hitsugayaOMFG
Temor mi hielo bishes D:
- 17 Jun 2010
- 59
- 0
- 16
i don't think that its ok to kill another person unless they've like raped and murdered your daughter or something heinous like that x__x
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I do think that keeping a capital criminal alive for so long with a death sentence hanging over his head, through endless appeals or whatever process, is cruel and inhuman punishment.
Is it rationally possible to be an atheist and also believe that human life is somehow sacred? Why would a human life be worth more than a fly's?
I do think that keeping a capital criminal alive for so long with a death sentence hanging over his head, through endless appeals or whatever process, is cruel and inhuman punishment.
i don't think that its ok to kill another person unless they've like raped and murdered your daughter or something heinous like that x__x
That is very black and white. The subject is grey. Soldiers are known for committing such atrocies in war, yet they are not executed for it. Do we lower ourselves down to the same level as the killer, or should we be better? In some cases a rapist or a murderer can suffer from mental problems. Is it right to kill the mentally ill? If so then why not kill anyone who suffers from a mental problem before they commit the acts as a preventative measure.i don't think that its ok to kill another person unless they've like raped and murdered your daughter or something heinous like that x__x
Is it rationally possible to be an atheist and also believe that human life is somehow sacred? Why would a human life be worth more than a fly's
who says
Who are they to claim there opinion as truth and who are you to blindly believe them?
Cosmic laws have nothing to do with human nature. Human laws deal with human nature and human behavior.
Cosmic laws have everything to do with our society ,we developed the way we did because of the cosmic laws setting certain boundaries for life on earth.
A law is always only the acknowledgement of our incapability to solve a problem technically,
if you canツ´t make travel in cars so safe the risk of an accident will be literally 0 put you make a law to restrict the actions of the driver.
I have no idea what you are talking about , you seem to be missing the fact ,that all our actions in the physical world are tied to boundries set by our body and our sorrounding.
Both were formed according to laws of nature ,some of which we think to know some of which we donツ´t know.
I highly doubt ,that if your arm would grow back after having it cut off the sentence would be the same for the person convicting the "crime".
It might just be a warning for littering...
So why should I accept authority as truth and not truth as authority?
Science is only the observation of the world around us without morally evaluating it.
Therefore these laws in my opinion are more suited to be the basis of our laws ,than any human could ever be ,as wise or intelligent he might be.
The observation and testing of amoral phenomena. Nature has no morals, nor can science offer a proper basis for laws. For example, the Nazis used science, good and bad, to justify their racial theories and racial laws and many today also support eugenics (a scientific discipline) for, say, the forced sterilization of certain kinds of people they deem unfit to reproduce. Science can be used to justify killing someone, but if a deity says "Thou shalt not murder" that's something set in stone.
What is a "proper basis" for laws?
I canツ´t argue against something I donツ´t know.
Whatever the majority agrees it is, there's the proper basis. Anyone who thinks that humans will follow rational, scientifically-proven laws are mistaken. Science offers theory; what's believed today, like the Big Bang theory, can be replaced by another theory tomorrow, like the Electric Universe theory, if enough scientists accept it.
Years ago, theories were put into communism, which ultimately failed, despite the utopian drivel. Many Marxists glowed with descriptions of "the science of communism" and whatnot, as if it was some grand law of nature. The Soviets believed it, up until 1990 anyways. Today, people still apply similar logical arguments, economic and socio-political, for free market capitalism.
Most of the theories which where incorporated into nation-socialism and communism were cut back according to the size which would fit into the idealistic world view of the party.
And because of this they were worthless and not to be taken seriously in this system.
To share your point of view I would have to accept democracy to some extent at least and I donツ´t.
I believe ,that democracy as any man made structure is only put there to make up for our intellectual shortcomings.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to kill then ,who says ,that a government is the authority and not me a human being of a sound mind.
Who is a trustworthy authority anyway ,is there any authority, that can be trusted?
Why should I believe ,that a statesman in any way is authorized to make these decisions.
I believe if a soldier or policeman is entitled to kill me Iツ´m entitled to kill him just as much.
So itツ´s either everyone has the right to kill everyone or no one has the right to kill anyone ,the latter would be the one I find easier to relate to.