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 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 185

Thread: Human shields

  1. #121
    Professor
    OxymoronP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heart in Brooklyn, body South of Dixie
    Last Seen
    08-23-10 @ 11:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,175

    Re: Human shields

    Real answer is other!

    It doesnt matter, all is fair in war as long as you win. If you loose, the victor will make sure to make you look like the instigator and aggressor criminal, so no sense in holding back.


    THE GREATEST FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO OPPRESS OTHERS

  2. #122
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Not according to their website:

    Catechism of the Catholic Church - The fifth commandment

    Related to the topic:

    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.
    Since I am not Catholic why would this concern me? They are ignoring the correct translation for a known mistake. This makes it blasphemy to most Chrsitians. Of course in the eyes of the Catholic church, this would make me and most Christians heretics, so it's all good.
    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.

  3. #123
    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
    Murder is a sin, not killing.
    Depends on which interpretation you want. People will take whatever interpretation is most convenient for their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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.
    That you were taught something. It doesn't necessarily mean what you were taught was correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So you can read minds now? Because someone does not think like you they are "deadend."
    No, because there are fundamentals and absolutes to humanity. All humans are human and we all share a common base. When humans are forced to do things against that nature, they can occasionally break. The breaking involves disconnection with actions, which is exactly what you described.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I understand exactly what you are saying and it is bull****.
    You obviously don't. Because you keep trying to say something that I'm not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Or maybe you have not typed it clearly.
    Or maybe you have not read it clearly

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    "It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding."
    What does that have to do about your claim of Vietnam baby killers? Nothing? Yup. Again, I've seen no evidence of it in this thread. Come back with real proof next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Well please point out what I have done?
    You've dehumanized certain sects and enemies to ignore the overall humanity of those whom you wish to destroy. It's a standard tactic and one which is "necessary" for sustained, unnecessary war. This is because fundamentally humans know that killing other humans is wrong. And we need an excuse or a reason or an ideology we can get behind in order to excuse the action itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Because you can't.
    I've already said that legally there can be justification for the act, but that doesn't erase the act. I think maybe you should pay attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    If accepting responsibility amounts to nothing, than it means as does your argument in this case, nothing.
    It's not nothing. You just don't seem to understand the consequences of accepting the responsibility and what that means overall towards an aggregated effect on society and warfare in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    What does my religion have do do with the fact that morality is subjective and has no absolutes? It is different for each person.
    Because gods make absolutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    To what end? Nothing legally? Nothing morally since you throw out justification. So to what end?

    I will tell you...

    Nothing.
    It's the acceptance of the absolute humanity of humans. That has many moral implications as well as understanding what is done in war and removes the propaganda typically used to sustain war after it's outlived its usefulness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Well you have nothing legally to stand on.
    Never claimed legal. Please keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So what? They are dead, **** happens. Welcome to reality.
    You only go to prove my point that you can't understand the fundamental. You're continually dodging the consequence. If you've killed someone, you've done something bad. Instead of hiding from that bad, you should accept it so that you understand fundamentally what you are doing. But this entire shrugging your shoulders thing is nothing more than running away from the reality of your actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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.
    Depends, the Catholics I believe say Thou Shall Not Kill, as they (like I) take absolutes such as respect of all human life. People change what the "sin" is to fit their lives. It's not that there isn't absolutes, it's that some humans don't want to accept that there are absolutes and will work in ways to make it appear that there are not. It's a defense mechanism so they don't feel bad about actions which they really should feel bad about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    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.
    Thanks for proving my point. You say in one sentence you're not dehumanizing, but then go on to show fundamentally that you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Says you?
    Says a lot of things. But don't let that stop you from trying to deflect deflect deflect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Again says you?
    And what says the man who wishes to run from consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    My car crash scenario? You are now confused.
    Fair enough, not yours but Apocalypse's. But you still confused and ignored the original quote because that was a direct response (which was even quoted) to a scenario about a guy who decides to crash his car into a wall with passengers in his car. Read the whole thing before you try to throw out accusations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You still have yet to point out the consequences? Even 1. So again it means nothing.
    The consequence is that you've killed a human and you bear partial responsibility for it. Now that's the "you" in context to the question posed in the thread. Someone bad guy takes a human hostage. Some good guy takes the shot and takes both out. The consequence is that the good guy bears some responsibility for the death of the innocent. And that is what you run from.
    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."

  4. #124
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Depends on which interpretation you want. People will take whatever interpretation is most convenient for their lives.
    Or in this case the correct one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That you were taught something. It doesn't necessarily mean what you were taught was correct.
    I was taught what I needed to stay alive and do my job. That makes it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    No, because there are fundamentals and absolutes to humanity. All humans are human and we all share a common base. When humans are forced to do things against that nature, they can occasionally break. The breaking involves disconnection with actions, which is exactly what you described.
    This has no relevance on moral absolutes.

