The Moral Argument

[Moral Orel]

How? The motivation for retaliation is not the same as racial, political or cultural group is.

Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?

 

[Hieronymus]

Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?

Not sure about this particular case, should look it up, but more often than not it is about ridding the area of 'giants' and or their descendants.

 

[Moral Orel]

I thought I did. I'll take a look again when I have time. I believe it was an answer to terrorism.

Here's me quoting myself. You stopped responding to me after this:

Definition from the FBI here:

"Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"

Nukes are definitely dangerous, no debate there. Violation of federal and state laws is only there because this is actual legal code for someone who would be prosecuted by us.

"Appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"

Scare the Japanese populace to not back the war effort.

"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or"

Scare the Japanese politicians to not back the war effort.

"(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"
Going to war is part of the conduct of a government, and it definitely qualifies as mass destruction.

There is more to the definition you can read as to whether it is domestic or international (this would of course be international) but there is nothing that is part of the definition that says it has to be an individual, or private organization, or government that is acting.

There is also nothing about "who started it". That has nothing to do with whether something is a terrorist act or not.

And your definition fits as well until you call it self defense, which is has nothing to do with whether it is terrorism or not. I'm not saying the Japanese were good guys at all, not in the slightest. What I say about our conduct has no bearing whatsoever on what I think of their conduct. But we didn't bomb a military installation did we?

The Japanese definitely weren't terrorists. Pearl Harbor assuredly had civilians present, but they were attacking a military installation to weaken our armed forces so that we would be less capable of fighting them.
We bombed major metropolitan centers containing almost exclusively a civilian population to show them our technological/military might to make them fear us.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not sure about this particular case, should look it up, but more often than not it is about ridding the area of 'giants' and or their descendants.

Here's a head start: 1 Samuel 15:1-3

 

[Hieronymus]

Here's a head start: 1 Samuel 15:1-3

Yes, a quick Google search points to them being giants or descendants of giants.
Hence also the children had to be slain.

Should look deeper into it though...

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, a quick Google search points to them being giants or descendants of giants.
Hence also the children had to be slain.

Should look deeper into it though...

If they were giants, then it was the systematic destruction of a race.

 

[bhsmte]

If they were giants, then it was the systematic destruction of a race.

You gotta watch out for those big dudes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?

No. They also didn't systematically destroy them. Their motivation was self survival, the Amalekites attacked the Jews as they were coming out of Egypt. They attacked the old, weak and young. There were Amalakites that were not killed too. If it was a genocide then it would have been systematic and all would have been targets, that is not the case.

 

[anonymous person]

A central thought in ontological naturalism is that all spatiotemporal entities must be identical to or metaphysically constituted by physical entities. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/notes.html#note-3

Homo sapiens are spatiotemporal entities. Therefore from the above it follows that homo sapiens are identical to or metaphysically constituted by physical entities.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here's me quoting myself. You stopped responding to me after this:

The Japanese definitely weren't terrorists. Pearl Harbor assuredly had civilians present, but they were attacking a military installation to weaken our armed forces so that we would be less capable of fighting them.
We bombed major metropolitan centers containing almost exclusively a civilian population to show them our technological/military might to make them fear us.

What was their intent if they were successful in weakening our armed forces?

 

[Hieronymus]

If they were giants, then it was the systematic destruction of a race.

...but not exactly a human race, but indeed genocide...
And as judgement also.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It follows from your assumptions, not from what I wrote.

That is the meaning I got.

Yes, it is not. It´s the very opposite: it´s fortunate that I find myself in the majority. There is not mentioning nor implication of superiority, and being fortunate to be part of the majority does not imply superiority.
(Besides, that´s not exactly what I wrote)

How does being in the majority make you fortunate?

I find it quite fortunate. What I actually wrote is there for everyone to read, and so are your misrepresentations.

I may have misunderstood but I don't think misrepresenting is accurate.

 

[Moral Orel]

There were Amalakites that were not killed too. If it was a genocide then it would have been systematic and all would have been targets, that is not the case.

So then Hitler didn't commit genocide because he didn't kill all of the Jews?

EDIT: "ALL" of them were targets and they were punished for failing to accomplish what God told them to do.

 

[Moral Orel]

What was their intent if they were successful in weakening our armed forces?

To conquer probably. But not through fear, through attempting to be actually superior in strength. Why does that matter? You still aren't answering to the fact that our actions fall under the definition of terrorism.

 

[Moral Orel]

Their motivation was self survival

Motivation has absolutely not one iota of an impact on whether something is genocide or not. The definition does not in any way shape or form contain the word "because" or any synonym thereof. This is an objective fact.

 

[bhsmte]

Motivation has absolutely not one iota of an impact on whether something is genocide or not. The definition does not in any way shape or form contain the word "because" or any synonym thereof. This is an objective fact.

Correct.

I would anticipate more evasion and muddying of the waters.

 

[anonymous person]

Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

If men take it upon themselves to do this, it is wrong. If God takes life, He has done nothing wrong because He is the Author of life. He gives and takes as He will.

God could cause us all to die right now without our permission and without doing anything wrong.

Our life is a gift. Every beat of our heart is a gift, every breath also.

But if naturalism is true, then the killing of a bunch of people is really no different than destroying an ant hill.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So then Hitler didn't commit genocide because he didn't kill all of the Jews?

He didn't kill them all because he was stopped. It was who they were that motivated him, that is not the motivation of the Jews towards the Amalekites.

EDIT: "ALL" of them were targets and they were punished for failing to accomplish what God told them to do.

No, God said to kill some and to drive some out.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, God said to kill some and to drive some out.

Ugh... 1 Samuel 15:1-3

 

[Oncedeceived]

Motivation has absolutely not one iota of an impact on whether something is genocide or not. The definition does not in any way shape or form contain the word "because" or any synonym thereof. This is an objective fact.

Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?

No. They killed part of a group based on self-defense.