ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Balder]

uh .. is grant nicer than god? nice is an insult where grant comes from ... so .. probably. other than that .. grant is not sure what relevance the question has ..

Bob criticizes people who appear to take the moral high ground over the God of the Bible, refusing to do or endorse what God Himself does and says in the Bible. You appear to be saying that you find the act of killing children to be immoral and would not do it, whereas God has no problem with it. I think if you were in conversation with Bob, he might ask you if you thought you were kinder and more moral than God.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Deal! :thumb:

I demonstrated that your advocacy for indiscriminate killing of civilians was morally on par with the actions and reasonings of terrorists.

Your response dealt with some abstract stuff about roles and terms, avoiding the actual moral dimensions and ramifications of the act itself.

I consider your argument therefore to have been successfully shot down, or at least shown for what it is.

I didn't ask you to paraphrase our arguments.

I asked you to actually post (re-post) the arguments in our own words.

I have also shown how your several criticisms of me and my arguments have been based on distortions, misrepresentations, or misunderstandings of what I actually said, thus toppling your straw men.

Wow.... the irony of that statement coupled with your quote at the top of this post is mind boggling. :dizzy:

 

[Balder]

I'll hunt up the actual arguments when I have time to do so, then.

You do admit that your representation of me as a military hater is your own invention, and nothing I've ever said, don't you? I've been pretty clear about my opinions.

 

[Stripe]

Bob criticizes people who appear to take the moral high ground over the God of the Bible, refusing to do or endorse what God Himself does and says in the Bible. You appear to be saying that you find the act of killing children to be immoral and would not do it, whereas God has no problem with it. I think if you were in conversation with Bob, he might ask you if you thought you were kinder and more moral than God.

oh ok .. i dont do much of what god does. that should be perfectly apparent.

regardless - my assertios of what i will and wont do are made independent of what god does or commands.

 

[koban]

It's called war.

Maybe you have heard of it??? :think:

Surely you're not claiming that murder cannot occur in a theater of war?



Before we get too far afield, can you give a good working definition of "murder"?

 

[koban]

Fool is only fooling himself

I can't believe nobody's said this before, but here goes:



fool couldn't fool himself on the foolingest day of his life with an electrified fooling machine!



If you think he could, you're fooling yourself. :chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'll hunt up the actual arguments when I have time to do so, then.

You do admit that your representation of me as a military hater is your own invention, and nothing I've ever said, don't you? I've been pretty clear about my opinions.

Uh... no.

Any idiot that thinks that the USA is guilty of murder for dropping bombs on Japan is not only stupid but also a tree hugging, pot smokin', hippy lovin', military hating commie.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Surely you're not claiming that murder cannot occur in a theater of war?

Of course murder could occur in war just look at the Nazi's. I gave you a specific example; Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you said those that dropped the atomic bombs were guilty of murder.

Before we get too far afield, can you give a good working definition of "murder"?

How about you define it and I will tell you if I agree.

 

[Balder]

Uh... no.

Any idiot that thinks that the USA is guilty of murder for dropping bombs on Japan is not only stupid but also a tree hugging, pot smokin', hippy lovin', military hating commie.

Right.

And I regard anyone who defends genocide, advocates indiscriminate killing, and doesn't recognize murder when it happens to be a moral midget.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Right.

And I regard anyone who defends genocide, advocates indiscriminate killing, and doesn't recognize murder when it happens to be a moral midget.

"indiscriminate" means to be done at random without using judgement.

I would never advocate such a thing.

Instead, when one nation goes to war with another nation they should use righteous judgment before engaging their enemy. They should never randomly or arbitrarily choose enemies. Wise judgement is at the utmost importance.

 

[Balder]

"indiscriminate" means to be done at random without using judgement.

I would never advocate such a thing.

Instead, when one nation goes to war with another nation they should use righteous judgment before engaging their enemy. They should never randomly or arbitrarily choose enemies. Wise judgement is at the utmost importance.

I agree with your words as you've written them. Most likely we disagree on how that works out in practice, though.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree with your words as you've written them. Most likely we disagree on how that works out in practice, though.

Good, so are you saying you will no longer characterize my argument as advocating "indiscriminate" killing?

