I would do my best to never have a government ever again. I've thought about it, and it's really terrible, law. Ok, not government in general perhaps, but law, law is criminal. It's forcing what is a general moral code on the people who do not subscribe to it in the first place. So we try to force this code on them, usually with violence, and we outlaw violence as well. If someone was to passively resist, we would physically overwhelm them, handcuff them, physically drag them into court and watch them with shotguns in a prison where there are also violent people. It's just absurd.
I would do my best to never have a government ever again. I've thought about it, and it's really terrible, law. Ok, not government in general perhaps, but law, law is criminal. It's forcing what is a general moral code on the people who do not subscribe to it in the first place. So we try to force this code on them, usually with violence, and we outlaw violence as well. If someone was to passively resist, we would physically overwhelm them, handcuff them, physically drag them into court and watch them with shotguns in a prison where there are also violent people. It's just absurd.quiglythegreat
yeah get rid of punishment for murder and rape... just let them run free, law is stupid :roll:
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]I would do my best to never have a government ever again. I've thought about it, and it's really terrible, law. Ok, not government in general perhaps, but law, law is criminal. It's forcing what is a general moral code on the people who do not subscribe to it in the first place. So we try to force this code on them, usually with violence, and we outlaw violence as well. If someone was to passively resist, we would physically overwhelm them, handcuff them, physically drag them into court and watch them with shotguns in a prison where there are also violent people. It's just absurd.DivergeUnify
yeah get rid of punishment for murder and rape... just let them run free, law is stupid :roll:
I would do my best to never have a government ever again. I've thought about it, and it's really terrible, law. Ok, not government in general perhaps, but law, law is criminal. It's forcing what is a general moral code on the people who do not subscribe to it in the first place. So we try to force this code on them, usually with violence, and we outlaw violence as well. If someone was to passively resist, we would physically overwhelm them, handcuff them, physically drag them into court and watch them with shotguns in a prison where there are also violent people. It's just absurd.quiglythegreat
life would be bad without a government. Ever heard of Hobbes? The best way to find true happiness is to eleminate.
Clear the jails of muerders and rapist via a bullet to the head. Station a large quantity of troops on the souther border. Reform the welfare and school system.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]I would do my best to never have a government ever again. I've thought about it, and it's really terrible, law. Ok, not government in general perhaps, but law, law is criminal. It's forcing what is a general moral code on the people who do not subscribe to it in the first place. So we try to force this code on them, usually with violence, and we outlaw violence as well. If someone was to passively resist, we would physically overwhelm them, handcuff them, physically drag them into court and watch them with shotguns in a prison where there are also violent people. It's just absurd.DivergeUnify
yeah get rid of punishment for murder and rape... just let them run free, law is stupid :roll: But it happens ANYWAY. Prison doesn't seem to do that much and in any event it's just a different punishment. People frown upon murder and rape; criminals can be punished without the law, though perhaps they shouldn't. The law is a temporary fix. Society needs to reach some conclusion as to what is morally right and wrong and devote itself to acting on those beliefs. The law is not going to do that.
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]I would do my best to never have a government ever again. I've thought about it, and it's really terrible, law. Ok, not government in general perhaps, but law, law is criminal. It's forcing what is a general moral code on the people who do not subscribe to it in the first place. So we try to force this code on them, usually with violence, and we outlaw violence as well. If someone was to passively resist, we would physically overwhelm them, handcuff them, physically drag them into court and watch them with shotguns in a prison where there are also violent people. It's just absurd.quiglythegreat
yeah get rid of punishment for murder and rape... just let them run free, law is stupid :roll: But it happens ANYWAY. Prison doesn't seem to do that much and in any event it's just a different punishment. People frown upon murder and rape; criminals can be punished without the law, though perhaps they shouldn't. The law is a temporary fix. Society needs to reach some conclusion as to what is morally right and wrong and devote itself to acting on those beliefs. The law is not going to do that. i'd like to see the percentage of increase if we act on what you want
i'd like to see the percentage of increase if we act on what you want DivergeUnify
Things have to get worse before they get better. The law is morally unacceptable because it uses violence to force other people to conform to public opinion, or sometimes not even public oppinion. Humans are basically good. We don't want to kill or to rape or to hurt people unless we are pathologically disturbed, in which case the law can hardly stop us from trying.
