View Poll Results: See OP: Who is responsible for the death of the human shields?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Side A

    41 89.13%
  • Side B

    5 10.87%
Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 185

Thread: Human shields

  1. #111
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Of course, because pulling the trigger isn't an empty effect. It causes something, namely a projectile to be launched. That projectile is deadly. If you don't pull the trigger, a person does not die. If you do, a person does. Thus you have some role in the death of the other person.
    They are the enemy thats what we do in the military. It is what we train for. At that moment in time to without question take a life, period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    All this blah blah blah it's not their fault crap is all attempts to remove responsibility so that people can feel better about killing other people.
    What do you think the job of a solider is? We are not police, our job is to kill the enemy's of the nation we serve. End of story.

    I knew a staff Sergent (ranger) who was part of an ambush in Grenada that killed an entire family. They got caught in the cross fire.

    The last thing he said he heard was the bubbles gurgling out of the infants neck from a bullet wound.

    He went on to say he did not feel anything then and he probably would not feel anything now. It was a hazard of his job and it needed to be done. They died so our solders could live.

    This is war, not some Utopian set of ideals that don't work in the real world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    So that we don't have to think about it as mowing down innocents, but rather some vague concept of dastardly sub-humans forcing the hands of others around them. "It's not our fault that person X is dead. I mean...yeah, we shot X...but it's not our fault." More "it's not my fault" than you'll here on the Millenium Falcon.
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    People want to remove that responsibility, pretend that their actions didn't lead to the death of someone so that they can feel better about themselves. That's the whole thing here with these dismissive statements which are quite frankly insulting to humanity.
    The only thing insulting here is this Vietnam, baby killer mentality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    But the facts are clear, someone may have put another in harms way; but if you physically kill someone you share a part in that person's death. I didn't think that would be so hard to understand. But I'll repeat it because it seems like a tough concept. If you kill somebody, you share a part in that person's death. End of story.
    Yes we do. So what? We had the guts to do what needed to be done. While sorry little wimps sit at home and complain about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    In the legal and moral world it is the assumption. It cannot be anything else and still line up with reality. The person who has killed an innocent always bears some responsibility towards to death of that person. The question isn't "did X kill Y", we know the answer...yes. Legal and to lesser extent moral (though moral can be more rigid) isn't asking if X caused Y to die, but rather if X was justified in killing Y. But that's justification, not responsibility. If someone kills another, they are responsible at least in part for that person's death. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.
    You have failed to show one shred of evidence that you have any legal ground to stand on.

    Morally it is subjective.

    So all you have shown is you don't agree because you "feel" it is this way.

    In the real world and on the modern battle field that don't mean ****.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Those are justifications. We're talking responsibilities. And the responsibilities need to be accepted and the weight born.
    Most of the civilized law makers of the world disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If you kill someone for whatever reason, you've still killed another human being. Legally you may be justified, you may not go to jail. But that doesn't negate the fact that you killed someone, you've taken human life.
    It is our job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    All this blah blah blah is to hide that part, it's what the "war is hell", shrug the shoulder people are running from; why they are so dismissive towards human life. Because people don't want to acknowledge their role in killing other humans, so we scrape for excuses and we struggle to invent "logic" to remove responsibility and consequence.


    No. We are willing to accept that people die in war, and it is our job to kill them. This is the reality no matter how you would like to deny it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    But that responsibility should be accepted and we should look at it for what it is. Killing another human is never a good act. You may find justification for having done so, but it's still not a good act. That is the moral absolute.
    Lot's of people have been killed and it was a good act.

    No moral absolute here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And is responsible for their deaths as he's the one who caused it solely.