    Man has been killing man since day 1. So it looks like it mite be the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. This also has little to do with generalizing about someone you don't know and have never met.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You obviously don't. Because you keep trying to say something that I'm not.
    No. I am disagreeing with what you are saying because it is not realistic and does not work in real world terror or warfare situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    What does that have to do about your claim of Vietnam baby killers? Nothing? Yup. Again, I've seen no evidence of it in this thread. Come back with real proof next time.
    It has everything to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You've dehumanized certain sects and enemies to ignore the overall humanity of those whom you wish to destroy. It's a standard tactic and one which is "necessary" for sustained, unnecessary war. This is because fundamentally humans know that killing other humans is wrong. And we need an excuse or a reason or an ideology we can get behind in order to excuse the action itself.
    OK point out where i have done this in my life? Wow you know allot about me for someone who has never met me. Assume much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I've already said that legally there can be justification for the act, but that doesn't erase the act. I think maybe you should pay attention.
    You need to realize justification is everything and blame with no force behind it means nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not nothing. You just don't seem to understand the consequences of accepting the responsibility and what that means overall towards an aggregated effect on society and warfare in general.
    You mean like the terrorists we are fighting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Because gods make absolutes.
    And not everyone worships a god, what does this tell you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's the acceptance of the absolute humanity of humans. That has many moral implications as well as understanding what is done in war and removes the propaganda typically used to sustain war after it's outlived its usefulness.
    So instead of calling the enemy solders, "enemy solders" we will call them ahhh human targets. would that help?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Never claimed legal. Please keep up.
    Did not say you did. I said you have no legal leg to stand on. In other words the rest of the civilized world disagrees with your unrealistic moral assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You only go to prove my point that you can't understand the fundamental. You're continually dodging the consequence. If you've killed someone, you've done something bad. Instead of hiding from that bad, you should accept it so that you understand fundamentally what you are doing. But this entire shrugging your shoulders thing is nothing more than running away from the reality of your actions.
    So in other words your whole argument is based on semantics?

    So because I call someone an enemy combatant in stead of human (which would cause a hell of a lot of confusion) somehow all of a sudden I am responsible?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Depends, the Catholics I believe say Thou Shall Not Kill, as they (like I) take absolutes such as respect of all human life.
    And it like much of the cannon of Catholicism is wrong and based on an incorrect translation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    People change what the "sin" is to fit their lives. It's not that there isn't absolutes, it's that some humans don't want to accept that there are absolutes and will work in ways to make it appear that there are not. It's a defense mechanism so they don't feel bad about actions which they really should feel bad about.
    You have yet to post one shred of evidence that moral absolutes exist. All you have to do is look around, you can see it does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Thanks for proving my point. You say in one sentence you're not dehumanizing, but then go on to show fundamentally that you are.
    Semantics again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Says a lot of things. But don't let that stop you from trying to deflect deflect deflect.
    I am arguing cold hard facts, while you try and argue philosophy and semantics.

    No need to deflect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And what says the man who wishes to run from consequences?
    No need to. None in this case exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Fair enough, not yours but Apocalypse's. But you still confused and ignored the original quote because that was a direct response (which was even quoted) to a scenario about a guy who decides to crash his car into a wall with passengers in his car. Read the whole thing before you try to throw out accusations.
    Don't care enough to bother.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The consequence is that you've killed a human and you bear partial responsibility for it. Now that's the "you" in context to the question posed in the thread. Someone bad guy takes a human hostage. Some good guy takes the shot and takes both out. The consequence is that the good guy bears some responsibility for the death of the innocent. And that is what you run from.
    Not running from it. Nothing to run from. No consequences legally or morally from society's point of view or the results of this poll.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-12-10 at 02:50 PM.
    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.

  5. #125
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    No.

    Its not.
    If all you were going to do is avoid the question, you should not have bothered responding.
    >>

    Your attack says more about you than me.

    ricksfolly

  6. #126
    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
    Since I am not Catholic why would this concern me? They are ignoring the correct translation for a known mistake. This makes it blasphemy to most Chrsitians. Of course in the eyes of the Catholic church, this would make me and most Christians heretics, so it's all good.
    They might say that those Christians are using a mistranslation in order to justify killing by adjusting their laws to allow it (since murder is just "unlawful killing", any killing could be made unsinful by altering the laws).
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #127
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Human shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    They might say that those Christians are using a mistranslation in order to justify killing by adjusting their laws to allow it (since murder is just "unlawful killing", any killing could be made unsinful by altering the laws).
    They are not mistranslating it though, the Catholics are. All you have to do is look at the OT. It is pretty clear about what is murder and what is not.

    I mean many times the Jews were told in no uncertain terms to kill every man woman and child in a place. It was justified by God and not murder. When The early Jews went to war, they were justified in all the actions they took. This included by our standards much killing, but not murder.
    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. #128
    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
    Or in this case the correct one.
    You merely define it as correct because it fits your means. It doesn't make it correct if used as a defense mechanism

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I was taught what I needed to stay alive and do my job. That makes it right.
    It doesn't necessarily make it right, it makes it useful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    This has no relevance on moral absolutes.

