Does Kermit deserve the death penalty for this?

[regexcellent]

It's Tonga, you dumb**** twatwhore.

Croatia.

[kentonio]

The man who killed Tiller deserves a ****ing medal. There was nothing morally wrong with what he did; if anything, the fact that it was illegal makes it more heroic.

You're a really pathetic insect, you know that?

[regexcellent]

He stopped a man from killing hundreds of small children, and he's rotting in prison for it, and he knew that was what would happen at the time. If that's not heroic then I don't know what is.

[kentonio]

**** you. The animal murdered a doctor performing legal procedures in a supposed democracy. You think Tiller was doing something immoral? How about if someone decides that your family are immoral for eating meat and decides to murder them? Would that be heroic?

[Hauldren Collider]

If eating meat were actually murder, then yes, obviously.

[kentonio]

Who exactly decides things like that? You and Reg fancy yourself to be the judge, jury and executioner now? There are real people out there today who would kill you to prevent an animal from suffering. They consider it murder on the same level as the murder of a human. If people can commit murder based what they personally believe is immoral, then the whole concept of justice becomes a mockery.

You've both come out with plenty of callous and ridiculous statements in the past, but describing a cold blooded murderer as 'heroic' is a new low even for you idiots.

[Hauldren Collider]

I didn't make any judgement. I said that if you actually think it's murder, and you're correct, then of course you are morally justified.

That being said, while I think abortion is wrong, going around killing abortion doctors is a bad idea. In a society such as ours it's more important to have rule of law. If our society were Nazi Germany, my attitude would be different.

[kentonio]

I didn't make any judgement. I said that if you actually think it's murder, and you're correct, then of course you are morally justified.

Don't be ridiculous, you just jumped from 'think' to 'and you're correct' which is nothing but your own narrow personal opinion. Abortion is legal in America, and continues to be despite constant legal challenges. You think you're a better judge of what is constitutional than the Supreme Court, or do you only care about the constitution when it happens to agree with you?

[Hauldren Collider]

Don't be ridiculous, you just jumped from 'think' to 'and you're correct' which is nothing but your own narrow personal opinion. Abortion is legal in America, and continues to be despite constant legal challenges. You think you're a better judge of what is constitutional than the Supreme Court, or do you only care about the constitution when it happens to agree with you?

Again, the statement makes no judgement. Let's imagine for a minute that there was a rule in the constitution that said Fred Jones can kill as many people as he likes with impunity. And he does exactly that. Would killing Fred Jones be morally justified, even if it were illegal? In my opinion, yes it would be.

Obviously, this all hinges on the is abortion murder question.

[kentonio]

Again, the statement makes no judgement. Let's imagine for a minute that there was a rule in the constitution that said Fred Jones can kill as many people as he likes with impunity. And he does exactly that. Would killing Fred Jones be morally justified, even if it were illegal? In my opinion, yes it would be.

Ah, so you do believe that the constitution is only relevant as long as it happens to coincide with your personal opinions. This will be useful information on many occasions in future, thank you.

Obviously, this all hinges on the is abortion murder question.

Murder which now apparently requires no foundation in law, simply on the opinion of any passer by with an opinion. Which then apparently justifies non-judicial execution by anyone who feels like it.

[kentonio]

That being said, while I think abortion is wrong, going around killing abortion doctors is a bad idea. In a society such as ours it's more important to have rule of law. If our society were Nazi Germany, my attitude would be different.

Ah you edited this in I see. Well done for having at least a belated realization of the potential consequences of encouraging murder.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ah you edited this in I see. Well done for having at least a belated realization of the potential consequences of encouraging murder.

It wasn't belated at all. What I'm trying to explain is that morals here are based on a particular factual question*, not a philosophical one, which is, "is what this person doing murder?"

*By "factual" I mean it is unrelated to a legal principle

[Hauldren Collider]

Ah, so you do believe that the constitution is only relevant as long as it happens to coincide with your personal opinions. This will be useful information on many occasions in future, thank you.

While I think our constitution is better than anyone else's, it's not perfect. Laws aren't perfect. Laws aren't always just. What is morally right and what is legal are not the same.

We try to make laws correlate to morals as much as we can, and we use them because consistency is in many ways even more important than justice.

By the way, the idea of rebelling against injust laws isn't mine. It's Thomas Jefferson's:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Note the "light and transient causes" bit--that's why we don't constantly revolt because our taxes are too high.

[kentonio]

It wasn't belated at all. What I'm trying to explain is that morals here are based on a particular factual question*, not a philosophical one, which is, "is what this person doing murder?"

*By "factual" I mean it is unrelated to a legal principle

It's an incredibly simple concept, some things are legal, some are illegal. If your moral code suggests that something legal should be illegal then the onus is on you to gather enough support within your democracy to change the law. If you can't do that, then STFU and deal with it, because taking the law into your own hands and taking lives is simply barbaric.

[kentonio]

We try to make laws correlate to morals as much as we can, and we use them because consistency is in many ways even more important than justice.

Thus making vigilante 'justice' even more repellent.