quote:murderer. As I've already said, I'm religious and there are religious justifications for killing an entire nation, if that nation threatens to take away your ability to be righteous and follow God.
Quoted for emphasis. Gentlemen, I give you my reason for wanting re-education camps for theists. By the way, just how does this differ from comrade bin Laden's justification for attacking the US?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hate to brake it to you Irami, but globalization ain't gonna stop because you blow yourself up.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:murderer. As I've already said, I'm religious and there are religious justifications for killing an entire nation, if that nation threatens to take away your ability to be righteous and follow God.
Quoted for emphasis. Gentlemen, I give you my reason for wanting re-education camps for theists. By the way, just how does this differ from comrade bin Laden's justification for attacking the US?
I'm sure our justifications are the same, I'm just using a religious argument. If Canada all of a sudden tries to invade us and make us slaves or kill off our minority populate, and there is a religious and a non-religious argument for going to war, and destroying Canada if that is the ONLY way to protect ourselves and our freedoms.
Bin Laden is rich and is coming AFTER us.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a difference between defense against an aggressor, and yourself being the aggressor.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:destroying Canada if that is the ONLY way to protect ourselves and our freedoms
Omelas.
Ok, what about Native Americans? Irami's argument could be used to eradicate all Euro Americans and in both North and South America in order to preserve and try to re-establish the Native American culture on this continent? Should I feel guilty our nation is built on that cultures near demise?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by monteverdi: You should save this note, Irami, and show it to your children.
Or tape it to their headstones when someone, inspired by Irami's words of wisdom on the topic of suicide bombings, blows up a bus that they were on.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: My intention is to simply point out that its never black/white, its never absolute, there is always a shade of grey.
People who say there are no blacks and whites are as deluded and as destructive as those who say there are only blacks and whites.
There isn't always a shade of gray.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:murderer. As I've already said, I'm religious and there are religious justifications for killing an entire nation, if that nation threatens to take away your ability to be righteous and follow God.
Quoted for emphasis. Gentlemen, I give you my reason for wanting re-education camps for theists. By the way, just how does this differ from comrade bin Laden's justification for attacking the US?
I'm sure our justifications are the same, I'm just using a religious argument. If Canada all of a sudden tries to invade us and make us slaves or kill off our minority populate, and there is a religious and a non-religious argument for going to war, and destroying Canada if that is the ONLY way to protect ourselves and our freedoms.
Bin Laden is rich and is coming AFTER us.
I don't see your point. He believes that the USA is preventing his family and nation from following God and being righteous; and, defining 'righteous' as his version of Islam, he is absolutely right. So is he justified in blowing up people, or not? And if not, do you have an argument for why that isn't "his god isn't real"?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'd have to say, "No," on so many levels. No to kiling myself; no to killing others; no to finding some sort of religious justification for doing whatever the hell it was I wanted to do, anyway.
Irami, I don't know if you're kidding or not; if in another day or two, you'll say, "Just kidding." But something tells me you'll probably be saying it in one of the US's lovely re-education camps in beautiful Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't see your point. He believes that the USA is preventing his family and nation from following God and being righteous; and, defining 'righteous' as his version of Islam, he is absolutely right. So is he justified in blowing up people, or not? And if not, do you have an argument for why that isn't "his god isn't real"?
So I gave the religious argument because my point is that the US *isn't* preventing his family and nation from following God and being righteous. The people who are supporting suicide bombing are thugs who want to enslave people, not give them relgious freedom.
Say one day they succeed and destroy Western culture from off the face of the Earth and wash the Earth clean of all of Western civilization's evils from the days of the crusades to the meltdown of Chernobyl. What next?
They aren't going to all of a sudden be a peace loving people. They are going to turn on each other and destroy each other until eventually, nobody is left or they will be the ones who finally create the 1984 Big Brother that watches everybody to make sure nobody "sins".
Which is another way of saying your God isn't real, yeah... But you are saying the same, no?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who see things in black and white scare me. Things are so much more complicated than that.... This is what causes this sort of thing, or a factor. Not realizing how truely complex and involved everything is.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: I know that sounds like I am defending a suicide bomber, but trust me, that is not my intention. My intention is to simply point out that its never black/white, its never absolute, there is always a shade of grey.
