Assassinating a dictator, Can it be justified? |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
Assassinating a dictator, Can it be justified? |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() "Silly me, I thought this was a free country" ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Human Posts: 1,666 Joined: Nov 2004 Member No: 60,913 ![]() |
Can the assassination of a dictator be justified?
|
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 142 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 82,183 ![]() |
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....... |
|
|
![]() ![]() |