Morals, do you have them?
- Thread starter MMMMatilde
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
89Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
- "His 'law' was not legal and was later changed."
2." You've posted that before, but it's non responsive to your arguments in the past for your support of the 'legalized' torture that occurred during the Bush administration."
There is no such thing as legalized torture..torture is illegal
3 . "And you have posted at this forum you wouldn't prosecute those that partake in such obsenities (like murder, torture, genocide) as long as laws had existed at one time to allow those events."
That is correct...you can not prosecute for something that is legal at the time of the act....nor should you be able to.
Do you see how silly it sounds...if we could prosecute for something that was legal...then why have laws?...all you propose is a dictatorship system without safeguards.
I do understand your sympathy for the terrorists...I really do..the reality is that what Bush did was legal at the time...the law was changed later to make it illegal to do the 15 second water boardings in the future on the terrorist for interrogation.
But for some reason is still legal to water board our own troops for training...Everyone{you} seems to be siding with the terrorists but show no love for our own troops who undergo water boarding for training.
If he committed crimes yes.Straight up answer, yes or no.
Would you support prosecuting Hitler ( if alive, of course ) for the Holocaust even though his actions fell under the law of Germany at that time?
( Think hard)
He obviously did it and got away with it because he was the law...thus why he was able to do it.
Isnt anything you can do about it.
Just like I do not approve of chopping a hand for petty theft as can happen in some nations.
What are you going to do prosecute the one who cuts off the hand for doing something that is legal?
This is why I the law is the law...if one is unhappy with a law then try to get it changed...but until then obey it....and dont come whining to me if you end up missing a hand.:smuggrin:
Thank you for this post.
As I've been claiming many times, you do support the concept of legalized torture. You admit to it above. It's rather obvious I've never been able to convince you that torture is immoral.
Your only concern appears to be that the torture administered during the Bush era appear legal.
This is morality you have chosen as a model.........what ever the law doesn't prohibit is moral.
And this is how you got stuck defending Hitler and atrocities committed by tyrants and dictators.
It appears you 'sold your morality' in the defense of a particular Republican President.
It's pretty obvious you were posing in front of the forum as a righteous, moral individual.
Looking for more popularity votes?.......
Looking like a long shot to me.
A person that was moral wouldn't claim laws, rationalized torture .
You are part of the problem of inhumanity to man by your own words:
Today, torture is illegal in the US. But during the Bush administration, types of torture were permitted. And you argued in support of that torture. You even now use the 'war on terror ' as an excuse to embrace torture.
Indeed. That's been my claim all along........you support legalized torture. Now you openly include murder and genocide.
And you try to bullshit this forum about it in a thread concerning morality.
You really think that's a popular image to generate?
At least be a man about your convictions and own up to them.
You admit to supporting torture, murder and genocide. All you require are the laws to accomplish them.
Fantastic morality statement by you, man.
That's what you consider a straight up answer?
Looks like a 'No, you wouldn't prosecute Hitler', to me.
You would allow torture, genocide and murder to occur because it was legalized and support the use of those actions because it was the law at the time, but strangely, not approving at the same time.
Sounds evasive........
Your comments are supportive of Hitler because he was the law at the time.
And you wouldn't prosecute Hitler after the law was changed because he committed those obscenities under his own laws.
Your 'model' of morality is obviously structured by prevailing laws rather than concepts of 'right and wrong'.
In your morality model, everyone is fair game to cruelty, you just don't want your own 'hand chopped off'.
Isn't that one of the traits of a sociopath?
Even today you find Black Laws everywhere.
Hitler's 'law' was local....it is for Germany to decide about his actions under that law. But as he waged war against the world the international community has the right to take legal action against him. Same is with Mussolini and so many others
Alcohol was once prohibited by law in the US , it is not today. Are we going to apply punishment for boozing as per previous law or today's? I think most laws cannot be applied retrospectively...
Hitler's 'law' was local....it is for Germany to decide about his actions under that law. But as he waged war against the world the international community has the right to take legal action against him. Same is with Mussolini and so many others
Alcohol was once prohibited by law in the US , it is not today. Are we going to apply punishment for boozing as per previous law or today's? I think most laws cannot be applied retrospectively...
Well put on both points...this is what I have been saying but you have the perfect short version
For you see stone I can not support the illegal prosecution of a person.
The following is my first post in this thread
---------------------------------------------
I wont promote something I dont believe in.
Why?
As it would make me part of the problem.
_-----------------------------------
Since I do not believe in illegal prosecutions I can not support prosecuting Bush.
By no means does this mean I support torture as you suggest.
Let me ask you this...how do you propose prosecuting someone for something that was legal during the time of the act?
The following is my first post in this thread
---------------------------------------------
I wont promote something I dont believe in.
Why?
As it would make me part of the problem.
_-----------------------------------
Since I do not believe in illegal prosecutions I can not support prosecuting Bush.
By no means does this mean I support torture as you suggest.
Let me ask you this...how do you propose prosecuting someone for something that was legal during the time of the act?
