ClumsyMonkey.net

oh? sorry if i misread it but he states very clearly in his first sentance that it is only murder it if it is unlawful. therefore, i think it would be only reasonable to assume that he meant that lawful violence is not murder.

unless there's some sort of other meaning in there...

Yes, it is reasonable to assume he meant that lawful violence is not murder. I'm not sure he meant that all lawful violence is legitimate though, if by legitimate, you mean justified.

hahaha, so wait

there is a kind of lawful, non-justified killing? and it's not called murder?

The short answer is yes.

hahaha ok great, what's it called?

Hey you! Boy who thinks his opinion is better than everyone else's! Stop being so condescending! It's not becoming.

(Not you, Taylor.)

starvingeyes wrote:hahaha ok great, what's it called?

Civilians die every day. Often they are caught in cross fire or fired upon because they are assumed to be carrying arms. Many are killed for unjust reasons, but the law covers it because it is a combat zone scenario.

Chris is contesting the ethical right of the law to condone unwarranted death.

Joe Cooler wrote:

starvingeyes wrote:hahaha ok great, what's it called?

Civilians die every day. Often they are caught in cross fire or fired upon because they are assumed to be carrying arms. Many are killed for unjust reasons, but the law covers it because it is a combat zone scenario.

Personally, I think that's, and i'll put this as eloquently as possible, Bullshit.
But that's just me, i'm not one for wasted human lives.

Of course its stupid. I'm not arguing morality here, just whether someone can be unjustly killed without it being called murder.

I think it's murder, i'm surprised you would be against calling it murder, Taylor.

Sinead, my morals and views have nothing to do with this conversation. I would call it murder but I'm not talking about myself, i'm talking about the government and its view on what is murder and what is not.

I was confused as to whether you were arguing from a legal standpoint, or your own view.

I think it has been pretty clear.

Now that you've said it, but before I honestly wasn't sure.

It's ok. I suppose I could have made it more obvious.

nikki4982 wrote:Hey you! Boy who thinks his opinion is better than everyone else's! Stop being so condescending! It's not becoming.

(Not you, Taylor.)

hey, you, on the witch hunt, thanks for the intelligent throught provoking contribution.

Joe Cooler wrote:

starvingeyes wrote:hahaha ok great, what's it called?

Civilians die every day. Often they are caught in cross fire or fired upon because they are assumed to be carrying arms. Many are killed for unjust reasons, but the law covers it because it is a combat zone scenario.

hahah, jesus, well done.

i'll wait till the other guy posts before i comment any further.

starvingeyes wrote:

nikki4982 wrote:Hey you! Boy who thinks his opinion is better than everyone else's! Stop being so condescending! It's not becoming.

(Not you, Taylor.)

hey, you, on the witch hunt, thanks for the intelligent throught provoking contribution.

No problem.

This is quite the conversation. Killing is of course wrong but can it sometimes be justified? What if soldiers weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq? Maybe Saddam Hussein would have killed more people or maybe the taliban would be having an easier time in coming to North America to blow people up?

So when our armies are sent to either keep the peace or like now go to war against the Taliban of course there are going to be situations where civilians are caught up in the cross fire. I don't think this justifies killing but I think the bigger question is what would happen if our soldiers weren't there.

Thats just my two cents on what has been said so far.