 

[Balder]

Sure, I'll be happy to, if that is your position. But in an earlier post, you did say you supported it, which surprised me. Maybe you were exaggerating for effect?

 

[Balder]

To jog your memory, here was an exchange that took place on page 17 of this thread:

So you believe in indiscriminate killing in wartime.

Of course!

That's what war is all about! Why do you think wars are rarely won anymore?

 

[fool]

Just wanted to make sure this didn't get buried.

That's a great answer to the question you asked.
In the inherited lands it was kill all, that way no one could ever come along later and say "this is the land of my fathers" But outside Isreal they conducted business like that chinese guy Allsmilies keeps bringing up. They'd offer a franchise first, pay us and you're in the club. Here's two possible scenarios.
1. Wicked people occupied an area, and needed to be smote, so that area is the promised land cause it'll be empty when the smotings done.
2. Isreal is this area here, so anybody in it must be smote.
Are we smoting the people cause they're in Isreal?
Or is this Isreal cause this is where the people need smoting?

 

[koban]

Of course murder could occur in war just look at the Nazi's. I gave you a specific example; Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you said those that dropped the atomic bombs were guilty of murder.

How about you define it and I will tell you if I agree.

Well, according to Webster's online:

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

and

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive senses
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

So I guess it boils down to whether it was done "unlawfully". You can argue man's laws all day long regarding that, but let's stick to a biblical definition. How about "Thou Shalt Not Murder" ?

I had always understood that to mean "to kill unjustly", or to willfully take the life of an innocent person.

As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what else could you call the deliberate killing of an innocent population? Of course it's murder, that's why the saying is "war is hell", not "war can be very very bad sometimes".

War is hell because of the things one ends up doing, whether they can be justified or not. I think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable. I also think they were murder.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That's a great answer to the question you asked.
In the inherited lands it was kill all, that way no one could ever come along later and say "this is the land of my fathers" But outside Isreal they conducted business like that chinese guy Allsmilies keeps bringing up. They'd offer a franchise first, pay us and you're in the club. Here's two possible scenarios.
1. Wicked people occupied an area, and needed to be smote, so that area is the promised land cause it'll be empty when the smotings done.
2. Isreal is this area here, so anybody in it must be smote.
Are we smoting the people cause they're in Isreal?
Or is this Isreal cause this is where the people need smoting?

Just wanted to make sure this didn't get buried.

Genesis 15
13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.​

:think: It appears that the descendants of Abram went to Egypt for four hundred years, and that land is not theirs, despite the affliction they went through.
The land of the Amorites was promised, along with the lands of other tribes.

The most interesting part of the promise is that the descendants of Abram were prevented from taking the promised land because the inhabitants would not reach a sufficient level of iniquity for four hundred years.

Looks like both your suppositions are correct.
They were smoting the people cause they're in Isreal!
It is Isreal cause this is where the people needed smoting!

 

[fool]

Genesis 15
13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.​

:think: It appears that the descendants of Abram went to Egypt for four hundred years, and that land is not theirs, despite the affliction they went through.
The land of the Amorites was promised, along with the lands of other tribes.

The most interesting part of the promise is that the descendants of Abram were prevented from taking the promised land because the inhabitants would not reach a sufficient level of iniquity for four hundred years.

Looks like both your suppositions are correct.
They were smoting the people cause they're in Isreal!
It is Isreal cause this is where the people needed smoting!

That would seem to support God knowing the future.

 

[Granite]

Right.

And I regard anyone who defends genocide, advocates indiscriminate killing, and doesn't recognize murder when it happens to be a moral midget.

Absolutely.

The killing of children (or any civilian, for that matter) in wartime can never be justified.

 

[koban]

Absolutely.

The killing of children (or any civilian, for that matter) in wartime can never be justified.

I've been pondering over this since I wrote post 396. I think you can make a distinction between being able to justify an action and claiming that action to be just.

For example, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be justified as being actions that ultimately saved many lives, American and Japanese, combatants and non-combatants.

But the fact that the bombings were undertaken with the intent of killing a civilian population cannot be described as just.

That make any sense? I'm still struggling with it.