No, it's not what you've been claiming.
You've been claiming that legalized torture ( and murder and genocide ) can be allowable ( in a thread topic specifying morality ) and the perpetrators could not be held accountable because of those laws.
I asked if you'd prosecute Hitler and you declined.
Mazur has a point that I'll bring up a little later.
As far as Hitler's crimes:
Historically, German War criminals were brought to justice at Nuremburg where the terms of surrender( of WW2 ) imposed political controls that allowed the Allies to determine punishment for crimes occurring during the war.
In the case of Germany's war criminals, of which Hitler was the leader, the existing legal codes of Germany were superseded with the imposition of Allied military law.
And you would not prosecute.
Now, what Mazur posted:
Indeed. Mazur is correct there. It was for Germany to decide, and while Hitler was in power, the German society largely backed Hitler's legalization of torture, murder and genocide. German society became so morally corrupt, to correct, it took a war to return moral sensibilities and justice.
Interesting point, but.....poor analogy and doesn't apply to the debate.
Prohibition was never determined to be an illegal or even a non legal law. It was never determined that Prohibition was unconstitutional and the Feds merely got rid of their enforcement problem by handing enforcement over to the States. And many states do have 'dry' counties that have enacted their own versions of prohibition that are still in effect.
Bush's legalization of torture wasn't legal in the US.
In other words, Bush minions that practiced 'legalized' torture did so with out any protection of constitutional legal codes. The 8th Amendment does prohibit cruel and unusual punishment.
Back to morality.
MAN.......you've taken the track that the law defines acceptable morality.
Thus you had no issues backing the use of torture during the Bush administration. Bush convinced you certain types of torture were permissible.
Now the forum has learned you also find murder and genocide can be permissible. All you need is someone telling you it's legal.
See my previous post. It explains away your constant evasiveness
You damn well know, and I surely think the forum can figure out from your Hitler comments, you do find torture permissible. And now, through those arguments, included are murder and genocide.
I didn't think you'd ever allude to those having the ability of being permissible crimes, though.
I'm not the one you need to convince.
LOL
You can not prosecute someone for something that was legal.
Just because I do not believe in prosecuting someone for act{s} committed while legal....Does NOT mean I approve of the acts.
I have stated several times in many threads....that while legal then needs to be illegal now {which it is}
Your argument is very poor and nothing but a fallacy.
"Hey stone....do you like water?"
"Yes The Man I do."
"Then you also like piss as it has water in it"
Sounds like fourth grade shit doesnt it Stone?
thank you
A Dozen is understood to be 12 but a baker's Dozen is 13!
Likewise there are several differences (of standards) in ''measurements, such as the Imperial gallon, Imperial Ton, etc and American gallon and American ton, etc, that it sometimes becomes impossible for others to determine what is what. A similar analogy may be applied to morals as well but the basic nature of the 'standards' of 'measurement', etc, such as FPS and MKS will remain the same. Then comes the question: What are Ethics? What is the difference between Morals and Ethics??
Likewise there are several differences (of standards) in ''measurements, such as the Imperial gallon, Imperial Ton, etc and American gallon and American ton, etc, that it sometimes becomes impossible for others to determine what is what. A similar analogy may be applied to morals as well but the basic nature of the 'standards' of 'measurement', etc, such as FPS and MKS will remain the same. Then comes the question: What are Ethics? What is the difference between Morals and Ethics??
It's certainly not the difference between 12 and 13 of anything. Or any numbering systems.
The terms are often interchangeable.
Morality the consideration of right and wrong, ethics the consideration of (good) moral positions.
And the considerations can be subjective.
Like in your culture. The issue of abusing women has been rationalized and accepted. But is it really moral or ethical in your society to do those savage acts?
have replied to your inquisitiveness in other thread..Saudi.
You too need to read Bible, torah, Talmud, Geeta, If not Quran for an intellectual uplift,...above materialistic thinking or science.ie humanities
This is a debate forum.
It's generally expected for a debater to make his argument in his own words.
Demanding the reading of umteen pages of theological works is not an argument. It's called a time waster as the debater that presents it is either too lazy to present a well rounded reply, unable to present a knowledgeable reply or merely an intentional time wastage of the forums abilities.
Anyway, again you avoid a reply to topic.
I posted:
And as an example, I presented the issues in your precious princess thread:
That's not an accusation.
It's questioning why those savage acts issues aren't issues of morality and ethics.
And you did not address the princess issues in terms of morality and ethics in your last response to me in that princess thread. Only claimed excuses.
So, in your culture, what subjective considerations are there that influence the morality of honor killings and the abuse of women?
This goes directly to the topic in this thread of morals and how they are perceived.
My, my....how things change in such a short time, mazHur.
We finally had a break through.
In that princess thread you finally admitted that your cultural abuse-treatment of women wasn't moral and that your holy scriptures prohibited it.
Perhaps claimed morality is often not much more than rationalization of questionable conduct 'in the name of morality'?-----------------------> hypocrisy.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members