Arabs attack Grozny - Page 5

Heresson · January 4, 2003, 16:12

It's proven to be false.

Az · January 4, 2003, 16:16

ermmm, where is that proof?

chequita guevara · January 4, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
You are assuming that Bush will attack Iraq even before the UN has a chance to vote and even if Iraq is not in material breach. That is pure propaganda.

Considering Bush has said they will atack Iraq with or without the UN and that several people in the Administration have said that failure to find anything will be considered a material breach by the US (because the US knows the Iraqis are hiding something), it's safe to asume that regardless of what happens in Iraq, the US will invade.

Heresson · January 4, 2003, 16:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
ermmm, where is that proof?

it's my opinion

Well, there's no proof, but there's no proof on your statement too. that's not important anyway; it's not about if it is usefull or not. It's about that it's not moral.

chequita guevara · January 4, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
the vast majority of the DP condemned are guilty. the 'witches' were not.

Witches were just as guilty, having been found guilty and condmened by due process of law. In the US, as much as a third or more of our DP cases have serious flaws and there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to whether DP convicts recieved anything close to a fair trial. A new study has also shown that slightly more than half of all confessions are false (45 out of 89 studied). Our whole justice system is massively flawed, therefore it is reasonble to suspect that the Death Penalty in America is a crime against humanity, which requires outside intervention to end.

Az · January 4, 2003, 16:33

What are your morals based upon?

my morals are based upon having a society/government that lets the most people be as content/happy as possible for as long as possible.

Heresson · January 4, 2003, 16:45

Therefore, You are a fascist.

Az · January 4, 2003, 16:51

Fascism is a certain system of government, which could be moral at a certain point in the history of humanity (great cataclysm, the need to mobilize all resources for a single cause, etc.). It is not moral now, of course, because it would make people unhappy, and would be unproductive in the long run.

Heresson · January 4, 2003, 16:56

I disagree. I would be happy if someone proven me that I am of the rase of masters...

OK, I'm mixing it with nazizm now...

Az · January 4, 2003, 16:57

Quote:

Witches were just as guilty, having been found guilty and condmened by due process of law.

a. not correct.
b. an highly immoral law.

Quote:

In the US, as much as a third or more of our DP cases have serious flaws and there is plenty of reasonable doubt as to whether DP convicts recieved anything close to a fair trial. A new study has also shown that slightly more than half of all confessions are false (45 out of 89 studied). Our whole justice system is massively flawed, therefore it is reasonble to suspect that the Death Penalty in America is a crime against humanity, which requires outside intervention to end.

I've already said that the DP is used to often in the states. My point was totally different: an otherwise moral law COULD become immoral if the amount of people that are against it would be very large, and their resistance to that law very strong.

Az · January 4, 2003, 17:09

Heresson, debating you is like fighting a puddle of mud. no challenge, and feels weird.

Che, and Ned, on the other hand, have made some interesting points.

Heresson · January 4, 2003, 18:04

Hah! A puddle of mud always wins.
Oh, my last one or two posts were kind of lazy ones, but it's because I can't, as well as You, prove my right here.

chequita guevara · January 4, 2003, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Heresson
Therefore, You are a fascist.

Fascism has nothing to do with the happiness o the majority, but rather only the happiness of the ruling sectors of the capitalist class.

chequita guevara · January 4, 2003, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
a. not correct.
b. an highly immoral law.

If you are found guilty of a crime, you are guilty, whether or not you committed the crime. I know, it's circular logic, but that's what we have to deal with. Once you are convicted, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you could not have committed the crime in order to get the conviction overturned (unless there were serious legal errors).

And yes, it was a terribly immoral law, but from their point of vew they were trying to save these people's souls. We know its bs, but they fervently believed they were doing right not only by the community but also by the condemned.

Quote:

I've already said that the DP is used to often in the states. My point was totally different: an otherwise moral law COULD become immoral if the amount of people that are against it would be very large, and their resistance to that law very strong.

That gets into a debat over the nature of morality. Either morality is fixed, as objectivists would argue or it is fluid and changes with society, as we Marxists would argue. I might find the burning of witches and the Death Penalty in general reprehensable, but within their contexts, they are/were moral acts.

Imran Siddiqui · January 4, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Either morality is fixed, as objectivists would argue or it is fluid and changes with society, as we Marxists would argue.

*Ahem* Not only Marxists would argue morality is fluid

.

chequita guevara · January 4, 2003, 19:11

Yes, but I'm not going to put words into your mouth.

Ned · January 4, 2003, 21:32

Throughout history, the death penalty was unevenly applied. The rich and powerful were never executed although they were sometimes asked to commit suicide. However the lower classes were not only executed, they were executed many times for sport.

The death penalty, in my opinion, is not justified unless it is equally applied to all citizens without regard to the class.

You will find that may death penalty sentences are overturned in the United States due to inadequate representation. This is primarily a money issue. One solution would be to provide everyone accused of a capital offense a very high budget defense. I think this is ridiculous. I would prefer simply to end the death penalty in United States because it is not working for a number of reasons, but most importantly is that it is unevenly and infrequently applied, and too much resource is put into endless appeals causing delays that amount to cruel and unusual punishment for society and the victims families.

Az · January 5, 2003, 03:23

Quote:

That gets into a debat over the nature of morality. Either morality is fixed, as objectivists would argue or it is fluid and changes with society, as we Marxists would argue. I might find the burning of witches and the Death Penalty in general reprehensable, but within their contexts, they are/were moral acts.

CONSIDERED moral, and WERE moral are two different things.

My argument is that the same act could be moral under different sircumstances, but the reason for the morality or the immorality of the same act would remain the same, because the effects of the same act under different sircumstance would vary greatly. However, I fail to see the utility of witch-burning under any sircumstances. If you have a good example, please, enlighten me.

and about he DP issue: I admit I don't know all of the sides to it in the US. But since I only brought it as an example, It really doesn't mean anything.

Az · January 5, 2003, 15:07

*bump*

Az · January 6, 2003, 06:29

Bump

Ned · January 6, 2003, 06:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

CONSIDERED moral, and WERE moral are two different things.

My argument is that the same act could be moral under different sircumstances, but the reason for the morality or the immorality of the same act would remain the same, because the effects of the same act under different sircumstance would vary greatly. However, I fail to see the utility of witch-burning under any sircumstances. If you have a good example, please, enlighten me.

and about he DP issue: I admit I don't know all of the sides to it in the US. But since I only brought it as an example, It really doesn't mean anything.

An act is moral if it remains justified when made universal. However, this does mean morality may be context sensitive.

For example, making love to a woman may be moral or immoral depending upon her level of consent or her marital status.

Az · January 6, 2003, 11:30

so, basically, you agree?

Ned · January 6, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
so, basically, you agree?

Yes.

Killing, for example, is a problem that caused Church theologians angst for 2000 years. However, even the Church agrees that killing is at times moral - for example, in self defense or in the context of a just war.

Az · January 6, 2003, 14:19

I would like also to point out that what we call these days morals : 'human rights' , etc. are not actually sacred, but the most efficient in utilitarian terms, way to run a society.