StarDestroyer.Net BBS

He at least had the maturity to leave... before he got summarily permbanned. If you'd rather have the woman beating (and proud of it at the time) Ryan Crierie than somebody who's never been in trouble with the law then I might as well just leave, because there's no valid reason to stay. "Rule ...

I'm going to present the evidence here: Shep's initial crime: Teen Pleads Guilty to Wounding Father Shep's problems continue at college because they don't like it when you assault women who want you to pay attention to them instead of watching the season premiere of Enterprise. Our Pal Ryan, From Ky...

Do you have any idea why GD has a vendetta against you? What happened in AVAS? The reason is very simple. Shep was convicted of attempted murder. I supported him at the time because I thought he had a simple anger management problem and could still pick himself up if he tried hard enough. He then g...

Do I need to provide linkage to stories covering prison escapes? I should have thought that we can all agree that they do occur, and that escapees do sometimes kill again while they're out. Do you have any stories about escapees that kill again while escaped? Multiple murderers are vanishingly rare...

Your personal definitions of morality are pretty shaky grounds to call a legal tradition dating back several hundreds of years immoral. The fact that its a legal tradition has no bearing on whether its moral. Legality is derived from morality, and can approximate it, but is the output of the functi...

If you are positing escape-proof prisons, and prisons in which guards maintain absolute control over prisoners at all times, you ought to demonstrate that such a prison has ever been successfully maintained. You ought to demonstrate that such a prison is unlikely, since you are the one who is basin...

Rights are not inherent. If they violated the social contract that severely, they forfeit their rights. It is why Alysium is using utility. Unforfeitable rights are a good proxy for maximizing utility. They also avoid having to make the argument that reasonably avoidable killings can be moral. Actu...

What makes you believe that the sort of person typically subjected to the death penalty - a murderer - is "no threat to anyone else?" A properly operated prison system can do just that. Note that nearly all prisons are operated in a retributive manner that is essentially guaranteed to not...

Then why do you persist in calling Ender immoral when this whole thread has been about legality? Ender is not saying killing that guy was moral, he is saying it was legal. A lawful killing can easily be immoral. As for why I'm calling him immoral, it's demonstrated by this quote. Not because I conc...

The death penalty is inherently unethical because it entails the killing of a person when that person is of no threat to anyone else. There is no need to kill somebody to ensure that society remains safe from them, so their right to life remains.

Thanas wrote:Exactly. By his definition, if I were to shoot someone in self defence, I would be a murderer as well. After all, I deliberately fired the shot that ended his life in full knowledge of the consequences.

You're right. I was using the wrong definition there.

So apparently refusing to debate you because you are a troll is an admission that you are absolutely right about everything under the sun, based off your personality. No, your blatant statement that the legality of the killing matters in determining whether it is moral is what makes me right when I...

But in case you merely substituted unavoidable for avoidable, he still is not a murderer, as that would mean he would be guilty of murder, which is a crime. A legal execution is not a crime. This is what I meant. And the term murderer applies to anybody who deliberately kills another human being, w...

[quote="Ender""]You know what? No, fuck you. Not because I concede the point - I don't know the facts of that case and thus cannot evaluate if the court martial was conducted in a just fashion or not.[/quote] Thanks. You just admitted what I lnew from the start, that you think that le...

I fully addressed Elfdart's main point - the contention betwen captured personnel and POWs, and whether there were legal provisions that allowed for summary executions. Elfdart has said nothing about morality at all in this debate. Okay. Then how about you address _my_ point. I'm getting annoyed be...

That's funny, Elfdart didn't say anything about morality either. Well, for one, Elfdart is actually on the morally correct side of this argument, and from his past actions we know that he's not ethically bankrupt. Ender, on the other hand is a right-winger, so we know that his morality is suspect f...

We also aren't talking about the price of fish in Stockholm. Does that make this a useless debate as well? The moral evaluations of what has and is happening is not the topic of discussion. That you want it to be and think the fact that it isn't makes the debate "useless" is completely ir...

erik_t wrote:Yeah - only one of them would be banned. That's about the only meaningful difference.

Well, other than the fact that the dedicated system is the only one that's likely to be effective at destroying satellites of course.

No it is not. Like it or not, ours (and yours) is a nation of laws. How we treat prisoners of various types legally is a very useful debate to have. Even if something was immoral, we cant exactly charge anyone with a crime that doesnt exist now can we? It's a useless debate because it allows Ender ...

Ender wrote:No body is saying a damn thing about moral status of the action you illiterate tool. The question of whether or not it is legal matters because that is the point under debate.

Then you are having a useless debate. Thanks for admitting that.

Actually, it does. That's what the term "legal action" means. And by the laws of war, he had every right to shoot that Vietcong saboteur. So are you claiming that the morally appropriate thing to do was to execute that person? Because otherwise I fail to see how it is relevant that he had...

Thanas wrote:^Because the claim was made that the persons involved didn't have the right to act in the manner depicted?

Then I'll ask again why you care whether the action was legal or not? Whether something was legal has very little to do with whether somebody has the right to do it.

Ender wrote:That incident was a legal execution for a spy/saboteur under article 106, as metted out by a summary court martial by the officer in charge. You really, truly, have no freaking clue what you are talking about, do you?

Why does the fact that it was legal make any difference to you?

Again, this False Dichotomy you like so much. You do realize that _you_ are the one presenting things as absolutes, then strategically retreating from them as the issues get pointed out? I believe that that would be called "moving the goalposts". Unhealthy in large quantities. See, I was ...

It is called hyperbole. Also an implied causation fallacy there. I would argue that those countries have a healthier population in spite of their levels of cheese consumption. You provided a matter of fact statement with a numerical quantity, and then when shown that your quantity was five times to...