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]i'd like to see the percentage of increase if we act on what you want quiglythegreat
Things have to get worse before they get better. The law is morally unacceptable because it uses violence to force other people to conform to public opinion, or sometimes not even public oppinion. Humans are basically good. We don't want to kill or to rape or to hurt people unless we are pathologically disturbed, in which case the law can hardly stop us from trying. not everyone is "good". thats why there are mental disorders and stuff. a chemical imbalance doesn't occur because someone says you'll go to jail if you kill.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]i'd like to see the percentage of increase if we act on what you want DivergeUnify
Things have to get worse before they get better. The law is morally unacceptable because it uses violence to force other people to conform to public opinion, or sometimes not even public oppinion. Humans are basically good. We don't want to kill or to rape or to hurt people unless we are pathologically disturbed, in which case the law can hardly stop us from trying. not everyone is "good". thats why there are mental disorders and stuff. a chemical imbalance doesn't occur because someone says you'll go to jail if you kill. You're right, you go to jail because society says you should or you are in a position to go to jail. A soldier kills a person and he is praised; a poor person does and he is jailed. Why might the poor person do this? Well, because it accomplishes some other cause; he obviously takes no pleasure in the actual killing, for a very small percentage of humanity does. Criminals are alienated by the law; the circumstances dictate that they must do things the rest of us say are wrong. We force this will on them, we smother them with our power and our strength. And this alienates them. It others the criminals in our eyes and others us in theirs. There is in the law no clear concern for the criminal, instead he is merely condemned and punished, for he is evil and deserves to suffer. We claim that this is determent. Being a human being is the most powerful determent.
Build a penal colony on a US owned pacific island, or in a remote desert, or rent a place in Canada's frozen tundra to harbor a society made up of only criminals (that have been proven in a court of law accurately). The people that would make up the colony would only be murders, rapists, child abusers, and etc. There would exist no law, or armed force, only anarchial rule, with no means of escape.
Make a seperate division in the army that would have the sole job of keeping the Mexican border safe, with satellite surveillance.
Invest double the military budget into education, and put an end to bringing in foreigners to do American jobs that we lack people to do the work
Invest a considerable amount of money into seeking better, more dependable sources of energy
Purchase nearly every Arms/Weapons manufacturer that is American based
Withdraw from Free Trade Agreements and similar organizations
Reduce the debt back to a managable amount
Impose strict regulations on any GM or other Biotech Company, and hold them responsible for contamination of American crops and the blackmailing of US farmers
Impose strict regulations on Pharmaceutical Companies, and any store wishing to sell "Fast Food" for it serves the people no good. Instead, we'd use government funding to make sure the majority of the population can eat healthy and safe
Remove the dual party system andindoctrination and ideologyof Republican vs Democrat, Liberal vs Conservative and make it a requirement for all future generations to learn how the government functions as well as they know math/science etc.
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]i'd like to see the percentage of increase if we act on what you want quiglythegreat
Things have to get worse before they get better. The law is morally unacceptable because it uses violence to force other people to conform to public opinion, or sometimes not even public oppinion. Humans are basically good. We don't want to kill or to rape or to hurt people unless we are pathologically disturbed, in which case the law can hardly stop us from trying. not everyone is "good". thats why there are mental disorders and stuff. a chemical imbalance doesn't occur because someone says you'll go to jail if you kill. You're right, you go to jail because society says you should or you are in a position to go to jail. A soldier kills a person and he is praised; a poor person does and he is jailed. Why might the poor person do this? Well, because it accomplishes some other cause; he obviously takes no pleasure in the actual killing, for a very small percentage of humanity does. Criminals are alienated by the law; the circumstances dictate that they must do things the rest of us say are wrong. We force this will on them, we smother them with our power and our strength. And this alienates them. It others the criminals in our eyes and others us in theirs. There is in the law no clear concern for the criminal, instead he is merely condemned and punished, for he is evil and deserves to suffer. We claim that this is determent. Being a human being is the most powerful determent. there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too.
there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. DivergeUnify
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them!
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. quiglythegreat
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them!
Are you saying its wrong to defend yourself. If someone was being attacked for no reason but he could stop his attacker bybeating the other guy that person would be wrong in your opinion.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. leegar88
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them!
Are you saying its wrong to defend yourself. If someone was being attacked for no reason but he could stop his attacker bybeating the other guy that person would be wrong in your opinion.
I'm not really sure, I guess. I don't think it's necessarily immoral, I just don't think it's the best thing to do always. Still, self-defense quickly evolves into offense.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. quiglythegreat
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them!
Are you saying its wrong to defend yourself. If someone was being attacked for no reason but he could stop his attacker bybeating the other guy that person would be wrong in your opinion.
I'm not really sure, I guess. I don't think it's necessarily immoral, I just don't think it's the best thing to do always. Still, self-defense quickly evolves into offense.
Well he didn't do anything to provoke the other man why would he be wrong if he didn't want to be killed for no reason.
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. quiglythegreat
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them! I'm just showing murder and generically saying "killing" aren't the same.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. DivergeUnify
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them! I'm just showing murder and generically saying "killing" aren't the same. I don't understand the difference aside from one having a more negative connotation.
Well he didn't do anything to provoke the other man why would he be wrong if he didn't want to be killed for no reason.
quiglythegreat
Well, to be killed so someone else lives is inane. If you defend yourself in a way that doesn't dramatically hurt the other person, I guess it's fine.
Say the attacker was stronger, and the guy who did nothing was weaker but had a weapon that would kill the other man who was attacking him for no reason. Why would he e wrong for not letting another man kill him by taking his life.
Well he didn't do anything to provoke the other man why would he be wrong if he didn't want to be killed for no reason.
leegar88
Well, to be killed so someone else lives is inane. If you defend yourself in a way that doesn't dramatically hurt the other person, I guess it's fine.
Say the attacker was stronger, and the guy who did nothing was weaker but had a weapon that would kill the other man who was attacking him for no reason. Why would he e wrong for not letting another man kill him by taking his life.
To do that would be to say that this means the weak man deserves life more. That's never true. Everyone deserves life equally.
Well he didn't do anything to provoke the other man why would he be wrong if he didn't want to be killed for no reason.
quiglythegreat
Well, to be killed so someone else lives is inane. If you defend yourself in a way that doesn't dramatically hurt the other person, I guess it's fine.
Say the attacker was stronger, and the guy who did nothing was weaker but had a weapon that would kill the other man who was attacking him for no reason. Why would he e wrong for not letting another man kill him by taking his life.
To do that would be to say that this means the weak man deserves life more. That's never true. Everyone deserves life equally.
But if he just dies that means some people should be able to walk all over others and kill them like they were nothing. The other man chose to attack him people will shock you if you aproach them like that, he also shouldn't be hurting random people in the first place.
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. quiglythegreat
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them! I'm just showing murder and generically saying "killing" aren't the same. I don't understand the difference aside from one having a more negative connotation. Are you a vegetarian? If not, become one because you're murdering animals :| :roll:
A negative connotation is exactly it. One is darker and has more malice in its intent.
True but if he just dies that means some people should be able to walk all over others and kill them like they were nothing. The other man chose to attack him people will shock you if you aproach them like that, he alsoshouldn't be hurting random people in the first place.
leegar88
He shouldn't be hurting people, but why make a killer out of yourself to prolong your life? And anyway, your supposition is that everyone would just be massacred; this overlooks that most people are not in danger of being murdered senselessly.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. DivergeUnify
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them! I'm just showing murder and generically saying "killing" aren't the same. I don't understand the difference aside from one having a more negative connotation. Are you a vegetarian? If not, become one because you're murdering animals :| :roll:
A negative connotation is exactly it. One is darker and has more malice in its intent.
I'm not a vegetarian. Thomas Jefferson had slaves, yet talked about egalitarianism. My character or personal actions have absolutely no bearing on the validity of certain philosophies. Killing and murder are interchangable, usually a matter of perspective. For instance, people are 'killed' by guns in the US quite a lot. The Nazis 'murdered' millions of people. Would Nazis have called it murder? Obviously not. Would someone with a fulfilled vendetta consider their actions murder? Probably not. The two words are entirely interchangable and reflect nothing but the opinion of the speaker.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. quiglythegreat
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them! I'm just showing murder and generically saying "killing" aren't the same. I don't understand the difference aside from one having a more negative connotation. Are you a vegetarian? If not, become one because you're murdering animals :| :roll:
A negative connotation is exactly it. One is darker and has more malice in its intent.
I'm not a vegetarian. Thomas Jefferson had slaves, yet talked about egalitarianism. My character or personal actions have absolutely no bearing on the validity of certain philosophies. Killing and murder are interchangable, usually a matter of perspective. For instance, people are 'killed' by guns in the US quite a lot. The Nazis 'murdered' millions of people. Would Nazis have called it murder? Obviously not. Would someone with a fulfilled vendetta consider their actions murder? Probably not. The two words are entirely interchangable and reflect nothing but the opinion of the speaker. Murder and killing are not the same thing
True but if he just dies that means some people should be able to walk all over others and kill them like they were nothing. The other man chose to attack him people will shock you if you aproach them like that, he alsoshouldn't be hurting random people in the first place.
quiglythegreat
He shouldn't be hurting people, but why make a killer out of yourself to prolong your life? And anyway, your supposition is that everyone would just be massacred; this overlooks that most people are not in danger of being murdered senselessly.
No one else might not be killed but still one man would just because someone decided to kill him why should his life be shortened. What should he do if someone tries to take his life just sit there. And people do kill people senselessly.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] there is a difference between murder and war. In war you're fighting an enemy trying to kill you, too. DivergeUnify
Not necessarily, and in any event, if someone's trying to kill you and you then try to kill them, where the hell is your philosophy? They're probably trying to kill you because you're trying to kill them! I'm just showing murder and generically saying "killing" aren't the same. I don't understand the difference aside from one having a more negative connotation. Are you a vegetarian? If not, become one because you're murdering animals :| :roll:
A negative connotation is exactly it. One is darker and has more malice in its intent.
