why is murder wrong?

[Walker]

Murder is wrong because it violates the individual human right to life which is not a right granted by Man. At best, a man can facilitate the creation of life. At worst a man can murder life.

[Logik]

You don’t punish someone by doing them right.

You punish someone by doing them wrong.

Murder is the ultimate wrong, therefore, murder is the ultimate punishment.

The punishment can be dealt by an individual, by a group, or by a faceless government.

I am not after retribution. There's very little emotion behind it. Certainly no hatred or desire to end a life.

My goal is to remain alive. To this end I will inflict trauma to vital organs to anybody who threatens me and mine in an attempt to put an end to their attack. I am not trying to kill them - only stop them.

If they happen to die in the process - it is their problem, really.

[Walker]

You don’t punish someone by doing them right.

You punish someone by doing them wrong.

Murder is the ultimate wrong, therefore, murder is the ultimate punishment.

The punishment can be dealt by an individual, by a group, or by a faceless government.

I am not after retribution. There's very little emotion behind it. Certainly no hatred or desire to end a life.

My goal is to remain alive. To this end I will inflict trauma to vital organs to anybody who threatens me and mine in an attempt to put an end to their attack. I am not trying to kill them - only stop them.

If they happen to die in the process - it is their problem, really.

That sounds like either justifiable self-defense or some degree of manslaughter, unless you're licensed to kill like this fellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHSkMwUa2i4

[gaffo]

tell me









i say it's wrong cuz i own me and take a dim view of bein' deprived of my property...if it's wrong to whack me then it's wrong to whack the other guy (unless he really deserves it)

Murder is legal in three cases (only one case i personally affirm as "right").

1. War (I'm a pacifist, and do not agree with killing another i do not hate - just some smuck/pleab/war fodder wearing another uniform will not do it for me (i might kill one i hate - but that is never legal and not relivent to this thread).

2. Capital Punishment (The State killing the convicted) - as a Libertian i deny the right of Any State to have the power of Death (it lacks the power of Life) - and so i leave both up to "god"

3. Self Defence, which - after a proper court ruling of the events as just - i affirm fully this enalienable right (right to live).

[gaffo]

Killing done for any reason other than self-defense.

other than self defence? then ingnore my above post............outside my mention i might do so out of hate - given extreme circumstances, though of course never would be a legal action.

[gaffo]

Traditionally, the pro-abortion argument has been that it will NEVER tip over into infanticide, because we use the opening-of-the-womb as a hard line between a cluster-of-cells-non-person and a live baby person. Now it's evident that this boundary is not any longer inviolable...we will kill viable babies when we want to. But up until now, killing a viable baby outside the womb has been universally recognized as murder.

You are moving the goal-posts

indeed esp equating a lump of cells or a little more organized into a "Baby" as an actual human being.


then equating the killing of said thing as the same as a human.

...........

personally, i'm of the Viability ilk, move the weeks of feitus with the times - 50 yrs ago it was 30 weeks, now around 20?

earlier, its abortion not murder, if/when science moves viabilty up to 16 or 14 weeks, the laws move with the science.

the whole abortion debate bores me stiff, as does the guns debate.

my interest lies in the rest of the Bill of Rights and esp Jury Pardon Powers - which have been under assult for 150 yrs now.............but the latter is all crichets...............nobody knows about it nor cares.

crichets................

chirp chirp.

but mention guns, gays and feituses and armies of brigades show up to virtue signal their outrage!!!!!!!!

lol. sheople are annoying.

[gaffo]

yep

different folks deserve it for different reasons (but that's between me and them)

-----

there's killin' as a defense of self, others, and property: not murder

there's killin' for gain: murder

there's killin' cuz some folks just plainly need to be dead: murder

I endorse the first & third.

lol, me too.

[gaffo]

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

Some years back I wrote this. It's still relevant and true:

WHY MURDER IS WRONG

To be wrong is to violate a moral principle. such as "have respect." [Have respect for yourself and for fellow members of your in-group; and continuously strive to widen your in-group.]

To murder is to deliberately kill a conscious individual with malice aforethought.

yes.

To have malice is not to have respect.

how so? do not see the link.

you saying you cannot have "correct" malice..........knowing you know what is right when the object of your killing fixation you know offers death to you/me/many others and has "incorrect malice" of the heart.

so take him out before he does damage.

or are you saying the above is not correct, never - and i must have respect for him and his ilk (Stalin/Pol Pot/Hilter) - and respect him?

[gaffo]

"To murder is to deliberately kill a conscious individual with malice aforethought. To have malice is not to have respect. Therefore murder is wrong. ...by definition."

Mebbe so, prof.

Still, murder it may be: 'some folks just plainly need to be dead'.

yes, though not legally (per The State) - just illegally per Your/and/or Me.

[gaffo]

Sometimes murder is NOT at all wrong, morally and/or ethically. Murder can be good and right sometimes. As I have been saying.

The onus is on you to provide the counter-example.

Until you do. Murder is wrong. By agreement.

If I murder a murderer and I do not murder anyone else after; but the said murderer whom I murdered would have gone on to murder many others; then I wronged a wrongdoer, and I wonder if you agree, Logik, that in this case two wrongs make a right.

Assuming the murderer I've just murdered (in this thought experiment) was not capable of stopping himself from continually murdering others.

that would be correct conduct - but illegal per The State.

I would not turn you in myself, thinking you did an illegal good.

but personally, i would not kill the guy unless he i know he was targeting me or my loved ones next. I'd not kill the guy if i thought he would kill others in the general population (id call the police though).

you may be a better man than me. something i should reflect upon.

[gaffo]

Re the previous post: think of assassination attempts on Hitler.

Incidently, what happened to Hitler's children? And grand- and great-grand children? Are they aware who they are, who one of their ancestors was? And what's their favourite breakfast cereal?

I'm sure Ted Bundy's kid knows who is mom is and dad was. ;-(. he's in his 30's now.

[gaffo]

My thought experiment can be taken one more step forward, Logic. You said, you don't want to toy with defining murder, since it has been codified and defined many ways, and the bulk of it is the same.

So if I murder a serial killer who would not stop his way, I am a murderer; but if I kill a serial murderer by execution, because I am the hangman, then I am not a murderer.

There is a difference in the MEANS only: the hangman is appointed by a body of judicial authority to kill; I am not appointed or licenced to murder. This IS a big difference.

So I can be tried and hanged for murder for murdering the murderer; but the hangman kills me (and not murders me; big difference, due to the many extant definitions of "murder" and "murderer") and walks away from my corps a free man.

It's all in the cultural norms, the differences lie in subtle cultural designations, an the entire dynamic and static of the social structure and consequences of actions in the designees of this structure is aptly expressed by our language.

you are talk about the power of The State - when said State has legalized murder (Capital Punishment).

do any of those states Hang today? its grandfather in (like Electic Chair - i think one in Nabraska decided to go that way a few years ago), as is firing squad (last one was in early 90's in a western state). last hanging was in washington state in early 90's (again grandfathered and convicted chose it over lethal injection) if rem serves.

AFIAK we have shooting in hack of head (not tradition firing squad) in China, namby pamby non-grandfathered in - lethal injection in 1/4 of the American States (and Feds? (in theory Espionage)), and beheadings in Yemen and Saudi Arabia - via a sword in the town square - around one a month? - trival fact here, the Saudis (not sure about the Yemeni) at least offer (compusory? - not sure - welcome clarification here) a paper watercup with a solutable tranquilizer for those going to the swordsman. that is a mercy BTW - i had a traq 3 mins before my surgury, removed all fear (most fear) at the time.

Indonesia has? had? firing squad 20 yrs ago - still today? not sure.

Myanmar? not sure, our "news" networks (if it not about gays, racism, me-too, trannies, queers, bathrooms, social media/etc) do not bother to educate us on many of the repressive 3rd world's national laws - journalism is to fixated on fluff (gays, racism, me-too, trannies, queers, bathrooms, social media/etc) today to bother educating us on matters of the world.

Iran and Iraq have legal murder too. not sure of the former's method, but the latter is hanging, Saddam's head nearly came off 13? years ago.

----------

personally object to lethal injection - too clean for The State - though humane.

I only support Guitine myself - clear means of killing - so not Pretty for the State - but fast and humane for the convicted.

sadly last used in France in 1979.

[gaffo]

You don’t punish someone by doing them right.

You punish someone by doing them wrong.

Murder is the ultimate wrong, therefore, murder is the ultimate punishment.

The punishment can be dealt by an individual, by a group, or by a faceless government.

I am not after retribution. There's very little emotion behind it. Certainly no hatred or desire to end a life.

My goal is to remain alive. To this end I will inflict trauma to vital organs to anybody who threatens me and mine in an attempt to put an end to their attack. I am not trying to kill them - only stop them.

If they happen to die in the process - it is their problem, really.

this is the definition of self defense, we had a guy here in OK a few years ago (a Marine Vet "war hero") who was robbed by two 14 yr old kids in a Walgreens? - he shot one of them in the head, the other fled..............then slowly walked into the back room, and reloaded his gun then shot the kid on the ground 5 more times..........minutes after the threat to his life was past.

all on vid tape, me living in the bible belt - rem the "outrage" that the former marine would be charged with murder!!!!!!!!!

after all a black 14 yr old thug robbed him!!!!!!!!!

nevermind that the proper thing to do would be to call the cops/ambulance after shooting the kid in the head with the first bullet.................lets forget the 5 more after he was already dead/dying and no threat.

but i live in a state where more folks make luv to their guns than their wives and generaly have shit for brains (no critical thinking skills)

[gaffo]

To add - I'm not "anti-gun" just not a gun guy myself, being a depressant would kill myself if i had one prob, so refuse to own a gun.

to add, more recently, we had a nut (sciophrenic 20 something - who we learned heard after his rampage "The devils voice from the TV" so said his roomate a few months before he went on the rampage) - went to lake Hefner to shot/kill folks at a restuarant on the lake shore (Satan prob told him to do so) - anyway, 2 guys with a conceal carry notice him with his gun in hand and i assume waited until it look like he was intent on killing - and they both (they were both just there - did not know each other - both legalling carry handguns) "put him down" dead - before he was able to killing anyone.

those two did not accidently kill injure others either - so they were professionals (one was in Iraq vet so prob trained).

they did good - not deputy fief types, as it should be if you legal carry.

sad the perp did not get proffesion help for his sciofrenia(sp) - america sorely lacks in mental health help, over and over again, so many die due to nuts - not evil - just demented - not quarintined before they kill 10-100 each year.

how many more years do we need to let the nuts rampage before we fix our mental health apparatus?

40? 400?

[Logik]

this is the definition of self defense

The point is that we are now devolving into all the human nuances: language, morality and intent.

Killing is amoral. It's neither right nor wrong. It describes the mechanics/actions of ending a life. Any life. Hunters kill animals. Predators kill prey.

Person A killed person B. That's a factual statement. I also doesn't tell us whether the actions of person A were moral or immoral.
This nuance is often lost on people, and I often get puzzling looks when I admit that I have no reservations killing another human.
If I did have reservations I wouldn't carry a gun.

I am not comfortable MURDERING another human. I am comfortable KILLING for self/person-defence.

The distinction is too close for comfort for most people. So much so that many of my pacifist friends have smeared me with the same brush as a murderer.

The very idea of taking life sends shivers down their spines.