quote:Originally posted by starLisa: ...have devalued the concept of "terrorism" so much that people have begun to accept it as a legitimate tool.
How sad that this has become the case. The word Genocide is going through a similar situation. I don't believe that word is being used appropriately either, though in the other direction. I am frustrated to hear people's reservations about calling situation in Sudan genocide.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The law was not only unjust, but the Jews' acquisition of weapons could easily be argued was in self-defense. The law does make certain concessions for cases of self-defense.
Not the sort of concessions we're talking about. It's a different sort of self-defense argument, too. Proactive self-defense is not in fact a factor in sentencing.
If, for example, I believe that Billy is going to go home and get a gun to shoot me dead, even if he says that's what he's going to do, it's not magically legal for me to shoot Billy before he can leave the mall.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE]If, for example, I believe that Billy is going to go home and get a gun to shoot me dead, even if he says that's what he's going to do, it's not magically legal for me to shoot Billy before he can leave the mall.
But it would be legal, or I presume you would receive a lesser punishment, for stealing a firearm to protect yourself.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please see my post revision on the previous page.
I apologise for convoultiong the media definition of "ultraorthodox=rightwing fanatic" with the true religious ultraorthodox community.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But it would be legal, or I presume you would receive a lesser punishment, for stealing a firearm to protect yourself.
No, I doubt it. If I believed Billy were going to kill me, and consequently shoplifted a rifle from KMart, I imagine they'd still prosecute me to the limits of the law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:People scream bloody murder every time Israel attacks the Palestinian Arabs.
Thanks for dropping the "self-described/so-called." It looks like a fine distinction to someone who has no Palestinian background, but I do, and I appreciate that you changed it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But it would be legal, or I presume you would receive a lesser punishment, for stealing a firearm to protect yourself.
No, I doubt it. If I believed Billy were going to kill me, and consequently shoplifted a rifle from KMart, I imagine they'd still prosecute me to the limits of the law.
And if Billy had a history of killing people that looked like you, shared your beliefs, and lived near you? I think Billy's threat would be taken seriously enough that you would be justified in your actions. Just as these two Jews were justified in protecting themselves from certain Arabs who were murdering Jews at the time in that place.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And if Billy had a history of killing people that looked like you, shared your beliefs, and lived near you?
Still no. You ask a modern gangbanger if he can walk out of KMart with a gun of his choice if he tells them that the guy down the street is gunning for him and his friends.
Might be true. Still won't entitle him to a gun.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If, for example, I believe that Billy is going to go home and get a gun to shoot me dead, even if he says that's what he's going to do, it's not magically legal for me to shoot Billy before he can leave the mall.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Still no. You ask a modern gangbanger if he can walk out of KMart with a gun of his choice if he tells them that the guy down the street is gunning for him and his friends.
Might be true. Still won't entitle him to a gun.
Nice job changing the example. Now, from the original example, Billy is "the guy down the street" and you're "gangbanger". That's a different situation and a different context. It is interesting how these things always end up more complex than they originally seem. And with more complexity come more reasonable nuance in forming an opinion.
Let's complicate this further and get closer to the original analogy then. Billy has killed your unarmed friends and others from your community. And not just Billy, but Billy and his friends. The law states that you cannot have a firearm to defend yourself. You know that Billy and co. are coming back and the police will not, or are not able, to stop them. Someone, not you, brings in case of firearms and offers you one. Remember, Billy is not just coming after you, but coming after your family and friends. Are you justified in accepting that firearm?
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you justified in accepting that firearm?
Legally? No. Ethically? It's a wash. Because presumably the state has decided that no exceptions can be made for the possession of firearms, and moreover has provided for the protection of individuals through another method.
You may well decide yourself that the state has failed you, and thus conclude that you are better off breaking the laws of the state and forfeiting its ineffective protection. But in so doing, you also accept that you are knowingly breaking the laws of the state; you have deliberately placed yourself above the law.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are consequences. And the state gets to decide what those consequences are.
In this case, two youths decided they were above the law, and the law in question sentenced them to death. Another group, dissatisfied with the law, kidnapped and killed two people.
At every single stage, ethics broke down.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:People scream bloody murder every time Israel attacks the Palestinian Arabs.
Thanks for dropping the "self-described/so-called." It looks like a fine distinction to someone who has no Palestinian background, but I do, and I appreciate that you changed it.
Um... I just figured that I'd made that point. I'd probably still use it if that was the precise topic of discussion. I'm still refusing to use the term Palestinian as nationality, and when I say "Palestinian Arabs", I'm going to presume (hope, I mean) that people realize I'm using it in contrast to Palestinian Jews such as those who created the State of Israel.
Like I said before, my partner's great-grandfather is buried in Safed. She's at least as much a Palestinian by descent as you may be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And if Billy had a history of killing people that looked like you, shared your beliefs, and lived near you?
Still no. You ask a modern gangbanger if he can walk out of KMart with a gun of his choice if he tells them that the guy down the street is gunning for him and his friends.
Might be true. Still won't entitle him to a gun.
Are you unable to comprehend the difference between crime and war? It seems so.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Right wing when it comes to Israeli politics, libertarian on US politics I think there's a distinction there.
Interesting. I so love it when people try and tell me (and others) what my positions are.
Actually, I'm off the left/right spectrum entirely.
I'm against the draft,
I think we never should have sent a land force into Iraq,
I think we should legalize gay marriage,
I think we should shut down government run schooling,
I think people should be able to hire or fire or rent or sell to or turn away anyone they want, provided that they don't violate a contract in the doing, and that no one on earth has the right to demand that they justify it.
Trying to label that as either left wing or right wing, or left wing domestically or right wing domestically or whatever simply demonstrates that you're more comfortable dealing with labels than ideas.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm using it in contrast to Palestinian Jews such as those who created the State of Israel.
I know, and in that context it makes logical sense. However, it also makes logical sense from a modern perspective, as "Palestinian" in common usage today is a subset of "Arab."
And that's as close as I'll come to discussing the larger issue on this forum.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
quote: I reject the premise of your question. Rephrase it, or I won't answer it. Your choice.
Which premise do you reject, specifically? Are we presuming that the British soldiers in question were guilty of something?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
I didn't say that those were my positions only in the US. Sheesh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
I didn't say that those were my positions only in the US. Sheesh.
I think you misunderstand her. I don't think she was saying "Those are your positions in US politics" but rather "Those positions are what we, in US politics, call 'libertarian'." See the difference?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still interested in hearing which premise you do not accept. I'll gladly rephrase the question if you tell me which part of the question makes it difficult for you to address.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: lol, starLisa, your list pretty much comes under the heading of "libertarian" for US politics as the closest match. Which was the distinction I made in your own list.
I didn't say that those were my positions only in the US. Sheesh.
I think you misunderstand her. I don't think she was saying "Those are your positions in US politics" but rather "Those positions are what we, in US politics, call 'libertarian'." See the difference?
I don't think I misunderstood her. This was what she posted:
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Right wing when it comes to Israeli politics, libertarian on US politics I think there's a distinction there.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm still interested in hearing which premise you do not accept. I'll gladly rephrase the question if you tell me which part of the question makes it difficult for you to address.
Go back and reread all of my answers to your posts. Do it without trying to fit me into some preconceived box. If you have questions then, feel free to post them. Preferably on a thread other than this one. Hijacking isn't nice.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd (by the way, my name is Avin, not Alvin),
quote:However, when you say God exists "outside of time" what do you mean? Do you mean outside of our time, or outside of all time. What do you believe this means?
I do mean outside of all time. It's rather a puzzle to try to explain, though. I certainly have concrete beliefs about what this means, because as you say, otherwise it would be pointless to claim this is a defining characteristic of God.
"Outside of time" is what I mean when I use the word "Eternal" and that's how I believe the Bible uses it. The common conception of this is without beginning or end, and I think most take this to mean existence that continues for infinite time in the past and will continue for infinite time in the future, but this is not what I mean. Eternity is as much like an infintisimal moment as it is an infinite length of time. There is no before or after, there just is. This precludes the physical reality we experience because space necessitates time as any physicist knows, but I've heard philosophy/theology that expresses similar concepts prior to this last century, so this isn't a theory founded on those physics. The reality we know is as much a infintisimal blip in the eternal reality as much as it encompasses it: there is no "before" creation, for instance. God then exists within this eternal reality, yet is more than an impersonal force. He has will and character that exist outside of time even though we experience them from within time.
Oh, and I definitely agree that you will find much more diversity of theology within a single denomination or sect than between them, more often than not. Perhaps one reason that it might be less obvious on this forum is due to the large number of Mormons, and Mormon theology is one of the few that is very different overall from everything else, which is why most Christians regard your denomination as a mere personal preference, except for certain denominations like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, I would not consider myself a "Biblical literalist" (although I see how someone could mistake me for one) because although I take some parts of the Bible literally (the most disputed being parts of Genesis), there are other parts I do not think were meant to be taken literally (the most disputed being parts of Revelation), and I think the proper way to treat the Bible is to take it to mean what it was originally meant to.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am asking here, where the question is. I'm asking now, where you are looking. You refuse to answer the question because you disagree with the premise. Which premise is that?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Unchangeable" and "Timeless" seem to go hand-in-hand. If something changes it must exist "in time", else there could be no "before" nor any "after" which are both necessary qualities of "change". That said, I can see how a god could appear unchangeable from a vantage point outside of the timestream of the observer. However, I don't see how any meaningful god could exist outside of all time. Of course I don't see how any meaningful god could be utterly unchangeable, either. An unchangeable god might as well be the ultimate rock, literally. Such a god just is. Such a god can't really do anything, for "to do something" implies a time when it was not yet done, and a time in which it is done, and a time after the doing. Additionally, a God that does something isn't literally "unchangeable", for once He has done something, he is no longer a being who has not done that thing.
I can conceive somewhat of a thing that is literally timeless and unchangeable (as opposed to just appearing so in relation to us), but I can't see how such a god could have any relevance to us or even this universe.
quote:I think the proper way to treat the Bible is to take it to mean what it was originally meant to.
LOL. Yes, but of course this begs the ultimate question concerning the bible. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, you can't be seriously concerned with off topic posts at this point.
Seriously, though, on the off chance that you really are concerned with thread highjacking, I have no problem with you answering their question here, if you're going to do it at all. A new thread is unlikely to make any sense to readers not familiar with this one, and to move the conversation at this point is rude to those who are following it. IMO.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I really am concerned with thread hijacking, and not just because it detracts from the topic you started, which I consider very interesting.
I think forums work best if you can find things, you know? And as much as I appreciate your granting me permission to continue here, I started another thread here, with a link back to this thread for those who are interested.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