    Man has been killing man since day 1. So it looks like it mite be the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. This also has little to do with generalizing about someone you don't know and have never met.
    Not quite since day one, but it really came about during the evolution of human society. But humans were less evolved back then and we've come to greater understandings now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No. I am disagreeing with what you are saying because it is not realistic and does not work in real world terror or warfare situations.
    It's because you're not understanding what I'm saying. For some reason you seem to be confusing responsibility with justification. The thread was about responsibility alone though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    It has everything to do with it.
    Yet you've provided no proof of it's existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    OK point out where i have done this in my life? Wow you know allot about me for someone who has never met me. Assume much?
    Your posts make you seem like a shoulder shrugger.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You need to realize justification is everything and blame with no force behind it means nothing.
    No, justification is only relevant in legal terms. Responsibility is more broad reaching and includes morals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You mean like the terrorists we are fighting?
    For one, yes. We treat them as non-humans and in fact expand that attitude over a great number of cultures in the ME. It helps us to keep going with the war if we don't have to think of the other side as human. We don't have to feel bad about killing them if we can somehow dehumanize the lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    And not everyone worships a god, what does this tell you?
    That specific gods are creations of man. But sin exists outside the existence of gods and absolute morals can still exist outside of gods. But that specific point is brought up for people who do believe or claim belief in a god. Since gods have sets of absolute morals along with them. If you really believe that is and aren't just using it as convenient excuse to absolve behavior and consequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So instead of calling the enemy solders, "enemy solders" we will call them ahhh human targets. would that help?
    What would help would be to recognize and accept the humanity of all humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Did not say you did. I said you have no legal leg to stand on. In other words the rest of the civilized world disagrees with your unrealistic moral assumptions.
    All humans are human is not an unrealistic moral assumption. It conflicts perhaps with your desire to dehumanize enough to absolve consequence, but there's nothing unrealistic about recognizing the universal humanity of humans. As I said, it's not a legal question being asked here, it's a moral one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So in other words your whole argument is based on semantics?
    Nope, it's based on the universal similarity of humans as a species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    So because I call someone an enemy combatant in stead of human (which would cause a hell of a lot of confusion) somehow all of a sudden I am responsible?
    No, if you kill someone you are always responsible for that death. Accepting the humanity of others doesn't affect that part. It affects the acceptance or denial of consequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    And it like much of the cannon of Catholicism is wrong and based on an incorrect translation.
    That's your opinion. Again, you will choose the opinion which best meets the requirments for you. But Catholicism predates most forms of modern Christian sects. The other sects were made when they got pissed at the Catholic Church for rules they didn't want to follow. So they claimed some misinterpretation and made their own churches so they wouldn't have to follow the rules. I think in many ways, the Catholics are probably the most right on things, plus they are the most original. Others broke off in order to satisfy their own needs and create churches which were engineered from the start to suit their own needs. So it makes it BS really.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    You have yet to post one shred of evidence that moral absolutes exist. All you have to do is look around, you can see it does not.
    All you have to do is look around and you see it does. Unless your contention is that human isn't human. That the value of a human or degree of their humanity is based on circumstances of their environments and not on the fact that they are human in the end. Which I would say is rather ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Semantics again.
    Is this going to be your common retort when you can't prove a point or counter an argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I am arguing cold hard facts, while you try and argue philosophy and semantics.
    No, you're trying to argue some legal floppiness. I'm arguing cold hard facts. Fact, you pull a trigger. Fact, you kill someone. Fact, you contributed to the death of that someone. Fact, you bear responsibility for the death of that individual. That's the fact, and that's what you're trying to rally against.

    [quote=Blackdog;1058615200]No need to deflect. [/quoite]

    Then quit doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No need to. None in this case exist.
    All action has consequence

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Don't care enough to bother.
    Thank you for admitting that you are an intellectually dishonest debater. Basically you wanted to insult me and make it seem as if I was changing my mind. But it was a response to a specific quote which you refused to read either out of laziness or dishonesty and tried to apply an accusation which didn't fit and could have been solved if you read the quote. So I'll give you kudos on admitting that you're not being intellectual honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Not running from it. Nothing to run from. No consequences legally or morally from society's point of view or the results of this poll.
    The consequence is one of reality and biology. The consequence is that you've killed someone. Whether or not you want to accept and understand that consequence or run from it is another point. Your arguments are arguments for running from the consequence, for trying to hide from it, for trying to pretend it doesn't exist. Mine simply accepts reality for what it is.
    Last edited by Ikari; 03-12-10 at 03:56 PM.
    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."

  9. #129
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Human shields

    I am absolutely dumbfounded as to how any intelligent person could state that if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are somehow not responsible for the death of that person.

  10. #130
    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
    They are not mistranslating it though, the Catholics are. All you have to do is look at the OT. It is pretty clear about what is murder and what is not.
    But the Catholics aren't mistranslating it, the non-Catholics are. All you have to do is look at the New Testement. It's pretty clear about turning the other cheek and such.

    See how that works? The simple fact is you can't say for certain who is getting it wrong, you can only say what you believe

    Only God knows for sure what is or is not a sin.


    I mean many times the Jews were told in no uncertain terms to kill every man woman and child in a place. It was justified by God and not murder. When The early Jews went to war, they were justified in all the actions they took. This included by our standards much killing, but not murder.
    But the Christian's were told, under no uncertain terms, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •