Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:00:08 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, jcwells@u.washington.edu Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Does it's true? Message-ID: <19980628170008.43362@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199806272108.PAA20565@softweyr.com>; from Wes Peters on Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 03:08:31PM -0600 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980627093956.501A-100000@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu> <199806272108.PAA20565@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 27, 1998 at 03:08:31PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> We also reserve the right to kill anyone who attempts to bring down
> the lawful government of the United States, either from within or
> from outside threat. This is not considered "murder" here, nor in
> any other country I know of -- yours included, Eivind.
This is only lawfully permitted in military action here. I don't
approve much of that, either, and I'm actively opposing the way it is
used.
> So, is it always wrong to kill human beings, or are you dabbling in
> situational ethics as well?
I consider help to suicide OK - ie, if the person in question
voluntarily choose to have their life ended, and is in a state where
they can be considered to understand what they're choosing.
I also accept it in the case where this is the only choice for
stopping somebody from killing more people, there and then. This is
not the same as using murder ("capital punishment" are probably the
words that make you feel wrongly OK about it) as "deterent" (which is
woolly thinking and emotionalism) or revenge.
> Correct. As you point out, the statement "it is never OK to murder
> people" does not imply "it is never OK to kill people." Murdering
> people is a proper subset of killing people, but the two are not the
> SAME set.
Agreed. Murder is planned killing. Like in "capital punishment".
> I absolutely bristle every time someone comes up with the example of
> that asshole on the Long Island commuter train to killed 14 people
> with a revolver, reloading twice in the process. If just ONE
> law-abiding citizen on that train had been armed and trained to use
> his or her weapon effectively, he wouldn't have gotten more than one
> or two. And those who laid there while he reloaded TWICE...
Now, dig up the stastics for how many people would be killed by having
that many guns available, both by accidents and by more cases of
violence involving guns (because they're there) instead of fists or
knives. You have to prove that it _overall_ is an improvement; using
single cases is bad science (just appealing to emotions, which is
killer clear thoughts).
Eivind.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980628170008.43362>