    He shares fault for having put the person in that position in the first place. But the person who kills that human shield bears some responsibility for killing that human shield.
    So you can't even make up your mind. Is he solely responsible or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It should be, but some people really want to remove all responsibility and consequence of action. It doesn't make sense.
    What makes no sense is people like you who have never been there, trying to tell those of us and the majority who have what WE should be feeling or doing based on unrealistic crap.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #112
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Taking a human shield and shooting people isn't an empty effect, it causes the innocent to be in the line of counter-fire.
    Taking a human shield and then firing at a person practically causes a projectile to be fired towards the human shield holder, putting the innocent he holds at risk.
    I never said the one who took the shield was completely absolved of all responsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Really?
    So in a state where mercy killing is allowed, and a doctor unplugs a person from the machine, is he responsible for the person's death?
    But that is wrong, no? Seeing that the doctor has done everything that he could to keep the patient alive.
    Yes, he shares some responsibility for the biological death of the person. We can get into all sorts of philosophical death debates. Especially arguing that essentially what is human is contained in the brain and once that is dead, the organism left over is less than human. But I think that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    No it's not.
    A person being shot at while the shooter holds an innocent as a human shield, the person pulls out a pistol and shoots back, killing both the human shield's holder and the innocent, the person would not be charged with anything and would not be found guilty of killing an innocent.
    The above is a contradicting example to the claim that the assumption exists in the legal and moral world.
    No, you're wrong. Because the question isn't did X kill Y, the question legally asked is was X justified in killing Y. It's still starts with X having killed Y.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    That's why I stated above that you look at this issue from the most literal meaning of the term responsibility, and not from the way of values and morality.
    The question on the thread was about responsibility. Who is responsible for the consequence? The answer is all the people whose actions contributed to the consequence. That includes the shooter. Responsibility speaks more to absolute morality than anything else. Justifiability has more to do with legal consequences. Someone may not be legally bound to a set of circumstances, but that doesn't mean the actions were without responsibility or consequence. Even if you justifiably kill someone and do no jail time, you killed someone and are responsible for that person not being there anymore. You should feel bad about it, and that's where the absolute morality comes into play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Of course not, but sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's also not a bad act.
    It's always a bad act. It doesn't mean that it's always carried out in malignant fashion, but killing another human is always a bad thing. That's just the fundamental nature about murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Why?
    What was he expected of?
    How could he avoid that alleged responsibility while still living on with his life?
    What do you expect the normal person in this situation to do?
    I do not find sense in ("partially") blaming a person for the crimes of another.
    Why does he share responsibility? Because his actions led to the death of an innocent person. Without him there, the person would be alive. That's the absolute.

    Crime is another word for justifiable. It's a legal context, but the thread isn't about legal context or floppy morality. It's about responsibility. Who is responsible? Everyone whose actions contributed to the consequence. The sense in making people understand the responsibility is to make them understand the absolutes of their actions. Beyond defending yourself or saving another, people must be aware that actions have consequences and we must bear those consequences. If you kill another human, you need to accept and shoulder the burden of that sin.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #113
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    If it is known that human shields are being used and that those shields are civilians, then yes it does create that moral and legal imperative.
    Is this imperative absolute or conditional?

  4. #114
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    They are the enemy thats what we do in the military. It is what we train for. At that moment in time to without question take a life, period.
    I didn't say anything to the contrary. I merely said that you'll have to accept the responsibilities and sins of your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    What do you think the job of a solider is? We are not police, our job is to kill the enemy's of the nation we serve. End of story.
    Your job is to protect my rights and soveriegnty, but that's another thread all together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I knew a staff Sergent (ranger) who was part of an ambush in Grenada that killed an entire family. They got caught in the cross fire.

    The last thing he said he heard was the bubbles gurgling out of the infants neck from a bullet wound.