Which is why I try to distiguish between bombers and the people supporting it. I don't believe the bombers are evil people. That culture is so oppresive, it has convinced its own people to give up their most precious possesion, their lives, for any cause. The innocent Iraqis who are already the victims of suicide bombings is evidence that suicide bombing is just another form of munition.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not defending bin Laden; his god is a figment of his imagination. So is yours. That's not the point. The point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden? That is precisely his argument! What you or I think of his version of righteousness is totally irrelevant.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden? That is precisely his argument! What you or I think of his version of righteousness is totally irrelevant.
That's not really true, now is it? If OBL isn't actually being prevented from being righteous, then his justification is false. And if his version of righteousness is incorrect, then he's not being prevented from being it.
I'm not particularly defending "killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous'." I'm just saying your objection doesn't necessarily follow.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see a difference, so far as the english language goes, between suicide bombers who attack military targets and suicide bombers who attack a military outpost. The METHOD is the same, the question is the target, and for that you need a different name altogether.
I can see myself doing something like that maybe if America had been invaded, but I think I'd be better served by making it my mission to kill one enemy soldier every day. I can do more damage over the long term, and if it looks like I'll be captured or killed, then maybe I take out as many enemy as I can with me. But I think guerilla fighting is more effective.
The only reason I could see myself being a suicide bomber who attacks civilians, and I'm not saying I'd ever do this, because I can't imagine a world where this would ever be a possibility, but...
Let's consider the hypothetical, something along the lines of America being taken over by a foreign power who sets up a puppet government here, but there is no opposition from the people. Given that situation, an American populace sitting idle while a foreign power runs everything, I'd consider striking at a stagnant population to piss them off and energize them, and maybe even attack the enemy AND the American population to force the government into making retaliatory action against the people. Even then, I highly doubt I'd kill myself. It worked in Russia's revolution. Not that that's the best example, but the failings that followed were because of the fault in the cause, not the methods. Still, that's wildly hypothetical.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden? That is precisely his argument! What you or I think of his version of righteousness is totally irrelevant.
Sure, for you the definition of righteousness is irrelevant. But for someone who kills in the name of creating righteousness, it is of utmost importance if their behavior is doing the exact opposite.
The only religion I can imagine where being forced to be good is a virtue is a religion so insecure in god and his ability to rule that men feel they must kill everyone who offends him.
Do you look at these issues from a religious person's point of view and try to understand why they are doing what they are doing? Religions with an Old Testament background believe that killing nations is ok if God commands it. BUT, within that same background suicide bombings is not ok!
(Unless god commanded it, and I'm saying the only god who would condone suicide bombing and the resulting forced righteousness is one so insecure in his ability to rule men that he has to kill everyone who offends him, a god not worth worshiping) This is very similar to other arguments brought up, but from a religious point of view.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you look at these issues from a religious person's point of view and try to understand why they are doing what they are doing? Religions with an Old Testament background believe that killing nations is ok if God commands it. BUT, within that same background suicide bombings is not ok!
Sez you. Since you and bin Laden are both arguing from your own imaginations, why should I take your word over his? He's just as much a 'religious person' as you are.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not really true, now is it? If OBL isn't actually being prevented from being righteous, then his justification is false. And if his version of righteousness is incorrect, then he's not being prevented from being it.
Yes, yes, but how can I judge one religion against another? They are all equally righteous, or un-righteous, as far as I'm concerned. So bin Laden's judgment of his righteousness is on precisely the same footing as yours or human's : He quotes the Koran, you quote the Bible, what's the difference?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, yes, but how can I judge one religion against another? They are all equally righteous, or un-righteous, as far as I'm concerned. So bin Laden's judgment of his righteousness is on precisely the same footing as yours or human's : He quotes the Koran, you quote the Bible, what's the difference?
Yes, but you asked how "you" (meaning specifically human_2.0 but I'm guessing also any theist) could condemn OBL. Not how "I" (meaning you, KoM) could condemn OBL.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's consider the hypothetical, something along the lines of America being taken over by a foreign power who sets up a puppet government here, but there is no opposition from the people.
Call me a bigger monster than Irami... but if this were our situation, I would join the enemy and kill innocent Americans to gain favor with the enemy until I was 2nd in command. Then I would kill the 1st in command. Then I would rule in his place, and continue to remove any challengers until no one challenged my rule. And then hopefully I would not be completely corrupted by the moster I had become and I would remember my mission and I would turn the government over to the rightful rulers and hope they have mercy on me.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you look at these issues from a religious person's point of view and try to understand why they are doing what they are doing? Religions with an Old Testament background believe that killing nations is ok if God commands it. BUT, within that same background suicide bombings is not ok!
