Basic E&M question

Chesterton said:

Good answer. Shows you believe in the moral idea of justice same as everyone.

Click to expand...

Everyone believes in my subjective opinion of justice?? That's shocking...it certainly doesn't appear that way.

That's certainly not murder. Unless a government decides to somehow claim it is. You know what they say, you can indict a ham sandwich if you want to bad enough.

Click to expand...

Why isn't it murder? And I'd prefer you leave "the government" out of it...after all, they don't consider abortion murder and you clearly disagree with that.

Well that's one of the things it does. Why do you think we have a Bill of Rights for example? Why do you think we have due process? The government would be a lot more efficient if it could just pluck criminals off the street and lock them up without treating them fairly, like giving them the right to a trial.

Click to expand...

The bill of rights was written in response to the calls of states for protection of individual liberty. Individual liberty is a concept central to the founding of the U.S. as a nation.

Due process, trials, aren't just formalities in the process of locking up criminals...they're the process by which we determine who is a criminal and who isn't. You say it would be more efficient to just lock them up...but without a careful process of determining who is a criminal, I disagree.

Governments thrived? What does that even mean? Seems like you think that governments exist for the sake of existing, rather than for the good of the people.

Click to expand...

What's "the good of the people" to you? Because if we're talking about abortion...you're clearly on the wrong side of that issue.

You seem to deny that anything has a moral component.

Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention...choices have moral components, but they're just opinions.

Ana the Ist said:

Why isn't it murder? And I'd prefer you leave "the government" out of it...after all, they don't consider abortion murder and you clearly disagree with that.

Click to expand...

Murder is a legal term, like tracheotomy is a medical term. What does a doctor do in a tracheotomy? He cuts your throat open with a knife. Does that mean every person who cuts someone's throat with a knife is performing a tracheotomy? No. Governments (legislators) are the ones who define murder, and you want to leave them out of it? You don't have to take my word for it. I'm sure every state, maybe every nation has their laws posted on the internet. Look up what murder is for yourself.

The bill of rights was written in response to the calls of states for protection of individual liberty. Individual liberty is a concept central to the founding of the U.S. as a nation.

Due process, trials, aren't just formalities in the process of locking up criminals...they're the process by which we determine who is a criminal and who isn't. You say it would be more efficient to just lock them up...

Click to expand...

Okay. Not sure why you want to reinforce my point all of a sudden.

...but without a careful process of determining who is a criminal, I disagree.

Click to expand...

What difference does it make if they lock up the wrong guy? (Hint: it would be immoral.) Punishing an innocent man would still serve as a deterent to the bad guys. If fact it might even be a better deterrent, like "wow, look what they did to that guy who didn't do anything wrong. Imagine what they might do to us if we're caught!"

What's "the good of the people" to you? Because if we're talking about abortion...you're clearly on the wrong side of that issue.

Click to expand...

The good of the people is what we're enjoying right now. Sitting here peacefully chatting, without having immoral acts like murder, assault, theft, etc. done to us.

Then you haven't been paying attention...choices have moral components, but they're just opinions.

Click to expand...

You've gone from evading my questions to omitting them entirely. They're really simple questions. This is my last word on the subject:

Two plus two is four.
The sky is blue.
Murder is wrong. (Along with rape, stealing, cheating, etc.)

These are not matters of opinion, and if you don't recognize these facts, you are a defective human.

Chesterton said:

Murder is a legal term, like tracheotomy is a medical term. What does a doctor do in a tracheotomy? He cuts your throat open with a knife. Does that mean every person who cuts someone's throat with a knife is performing a tracheotomy? No. Governments (legislators) are the ones who define murder, and you want to leave them out of it? You don't have to take my word for it. I'm sure every state, maybe every nation has their laws posted on the internet. Look up what murder is for yourself.

Click to expand...

So I won't be seeing you calling abortion murder anymore? And since the scenario I described clearly fits the legal definition of murder...I'm curious of what law you believe exempts it.

Okay. Not sure why you want to reinforce my point all of a sudden.

Click to expand...

I don't see how my statements "reinforce" your point (you had a point? I thought you were just making baseless assertions).

What difference does it make if they lock up the wrong guy? (Hint: it would be immoral.)

Click to expand...

Try to follow along...I'll make this as simple as I can...

1. A state creates laws in order for the state to function.
2. A state enforces those laws so it can function.

Therefore, if the state went around just locking up "whoever" then it hasn't actually enforced those laws that were created so it can function! See? That wasn't so difficult...

Take traffic laws for example. I don't find anything inherently immoral about speeding, I cannot think of a moral impetus to changing lanes without a signal, I don't see any moral wrong in jaywalking...yet it's difficult for the state to function without traffic laws!

I'll just delete the rest of what you wrote since its irrelevant.

The good of the people is what we're enjoying right now. Sitting here peacefully chatting, without having immoral acts like murder, assault, theft, etc. done to us.

Click to expand...

Can you be less vague? If you want a concept to be central to a point you're making...you'll need to make it clearer. All I would need to do is make a case for how you're "bad for society" and then murdering you would be for "the good of the people".

So I'll ask again...what's "the good of the people"?

You've gone from evading my questions to omitting them entirely. They're really simple questions. This is my last word on the subject:

Click to expand...

I've been giving you examples of "moral" situations for our entire conversation...it thought it was a bit odd for you to ask me to provide more. Do you still want one? Cuz I can come up with more if you really want...

Two plus two is four.

Click to expand...

Fact.

The sky is blue.

Click to expand...

Arguably a matter of perspective. What if you can't see blue and the sky looks pink? Is it not pink?

Murder is wrong. (Along with rape, stealing, cheating, etc.)

Click to expand...

Opinion.

These are not matters of opinion, and if you don't recognize these facts, you are a defective human.

Click to expand...

...or I just understand what you don't.