    He went on to say he did not feel anything then and he probably would not feel anything now. It was a hazard of his job and it needed to be done. They died so our solders could live.
    That's unfortunate, that's a broken human. He has deadened himself to quiet his consciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    This is war, not some Utopian set of ideals that don't work in the real world.
    You refuse to understand what I am saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    What?
    It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    The only thing insulting here is this Vietnam, baby killer mentality.
    I haven't seen evidence of that in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Yes we do. So what? We had the guts to do what needed to be done. While sorry little wimps sit at home and complain about it.
    You apparently don't have the guts to accept what you've done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You have failed to show one shred of evidence that you have any legal ground to stand on.
    I've said multiple times now, I'm not arguing a legal basis. That is justification, I'm not arguing justifications. I'm arguing responsibilities. I don't know how to be more clear. If the concept escapes you, then please refrain from trying to engage in something you don't understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Morally it is subjective.
    Morally there are absolutes. If you think all morality is subjective, then you can't in anyway be religious. But some will take to the idea because it allows them to remove themselves from the consequence of their actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So all you have shown is you don't agree because you "feel" it is this way.

    In the real world and on the modern battle field that don't mean ****.
    What I've shown is that people who shoot people for whatever reason are at least in part responsible for the death of that person. That's an absolute.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Most of the civilized law makers of the world disagree.
    Well then it's a good thing I wasn't arguing law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    It is our job.
    Did I say it wasn't? Even if you kill someone because it was your job, it doesn't mean that you didn't kill someone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No. We are willing to accept that people die in war, and it is our job to kill them. This is the reality no matter how you would like to deny it.
    No, you accept that you are fighting some force for a greater cause and that your actions are just; that those you face are something less than human in the guise of human. It takes a lot of strength to understand the sin and accept it because you think you're doing something that is necessary. You can tell who those guys are; and they aren't the one's shrugging their shoulders saying "war is hell". Those are the people dehumanizing so they don't have to feel bad about what they do. But they should feel bad because that's telling them something...killing is bad. And if collectively we can begin to understand this as a whole, we can become less zealous in war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Lot's of people have been killed and it was a good act.
    No, killing is never a good act. That's something you want to believe, you want to hide from consequence. You were justified, it was good, it's ok, don't regret, don't feel bad. These are tools for us to try to remove consequence. Sometimes, certain acts are supposed to make you feel bad. Because the act itself is bad. If we continue to dehumanize and ignore the consequences of our actions, we'll only repeat them. We can think of war as nothing. War is hell, war is eternal, no use fighting it; just go with it. Accept it. Don't question it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No moral absolute here.
    There are always moral absolutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So you can't even make up your mind. Is he solely responsible or not?
    Can you not remember what you wrote? Reread your scenario that I was responding to (or did you forget I was responding to your car crash scenario) and then come back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    What makes no sense is people like you who have never been there, trying to tell those of us and the majority who have what WE should be feeling or doing based on unrealistic crap.
    Based on fact and reality. It is not I who wishes to escape consequence.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #115
    John Schnatter 2012 Phantom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-20-12 @ 12:48 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    638

    Re: Human shields

    Both side A(Gaza) and side B(Israel) are responsible in my opinion. Side A obviously is at fault for putting their own children in the line of fire... But I call on side B to be more strategic to lower the deaths of innocent children. Like I said in the Middle Eastern board I understand you have to counter attack the terrorists, but you must do everything possible to save the lives of children.

    P.S. - With all do respect to Gardener who has attacked me in the past for my positions on this issue: If you find this thread and reply to my post - fine - but don't resort to the name calling and false allegations as I will ignore them.
    Vote John Schnatter (Papa John) 2012!

  6. #116
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
    Both side A(Gaza) and side B(Israel) are responsible in my opinion. Side A obviously is at fault for putting their own children in the line of fire... But I call on side B to be more strategic to lower the deaths of innocent children.
    They do.
    If the Israelis didnt have concern for the innocent, a lot more would be dead.

