list was sarcasm) Nothing anyone can say will change that because those are my beliefs and I am entitled to them.

With that said, am I using the word incorrectly? No ... The problem is, you are thinking in terms of total absolutes.


You may be entitled to perceive the word differently, but if you use it in your perception, rather than what ppl are taught that the word means, you may have a problem. Also you might have a hard time convincing a judge that the word really means this, instead of that. It may be true that our system of law (common law) changes, but once it does so, it stays on the books, till it changes again, therefore it is an absolute.
 
Gordon J Torture
#26
Jay, why are you only thinking in terms of inside a courtroom?

Also, I am not perceiving the word differently at all, my perception of what is right, and what is wrong is the only thing that is different. My perception of the word "murder" is exactly the same as yours.
 
Jay
#27
"Jay, why are you only thinking in terms of inside a courtroom?"

I suppose because of the word we are discussing
"murder".


I think we understand each other now, so there is no need to drag this out further.
 
Gordon J Torture
#28
There was no need to drag it out at all.

Morality is subjective.
 
Dexter Sinister
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Gordon J Torture

Nothing anyone can say will change that because those are my beliefs and I am entitled to them.

Certainly you're entitled to your beliefs, but not all beliefs are equally legitimate and some are simply wrong. The fact is you've redefined a word to conform to your beliefs in contrary to its generally accepted meaning both in law and in common usage, so yes, you are using the word incorrectly, and I agree with Jay again, there's no point in dragging this out any further.
 
Gordon J Torture
#30
Quote:

The fact is you've redefined a word to conform to your beliefs in contrary to its generally accepted meaning

No I did not. The meaning of the word is exactly the same, it is only my beliefs that are different, and I am entitled to that.

Quote:

not all beliefs are equally legitimate and some are simply wrong.

No my friend, ALL beliefs are equal as we all have the right to individual belief. All beliefs effect eachother, thus, all are important, as all people and races are also equally important.
 

Similar Threads

39
Good Fences make Good Neighbours?
by rufus | Apr 18th, 2009
3
"Good Night, and Good Luck"
by GL Schmitt | Nov 4th, 2005
27
One good law.
by American Voice | Jul 1st, 2004
no new posts