The Problem with Libertarians...

[tinyp3nis]

Btw, I wanted to ask earlier, but isn't murder a just deliberated killing? So it's not deliberate killing of an innocent person, not by definition atleast...? What does english dictionary say, the finnish one says nothing about the word innocent in the definiton. Just want to make this clear for me.

[David Floyd]

No, murder is more than a deliberate killing. You might deliberately kill someone who is trying to kill you, but that isn't murder.

Murder is an unjust killing.

And if you use your dictionary as your moral compass, I think we have a problem.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I'm no friend of the US but this is a bit too much. What about WW2?

We brought that on ourselves by not selling war supplies to the Japanese and Nazis according to David.

Yeah - OK. Have you ever flicked through Mein Kampf? The plan's all there - Lebensraum and all.

As for who said that Libertarianism is untenable because the majority will never go for it - I agree - you're right - it's a pity the Libertarians can't see this.

And as someone else said - kudos to Ned for his integrity - he is a person to be admired (even if someone changed from a lifelong socialist to a hard line capitalist because they found the arguments convincing, I would still think highly of them).

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually, one always has a choice not to push a button. Just because you can create a ridiculous hypothetical with no bearing on reality doesn't make that hypothetical a valid argument.

Nope, not in this question, one has not. It's not supposed to something from real life. And the conditions were set only to 2 possibilities. You have no imagination. Fine, you have the chance to save 1 person or 2 persons, which will you choose? You will choose both, because you are beyond our silly questions, you godly man. There is no third possibility, only the possibility for you not to answer. Fine, but atleast admit you are afraid to answer.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, murder is more than a deliberate killing. You might deliberately kill someone who is trying to kill you, but that isn't murder.

Murder is an unjust killing.

And if you use your dictionary as your moral compass, I think we have a problem.

No, I use the dictionary to define words, so I can discuss with most of the people. Only the definiton of words, nothing about morale there. You get it? So what does the dictionary say?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No, murder is more than a deliberate killing. You might deliberately kill someone who is trying to kill you, but that isn't murder.

Murder is an unjust killing.

And if you use your dictionary as your moral compass, I think we have a problem.

Oh dear - the last is just what I was complaining about.

Anyway you know what I'll say - that my killing the one is less unjust than him killing the five.

Anyway, until tomorrow - my wife wants to use the computer.

goodnight.

A

[David Floyd]

Agathon,

Yeah - OK. Have you ever flicked through Mein Kampf? The plan's all there - Lebensraum and all.

Don't be ridiculous. DinoDoc made that argument in my name. I made a completely different argument. Respond to mine, not the stupid one he made.

tiny,

Nope, not in this question, one has not. It's not supposed to something from real life. And the conditions were set only to 2 possibilities. You have no imagination.

Well, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna play silly hypothetical games with you. In real life, I have the option not to push either button, therefore, that's the only scenario that matters.

[tinyp3nis]

Well, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna play silly hypothetical games with you. In real life, I have the option not to push either button, therefore, that's the only scenario that matters.

The hardest question aren't from real life. Only thing that makes them easier than real life is that nothing is at stake. It was not my question originally, I just made it so simple that even you could get it. Hint, look pass the details. You are afraid to answer the saving question? It's almost the same one. Oh, and from now on, if you discuss with someone, do them a favor and go to :
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=murder*1+0
Thanks for making me google...

[Berzerker]

Ted - posting images of people kicking back smoking opium instead of refuting our arguments isn't cutting it.

[David Floyd]

You are afraid to answer the saving question?

Not at all. I provided my answer to both questions, and my answer in both cases is the only moral choice available, based upon the premise that murder is immoral and therefore I cannot commit murder.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ned, give me something worth responding to, and I will.

Agathon, so far, has, therefore my response to him is much longer than my average response to you.

I think I mentioned something about diminished capacity awhile back.

Not worth a response?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Not at all. I provided my answer to both questions, and my answer in both cases is the only moral choice available, based upon the premise that murder is immoral and therefore I cannot commit murder.

So if there is not a moral choice (by your definiton) availabe, you start to make new choices up?

[Berzerker]

Tiny -

The "moral persons" (by your definiton) must be much better than rest of us

If you chose to push a button, yes.

since they get 3 choises, left button, right button and no button. The rest of us only gets 2 options, left and right.

Why do you only get two choices? Not pushing a button is always a choice...

We rest suck

So does the hypothetical, but I can see why y'all are having a fit over our answer.

[Ted Striker]

We are talking about a slaveowner who didn't want his slaves using a drug to relax from the burden imposed by the slaveowner.

That's your own wack theory. You have any other sources that corroborate this theory?

When during the period you've cited in China's history did they cease having emperors?

I said late 1700s through modern times. Did you ever hear of the Communists?

When the US banned opium, it was called "the Yellow Peril" and the cited fear was chinese men seducing/raping white women in opium dens. When cocaine became the target, it was black men raping white women. When marijuana became the target, it was those Mexicans. Notice a pattern?

I think you are the ONLY one noticing a pattern, but that doesn't surprise me.

You don't know Sh!t about how prohibition came about

What the hell are you talking about? We never mentioned Prohibition in this thread. Without a doubt, this is a textbook case of setting up a strawman. Here you are telling me I don't know anything about Prohibition and then you tell why I am wrong. All of this without me ever even saying a word about the topic. That's pretty good!

You're changing the debate again from China to other countries

Nice misinterpretation (though I suspect you really knew what I meant but once again skewed it). The point is that many other countries came up with the conclusion that Opium usage was bad, and decided to ban it. Their collective wisdom means nothing to you? Or are they all oppressive tyrnannical governments?

No, you just applauded a "parody" that made fun of me asking for a link and have continued the joke by repeatedly asking me for links. The fact you do this after telling me to look up links to support your arguments shows what a hypocrite you are.

Link?

Btw, when I did offer a link, you attacked it as invalid because of the organization that published the article

So find one that is from a neutral source. It's not that hard.


19th Century drug numbers please

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ted - posting images of people kicking back smoking opium instead of refuting our arguments isn't cutting it.

Ignoring 2 entire posts backed up by overwhelming documentation and failing to supply your own to refute it, also doesn't cut it either.

Oh but you conveniently "missed" those, huh?

Nice to see you cutting down your post length, however.