  7. #117
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I didn't say anything to the contrary. I merely said that you'll have to accept the responsibilities and sins of your position.
    Murder is a sin, not killing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Your job is to protect my rights and soveriegnty, but that's another thread all together.
    If you want to believe that. I mean I was only doing it for 12 years, what the hell do I know about what I was taught.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That's unfortunate, that's a broken human. He has deadened himself to quiet his consciousness.
    So you can read minds now? Because someone does not think like you they are "deadend."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You refuse to understand what I am saying.
    I understand exactly what you are saying and it is bull****.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding.
    Or maybe you have not typed it clearly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I haven't seen evidence of that in this thread.
    "It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You apparently don't have the guts to accept what you've done.
    Well please point out what I have done?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I've said multiple times now, I'm not arguing a legal basis.
    Because you can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That is justification, I'm not arguing justifications. I'm arguing responsibilities. I don't know how to be more clear. If the concept escapes you, then please refrain from trying to engage in something you don't understand.
    If accepting responsibility amounts to nothing, than it means as does your argument in this case, nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Morally there are absolutes. If you think all morality is subjective, then you can't in anyway be religious. But some will take to the idea because it allows them to remove themselves from the consequence of their actions.
    What does my religion have do do with the fact that morality is subjective and has no absolutes? It is different for each person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    What I've shown is that people who shoot people for whatever reason are at least in part responsible for the death of that person. That's an absolute.
    To what end? Nothing legally? Nothing morally since you throw out justification. So to what end?

    I will tell you...

    Nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Well then it's a good thing I wasn't arguing law.
    Well you have nothing legally to stand on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Did I say it wasn't? Even if you kill someone because it was your job, it doesn't mean that you didn't kill someone.
    So what? They are dead, **** happens. Welcome to reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, you accept that you are fighting some force for a greater cause and that your actions are just; that those you face are something less than human in the guise of human. It takes a lot of strength to understand the sin and accept it because you think you're doing something that is necessary.
    What is up with this "sin" all of a sudden? It is not a sin to kill. It is a sin to murder.

    So I accept the fact that people need to die to protect society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You can tell who those guys are; and they aren't the one's shrugging their shoulders saying "war is hell". Those are the people dehumanizing so they don't have to feel bad about what they do. But they should feel bad because that's telling them something...killing is bad. And if collectively we can begin to understand this as a whole, we can become less zealous in war.
    A soilder will tell you that is wrong. We are not dehumanizing anyone, but they are the enemy and we kill them, end of story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, killing is never a good act. That's something you want to believe, you want to hide from consequence. You were justified, it was good, it's ok, don't regret, don't feel bad. These are tools for us to try to remove consequence. Sometimes, certain acts are supposed to make you feel bad. Because the act itself is bad. If we continue to dehumanize and ignore the consequences of our actions, we'll only repeat them. We can think of war as nothing. War is hell, war is eternal, no use fighting it; just go with it. Accept it. Don't question it.
    Says you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There are always moral absolutes.
    Again says you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Can you not remember what you wrote? Reread your scenario that I was responding to (or did you forget I was responding to your car crash scenario) and then come back.
    My car crash scenario? You are now confused.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Based on fact and reality. It is not I who wishes to escape consequence.
    You still have yet to point out the consequences? Even 1. So again it means nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #118
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Murder is a sin, not killing.
    That depends on the religion. In Catholicism it is "thou shalt not kill"
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #119
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,513

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That depends on the religion. In Catholicism it is "thou shalt not kill"
    Not true. It is a mistranslation in the KJV. It is thou shall not murder.

    Catholics also now know this.

    To deny it would be blasphemy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #120
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Not true. It is a mistranslation in the KJV. It is thou shall not murder.

    Catholics also now know this.

    To deny it would be blasphemy.
    Not according to their website:

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

    Related to the topic:

    All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

    However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
    They allow certain types of killing (defensive, unintentional killings), but it must be unintentional and after all peace efforts have failed.

    The Catholic Church would consider any killing occurring in Iraq to be a sin. It's way more complex than just "murder" as in "illegal killing".

    According to the above, much of the fighting in Iraq would qualify as a sin.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 03-12-10 at 01:59 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •