nothing can ever be morally justified because morality is subjective.

so, what means of justification are there?

Uh, so ? let's say .. that man was a dictator who loves to kill people around you ... but you're not the only one being suffered.

1) The Dictator is clearly tyrranical (tyrannical is not necessarily linked to morality)
2) There is no lesser means to remove the person from office. (Which doesn't happen so much today, because of the decline of the monarchy and the rise of the republic)
3) The death of the dictator would clearly bring about a change for the better (It would end persecution, the slaughter of innocents, and other tyrranical things which noone had control to stop other than the dictator)
4) There is a replacement government lined up (One which would end the tyrrany and begin restoring peace and order, and to the best of their ablitly undo the tyrranical things done by the dictator)

The points are in no way tied to morality, yet can justify an assasination (or as the correct term is "tyrranicide")

1) bob is clearly tyrranical, imposing christian doctrine on helpless americans.
2) there is no other means of removing bob.
3) a death of bob would remove the horrid christian influence from this country.
4) there is a suitable replacement in the democratic party.
5) the great nation of the flying spaggetti monster shall free the american people from thier oppressors.

none of these points are tied to morality. just change bob to bush (i didn't use his name in there, because i don't want the NSA knocking on my door. i do not in any way believe bush should be assasinated. )


it's subjective. like i believe you are an idiot. just because i believe it, doesn't mean i can use it to justify assasinating you.

was the assasination of JFK justified? what if i told you JFK ran terrorist training camps in an attempt to overthrow a legitamate government?

what i'm saying is basically true. history books don't call them terrorist training camps, but it's true.

1) Imposing certain standards (Christian or non) can not clearly be seen as tyrannical..... there was no persecution...... there was no singleing out of anyone...... there was no slaughter of innocents because they don't have the same agenda
2) Bob could be impeached just like JFK...... neither is he in complete and total control over everything
3) The death of Bob would not result in the removal of christian influence throughout the country....... and if it did it would not clearly result from of the death of Bob
4) There may be a suitable replacement, but since Bob wasn't really doing anything tyrranical the entire reason he would need a suitable replacement is completely lost.
5) Pastafarianism is a religion, not a nation (since you decided to add in your amazing sadistic attempt at a joke)

None of the points are tied to morality...... I stated that at the beginning..... it was kinda part of the point......

No subjectivity has nothing to do with it. There is a clear definition for a "tyrant". You have to look into seeing whether there was any other way to get that person out of office..... violence would only be a last ditch effort. When you speak of a clear change for the better, it generally is subjective, but not in this case. It means that the tyrannical things being done will be stopped...... Look at the French Revolution for example...... The assasination of Marat would not clearly result in a change for the better because it was obvious that either Danton or Robspierre would take over aand nothing would change...... And a suitable replacement means someone that will stop the tyrrany entirely and not set an agenda for revenge......

Can we keep the maturity level above 3rd grade please? "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me........ Nahnahnahnahnahhhhhhh....." Wow, do we really need to resort to mud slinging and name calling...... I'm an idiot. Yipee-kai-yai-yay and a woohoo for you. So you went to kindergarten...... just like everybody else....... are you still waiting on the federal grant for the investigation into proving the existence of cooties too? Do you really have no constructive counter argument other than trying to apply different cases to try and make me look like a crackpot and my argument seems outrageous?.......

No JFK's assasination would not have been justified..... it only take one of the 4 points make it wrong...... OK, I'll conceed for arguments sake that JFK was a tyrannical terrorist supporter bent on the overthrow of a legitimate government, and killing innocent men women and children in the pursuit of personal and financial gain....... JFK could have been impeached...... other ways of being removed from office = check........ I'm sure whatever he was doing, he was doing it with the support of other high ranking government officials........ there was no way he could support and run terroist training camps without support or assistance of some kind..... seeing as this is a democratic republic and there are failsafes to prevent such things from happening...... therefore, if he wasn't working alone there would be other people still running it, and his death would not clearly result in a change for the better....... No suitable replacement could be made, because if this group was doing this under the radar of the rest of the US government then they could just as easily exclude the new president from their little dealings.......... Thats 3 out of the 4? and it only takes 1? You do the math....... But in any case it adds up to wrong.......

[quote name='ghetosmurph' date='Jul 28 2006, 12:08 AM' post='2189529']
1) Imposing certain standards (Christian or non) can not clearly be seen as tyrannical..... there was no persecution...... there was no singleing out of anyone...... there was no slaughter of innocents because they don't have the same agenda
[/quote]

wow, but imposing muslim standards on people seems.. enough to overthrow them?

[quote]
2) Bob could be impeached just like JFK...... neither is he in complete and total control over everything
[/quote]
bush controls the supreme court, the house, and the senate. or did 2 years ago. realistically there is no way to remove him.

the ability to realistically removal is subjective. saddam huesien was an elected president, and could have been removed in the next election. but do you believe he could have been removed?