I'm not a vegetarian. Thomas Jefferson had slaves, yet talked about egalitarianism. My character or personal actions have absolutely no bearing on the validity of certain philosophies. Killing and murder are interchangable, usually a matter of perspective. For instance, people are 'killed' by guns in the US quite a lot. The Nazis 'murdered' millions of people. Would Nazis have called it murder? Obviously not. Would someone with a fulfilled vendetta consider their actions murder? Probably not. The two words are entirely interchangable and reflect nothing but the opinion of the speaker. Murder and killing are not the same thing
All murder is an act of killing
Not all killing is murder
You were quoting my post, yet I feel you didn't actually respond to it...
True but if he just dies that means some people should be able to walk all over others and kill them like they were nothing. The other man chose to attack him people will shock you if you aproach them like that, he alsoshouldn't be hurting random people in the first place.
leegar88
He shouldn't be hurting people, but why make a killer out of yourself to prolong your life? And anyway, your supposition is that everyone would just be massacred; this overlooks that most people are not in danger of being murdered senselessly.
No one else might not be killed but still one man would just because someone decided to kill him why should his life be shortened. What should he do if someone tries to take his life just sit there.
He could run or away or simply just not kill the other person.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]You were quoting my post, yet I feel you didn't actually respond to it... DivergeUnify
you said killing and murder are interchangable Yes, and you didn't respond to my post. I said that the use of the word 'murder' reflects not the act itself but rather the perspective of the speaker.
True but if he just dies that means some people should be able to walk all over others and kill them like they were nothing. The other man chose to attack him people will shock you if you aproach them like that, he alsoshouldn't be hurting random people in the first place.
quiglythegreat
He shouldn't be hurting people, but why make a killer out of yourself to prolong your life? And anyway, your supposition is that everyone would just be massacred; this overlooks that most people are not in danger of being murdered senselessly.
No one else might not be killed but still one man would just because someone decided to kill him why should his life be shortened. What should he do if someone tries to take his life just sit there.
He could run or away or simply just not kill the other person.
Alot of the time when people are stronger then you they can run faster, and since the man doesn't have a way to neutralise him that won't end with the other man dieing what should he do.
Alot of the time when people are stronger then you they can run faster, and since the man doesn't have a way to neutralise him that won't end with the other man dieing what should he do.
leegar88
Die. It sounds like he's done. Personally, I know a bunch of people are stronger than me; I also know I'm faster than most of these people.
I would make Togas mandatory, legalize drugs, put government criminals in Prison, and then I would set up a limited libertarian government, then leave office, but not before getting a BJ from Winona Ryder in the oval office while talking on the phone and smoking a cuban cigar.
Alot of the time when people are stronger then you they can run faster, and since the man doesn't have a way to neutralise him that won't end with the other man dieing what should he do.
quiglythegreat
Die. It sounds like he's done. Personally, I know a bunch of people are stronger than me; I also know I'm faster than most of these people.
So its alright for him to die for no reason when he could have stopped his attacker.
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]You were quoting my post, yet I feel you didn't actually respond to it... quiglythegreat
you said killing and murder are interchangable Yes, and you didn't respond to my post. I said that the use of the word 'murder' reflects not the act itself but rather the perspective of the speaker. murder reflects the act.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]You were quoting my post, yet I feel you didn't actually respond to it... DivergeUnify
you said killing and murder are interchangable Yes, and you didn't respond to my post. I said that the use of the word 'murder' reflects not the act itself but rather the perspective of the speaker. murder reflects the act. No, it doesn't. I could call the administering of the death penalty murder and others would not call it such.
Alot of the time when people are stronger then you they can run faster, and since the man doesn't have a way to neutralise him that won't end with the other man dieing what should he do.
leegar88
Die. It sounds like he's done. Personally, I know a bunch of people are stronger than me; I also know I'm faster than most of these people.
So its alright for him to die for no reason when he could have stopped his attacker.
It's not right. You killing another person so you can live is wrong too.
Alot of the time when people are stronger then you they can run faster, and since the man doesn't have a way to neutralise him that won't end with the other man dieing what should he do.
quiglythegreat
Die. It sounds like he's done. Personally, I know a bunch of people are stronger than me; I also know I'm faster than most of these people.
So its alright for him to die for no reason when he could have stopped his attacker.
It's not right. You killing another person so you can live is wrong too.
Well one person would kill the other, the man being attacked wouldn't kill the guy for fun but because he wants to live. And if the innocent man were to get killed the killer should still get harsh punishment.
I personally would try to spark a nuclear world war.
akatsuki0wn3d
I would resign as dictator and put myself as president. I would close the borders, become more isolationist, end taxes, end social services and privatize them
Log in to comment