Great post Turbo!
[ context ]
[ context ]
Originally posted by TurboBut they don't. Unlawful commonly means immoral, according to dictionaries.Originally posted by Zakath
And I feel that it's incumbent on Knight, even if he is TOL's owner, to support his statements when they contradict common usage.
Even if you take unlawful to mean 'against the law,' 'law' is commonly used to refer to the Old Testament commandments, according to Webster's.
murder n. 1. The crime of unlawfully killing a human being, esp. With malice aforethought...
crime n. An offense committed against the law.
unlawful adj. 1. Against the law. 2. Immoral. 3. Illegitimate.
law n. ... 3. The body of precepts that express the divine will as set forth in the Old Testament.
Webster's II New Riverside Desk Dictionary, Copyright 1988 Houghton Mufflin Company, First Longmeadow Press Edition 1995.
So Knight is within the realm of common usage when he uses murder to mean "the immoral killing of a human being" or 'killing a human being in a way that is an offense committed against the will of God as set forth in the Old Testament.'
Do you now see that the current range of meanings of "unlawful" does include 'immoral'? If you didn't know before, that's ok. Everyone makes mistakes. But if you maintain your original stance, it would be hypocritical.
So, I'll ask you directly: Do you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder?Originally posted by ZakathOriginally posted by Turbo
I wonder if you object when people speak of the legalized slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust as murder...
That illustration demonstrates the non-absolute nature of legal terms. Whether or not you agree morally with the actions in the camps (and let's be clear, I believe the killing of civilians in the camps was a terrible crime) the actions were seen as legal by the German government and illegal by their enemies. The enemies won the war, and the senior German officials were prosecuted for war crimes. If the Germans had won the war, history (written by the winning side) might describe the scenes very differently. It is not absolute. The legality was dependent on which side you see it from.
You state that you believe it was "a terrible crime." What is that terrible crime called? When you say crime, it is obvious by the context that you do not mean it was "an offense committed against the law" of Germany at that time. If it were Knight who had called the legalized slaughter of Jews or unborn babies a terrible crime, you could have called that "religionist newspeak" saying that something that is legal cannot be criminal.
The only difference between Knight's statement and yours is that he identified the crime by its name.
I know that there is a difference between "legal" and "real/true" but I'm trying to find out if you do. In your second point it sounds like you do, but on your first point you state that whether Jews are human is an individual's moral choice. That's like saying that whether a canary is an bird is an individual's moral choice. One's moral code is irrelevant.Two points:
1. While that is quite a piece of hyperbole, I would concur with your statement since I maintain my own personal moral code. Such a pronouncement violates my individual ethical and moral code.
2. You appear to be confusing the difference between the terms "legal" and "real" or "true". There may not be any relationship between observable, empircally verifiable truth and a specific law. This kind of thinking is common with those who appeal to some allegedly absolute standard of behavior as "correct". For those people there are laws that cannot be changed. For the rest of us, all laws can be changed and we have to deal with it.
Regardless of your opinions and moral beliefs, were Jews human even when in a country where the government has passed laws stating that Jews are not human?
Yes it is a problem for those who advocate child-killing. But it?s good that you at least recognize that the unborn are children.The greatest problem with your illustration is that it is commonly used by anti-abortionists to describe the current situation in the US regarding the rights of unborn children.
a. No.I would ask you two questions, as a religionist:
a. Do your religious views (laws, rules, ordinances, whatever term you care to use) allow for intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?
b. Do those religious views require intervention by whatever means necessary to save the life of an innocent?
b. No.