So by this principle, we should murder innocent civilians whenever it may save more lives... What's the number needed to justify it? If murdering one innocent civilian saves the lives of two, is that ok?
Your condescending nature isn't becoming. And that statement is ridiculous. To even suggest that there's some magical formula to decide if it's right or not speaks for itself.
The ability for the president to do so is there for a reason. Because there may be times when that use of force is deemed better than the alternative.
Now tell me, you preferred that those 1500 people died in the second tower because it was wrong to shoot down the plane of 60 that were already clearly on their way to their death as it was.
Now, your mom, your dad, your wife, your kids, whichever are in the second tower. You still going to protest the shooting down of that plane?
You can't tell me 1500 dying is better than 60, when those 60 are going to be a part of that 1500 when all is said and done.
So you allow the killing of civilians for a cause tha it far less important than human life? I'm honestly lost. What if the principle is financial gain? Still think it's OK to conduct war to defend such principle?
A principle can be changed, put away for some time, but never killed. A human life is kind un-recyclable.
"Financial gain", is not a principle. And, no, when did I say that I recommend killing people for financial gain?
Your condescending nature isn't becoming. And that statement is ridiculous. To even suggest that there's some magical formula to decide if it's right or not speaks for itself.
The ability for the president to do so is there for a reason. Because there may be times when that use of force is deemed better than the alternative.
Now tell me, you preferred that those 1500 people died in the second tower because it was wrong to shoot down the plane of 60 that were already clearly on their way to their death as it was.
Now, your mom, your dad, your wife, your kids, whichever are in the second tower. You still going to protest the shooting down of that plane?
You can't tell me 1500 dying is better than 60, when those 60 are going to be a part of that 1500 when all is said and done.
Killing them simple isn't an option. Is that so hard to understand?
It's exclusion through selective inclusion. I may be picky here, but John's later us of the word "civillians" (without qualifying their nationality) is more aceptable to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atom
Because I don't believe that you are that ignorant to really have to wonder about what his answer might be to this question.
Actually you do believe that, as your subsequent statements show:
Quote:
You all just let me know... I'll show you what your debating is worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atom
Shall I continue?
Please do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atom
John is the only one here that even knows how to debate properly, that is quite obvious to me.
I disagree with some of his positions on some topics, but I am not denying John debating skills. Having said that, who/what put you in a position of "knowng" whose debating skills are good, and whose aren't? Any credentials?
So by this principle, we should murder innocent civilians whenever it may save more lives... What's the number needed to justify it? If murdering one innocent civilian saves the lives of two, is that ok?
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilregis
Your condescending nature isn't becoming. And that statement is ridiculous. To even suggest that there's some magical formula to decide if it's right or not speaks for itself.
Condescending nature? Suggest a magic formula?
Have you lost your mind, evilregis? HE HAS ONLY ASKED SOME QUESTIONS.
"Financial gain", is not a principle. And, no, when did I say that I recommend killing people for financial gain?
according to webster's dictionary (one of the definitions, emphasis mine)
Quote:
Principle:
3 a : an underlying faculty or endowment <such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b : an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality
Greed and finacial gain are not too far appart. Financial gain is the main principle of a corporation. As a matter of fact a corporation is obliged to follow the principle of financial gain for its shareholders. Therefore financial gain is a principle. Ergo, if we believe Webster's Dictionary and if wars for principles are justified, then they are justified for financial gain.
We are talking about Gov'ts - how else do you think they deal with lawbreakers? If not the police, then whose cruiser? The local bakery's?
Freedom - the ability to do as I please without interference from others.
Ideal freedom - the ability to do as I please without interference as long as my actions do not imping upon the rights of others.
Well, here we hit a snag. Not in terms of the basic disagreements, but in terms of the definition of freedom. Yours seem acceptable, but certainly not the only ones. It's whole new subject of the meaning of the word "freedom", so I stop here.
according to webster's dictionary (one of the definitions, emphasis mine)
Greed and finacial gain are not too far appart. Financial gain is the main principle of a corporation. As a matter of fact a corporation is obliged to follow the principle of financial gain for its shareholders. Therefore financial gain is a principle. Ergo, if we believe Webster's Dictionary and if wars for principles are justified, then they are justified for financial gain.
Even if grant that "finicial gain", by itself, is a principle, it just makes it one principle. There are many principles - and the majority of them do not justify wars. The main principles that justfie war is freedom and democracy.
Well, here we hit a snag. Not in terms of the basic disagreements, but in terms of the definition of freedom. Yours seem acceptable, but certainly not the only ones. It's whole new subject of the meaning of the word "freedom", so I stop here.
It's pretty much the generally accepted idea of freedom.
It's exclusion through selective inclusion. I may be picky here, but John's later us of the word "civillians" (without qualifying their nationality) is more aceptable to me.
You did not answer my question, littleFella, and it is regretful to me, but it is your choice and there's not much I can do about it.
If you decide to answer it, then maybe we can continue, but it is only common courtesy to answer a simple question.
John is the only one here that even knows how to debate properly, that is quite obvious to me. Does he get out of hand/make mistakes ... sure, but at least he attempts to follow the rules of proper debate.
jezz you want some knee pads
Quote:
Originally Posted by john
The main principles that justfie war is freedom and democracy..
Let's try to keep the discussion intelligent. By that account it was an accident. Or, are you saying it is a good thing that we shot down a civilian airliner?
of course the official stance is OOPS!!!
but if you really believe that then I got oceanfront property in Arizona.