[quote]
3) The death of Bob would not result in the removal of christian influence throughout the country....... and if it did it would not clearly result from of the death of Bob
[/quote]

sure it would. for bob has vetoed a bill solely on his 'christian morality'

[quote]
4) There may be a suitable replacement, but since Bob wasn't really doing anything tyrranical the entire reason he would need a suitable replacement is completely lost.
[/quote]
yet again, tyranical is opinion.

[quote]
5) Pastafarianism is a religion, not a nation (since you decided to add in your amazing sadistic attempt at a joke)
[/quote]

it should be. do you have any idea what the word sadistic means?

[quote]
None of the points are tied to morality...... I stated that at the beginning..... it was kinda part of the point......
[/quote]

none of the points are tied to your morality, but are tied to mine. that was my point, which you obviously missed.

[quote]
No subjectivity has nothing to do with it. There is a clear definition for a "tyrant".
[/quote]
who defines? you? me? or the tyrant? a label of 'tyrant' is subject to arguements about semantics.

[quote]
You have to look into seeing whether there was any other way to get that person out of office.....
[/quote]
the US has perpetrated assasination attempts against elected leaders for a long time, as long as they were communist. these leaders could have easily been removed, had the people wanted to vote them out. however, the US, 'morally' decided to back dictatorships that were rarely supported by the people in hopes of defeating communism.

[quote]
violence would only be a last ditch effort.
[/quote]

like throwing UN inspectors out of a country and declaring that thier job is over. right. a 'last ditch effort' is also subjective.

saddam was not offered negotiations. he was issued an ultimatium, while the UN was operating a peaceful investegation into the claim.

[quote]
When you speak of a clear change for the better, it generally is subjective, but not in this case. It means that the tyrannical things being done will be stopped...... Look at the French Revolution for example...... The assasination of Marat would not clearly result in a change for the better because it was obvious that either Danton or Robspierre would take over aand nothing would change......
[/quote]

the conceit of hindsight. when marat was assasinated, i doubt they knew that the reign of terror would follow. but because you know what ultimately happened, you can comfortablly say what was obvious, when nothing was obvious of the sort.

you may dissagree, but yet again, i say subjectivity.

[quote]
And a suitable replacement means someone that will stop the tyrrany entirely and not set an agenda for revenge......
[/quote]
who is...
that's a very fairy tale idea. you can never know before hand if someone will be a 'suitable replacement' then. LBJ kept up the policies of JFK, ergo, he was not a suitable replacment. however, since he was from the south, it was expected he would not follow the policies of JFK, so he would have been thought a suitable replacement.

[quote]
Can we keep the maturity level above 3rd grade please? "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me........ Nahnahnahnahnahhhhhhh....." Wow, do we really need to resort to mud slinging and name calling...... I'm an idiot. Yipee-kai-yai-yay and a woohoo for you. So you went to kindergarten...... just like everybody else....... are you still waiting on the federal grant for the investigation into proving the existence of cooties too? Do you really have no constructive counter argument other than trying to apply different cases to try and make me look like a crackpot and my argument seems outrageous?.......
[/quote]

haha... i throw the word idiot in next to the word you, and you freak out. pay attention to the arguement, please. go cry to the teacher. go cry that the big bad acid called you a bad name.

[quote]
No JFK's assasination would not have been justified..... it only take one of the 4 points make it wrong...... OK, I'll conceed for arguments sake that JFK was a tyrannical terrorist supporter bent on the overthrow of a legitimate government, and killing innocent men women and children in the pursuit of personal and financial gain....... JFK could have been impeached...... other ways of being removed from office = check........ I'm sure whatever he was doing, he was doing it with the support of other high ranking government officials........ there was no way he could support and run terroist training camps without support or assistance of some kind..... seeing as this is a democratic republic and there are failsafes to prevent such things from happening...... therefore, if he wasn't working alone there would be other people still running it, and his death would not clearly result in a change for the better....... No suitable replacement could be made, because if this group was doing this under the radar of the rest of the US government then they could just as easily exclude the new president from their little dealings.......... Thats 3 out of the 4? and it only takes 1? You do the math....... But in any case it adds up to wrong.......
[/quote]


he supported and ran terrorist camps through direction of teh CIA without knowledge to other government officials. it was covert, and we were not supposed to know about the USA's involvement.

iraq was a democracy. cuba is a democracy. palistine is a democracy. just because something is democratic doesn't mean it's right.

and you obviously don't know what i'm talking about, so i will assume you have not had a class in US history.

JFK told the CIA to train cuban civilians in CIA training camps the tactics of terrorism. they were landed at the bay of pigs where they were supposed to gather more followers and proceed to make life difficult for castro, and ultimately overthrow him. they failed, and the fiasco is known as the bay of pigs incident.

OK, for starters.... a government overthrow is not an assasination, it would be considered an alternative way to remove someone from office....... you dont necessarily have to kill someone to take power away from them...... JFK did not tell the cuban civillians to kill castro..... there was not assasination plot......

Imposing muslim standards would be a problem if those standards are "Convert or be killed"....... Bob isn't killing anybody......

Saddam Huessein could not have been removed in the next election b/c anyone who did not vote for him faced certain death....... so even every single person in the country chose death over voting, he would be the only person left and could have done whatever he chose anyway...... But that is besides the point....... The United States did not attempt to assasinate Saddam Huessein...... overthrow, yes...... assasinate and take control, no.

2 years ago Bush had the support of more than half the country in the actions he was taking, and that was the reason he had the support of the house and senate..... he didn't have the full support of the supreme court, and that's why the appointing of Justice Alito was such a big deal....... The PEOPLE voted into office, representatives who would would vote for what they wanted....... Bush didn't monopolize the government, the american people did.

Bob may have vetoed a bill based on his christian morality..... but removing Bob from office doesn't get rid of the rest of the people who have christian morals in the government..... you cannot say that his death would clearly result in the removal of the entire christian influence from the country......

Tyrranical is not an opinion. A tyrant is a cruel despot who places his own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the "best" interests of the general population which they govern or control.Tyrrany has to do with oppression....... and there is no subjectivity on what oppression is either. Labeling someone as a tyrant can be the issue of symantics, the definition of a tyrant however is not. This is whi the point is that the person is CLEARLY a tyrant...... meaning not even questioned through symantics.......

No the US hasn't been attempting assasinations for a long time...... They plotted the overthrow of communist leaders, not their assasinations...... there is a major difference.....

When Marat was assasinated the Reign of Terror was already halfway over. It was Charolette Corday's attempt at ending the reign of terrow b/c she believe Marat was the sole corrupting power of the French Revolution..... Maybe you should have been dong a little less napping during the chapter about the French Revolution.......

I'm sorry if my history class moves slower and in much greater detail than yours...... It has taken us 2 years to get up to the end of World War II because we go into all of the details and the reasons why things happened.

haha.

nice. in depth.

if you do not know US history, then don't tell me that the US hasn't plotted assasinations. come back when you've at least gone over the communist era. without a shit state funded textbook, by the way, those things are just political tools.

but since you said you've covered up to WWII, you would know that in the american revolution, the "patriots" were terrorists, by today's standards, right?

and thus, it would be morally justified to assasinate all leaders of the revolution?

i'm sorry if my US history class doesn't cover the french revolution.

your historical inaccuracies are astounding.

and your debating skills leave something to be wanted.

for example: i never said JFK was planning an assasination. i said his assasination could be justified by his sponsorship of terrorist groups and thier attempts to overthrow legitamate governments.

the difference between you and me is very representative of the difference between liberals and conservatives.

you believe your opinion, like what is a tyrant and what is not, is absolutely right.

i believe people have different opinions so i cannot be sure which one is right.

easily. the guys a dick so i shoot him. i decided he deserved to get shot. justified.

Ok, first off I don't have a shit state-funded textbook..... it's a lecture class taught by Dr. Anne Carroll with the help of the husband Dr. Warren H. Carroll....... Everything they teach comes directly from their research notes..... We have been doing World History anyway...... American History is a seperate course which I start next year, so my knowleged on governments conspiracyies of this country is quite limited...... Second, you seem to be under the misconception that terrorist meets the definition of tyrant........ The patriots in the revelution were terroriss by today's standards, yes...... but the thing was that they had to be clearly tyrranical........ same idea applies with your JFK point......... Now this is where it gets complicated....... there is no subjectivity in the definition of tyrant...... the definition of a tyrant is not an opinion, it is a fact...... The opinion comes in when you try to label someone as a tyrant, because what one person sees as oppression, another may see as liberation....... BUT, I believe that there are certain things which cross the border of all opinion into clearly being seen as wrong, even by the person taking that action........ things like a holocaust...... the senseless murder of thousnds of men women and children...... things like punishing a country by locking people inside a city and then setting that city on fire........ just to make a point....... There are just certain actions which human nature denotes to be cruel, unusual, and wrong...... It would be those actions which would denote a person as clearly tyrranical.....

assasinating a dictator, hmm hard one. It depends , if the dictator is extremely horrible and has killed large amounts of people then yes but if that isnt the case then no

the simple fact that you disagree with me proves my point.

But I didn't disagree with you...... I agreed people have different opinions on who would be considered a tyrant and not, because of different perspectives..... then I went on further to suggest that there are certain actions that, no matter what angle you looks at them from, are clearly unjust and cruel...... actions which even the person doing them knows are wrong, not out of morals, but out of human nature....... now if you disagree with that, then you support your point that people have different opinions...... but you have to first disagree with the my point that the judgement on some actions can transcend the boundries of subjectivity.......

that's what i'm trying to say. nothing ever transcends subjectivity, not when you're dealing with humans.