Sez you. Since you and bin Laden are both arguing from your own imaginations, why should I take your word over his? He's just as much a 'religious person' as you are.
Then is your position is that religion is hogwash and can't be a part of any rational discussion? What exactly are you saying if this isn't it?
I'm saying that suicide bombers are doing what they do because of religion (ideals as Humean said). If you are going to convince them to quit, you don't start by saying they need to quit being religious. It is positions like that that give them more motivation for doing what they do. Where I'm trying to say, look, your goals are noble (righteousness), but your methods are counter productive (they don't produce righteousness).
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's consider the hypothetical, something along the lines of America being taken over by a foreign power who sets up a puppet government here, but there is no opposition from the people.
Call me a bigger monster than Irami... but if this were our situation, I would join the enemy and kill innocent Americans to gain favor with the enemy until I was 2nd in command. Then I would kill the 1st in command. Then I would rule in his place, and continue to remove any challengers until no one challenged my rule. And then hopefully I would not be completely corrupted by the moster I had become and I would remember my mission and I would turn the government over to the rightful rulers and hope they have mercy on me.
Ballsy...
What were you planning to do with the occupying army?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait..are those who are offended by suicide bombers, offended because the bombers kill civilans or because they choose to commit suicide in the process?
I ask because many posts seem to emphasize the suicide rather than the bombing part. I see this a lot in the media too: emphasizing suicide, as if the suicide part which is immoral!
I don't see how killing civilians and children becomes noble all of a sudden if the bomber is clever enough to bomb remotely or manages to escape. If the American military were to bomb civilian regions deliberately because they have the means to do so, they would in fact be *worse* than suicide bombers. That they do not, is what gives them the moral high ground
Suicide bombers at least get rid of themselves in the process. One less crazy person to deal with, as far as I am concerned. If they were blowing only themselves up, I would be all for it.
Posts: 107 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then is your position is that religion is hogwash and can't be a part of any rational discussion?
In a word, yes. And I have yet to see you argue for why your religion is any better than bin Laden's.
quote:Yes, but you asked how "you" (meaning specifically human_2.0 but I'm guessing also any theist) could condemn OBL. Not how "I" (meaning you, KoM) could condemn OBL.
Ok, fair enough, but are you really going to argue "because my religion is better than his"? I mean, seriously? Because I don't see what else you are saying, here. And if that's really going to be your argument - then I trust you see why I feel that you will have to go just as much as bin Laden does.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What were you planning to do with the occupying army?
Give them luxuries and intermarry them. It all hinges on the ability to destroy ambitious challengers and softening up the army until they don't want to fight anymore. I've always believed the only way to take down an organization is from the inside. So you either find betrayers, double agents, or you put yourself in the position to be one. Which is why sleepers are so scary.
But you know what? Last night I watched part of Panic in the City and geeze it sounded just like today except with Soviet sleepers on hand ready to build A bombs to blow up America.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then is your position is that religion is hogwash and can't be a part of any rational discussion?
In a word, yes. And I have yet to see you argue for why your religion is any better than bin Laden's.
I'm not trying. My religion and its correctness is irrelevent other than what I know it shares with suicide bombers, which is the mentality of the Old Testament that it is ok to kill when God commands it. I'm trying to argue that their own actions are flawed in their own religion. Unless their religion is so insecure that they feel they have to kill anyone who disagrees. And maybe they are ok with that. I don't know. I would hope not.
I think the leaders, like bin Laden, use religion as a tool. They can't be convinced of anything. Maybe they really believe what they say. I can't know. But I don't think they do. They just have an agenda and will do whatever they can to get it.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may find it useful in this context to know that I find it hard to believe that you really, really believe the stuff American churches spout forth. As for being flawed in their own religion, that's obvious nonsense. If I claimed that according to your religion there are no circumstances where it is correct to kill a nation, you would very rightly dismiss me. There is only one judge of what a given person's religion allows or doesn't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What were you planning to do with the occupying army?
Give them luxuries and intermarry them. It all hinges on the ability to destroy ambitious challengers and softening up the army until they don't want to fight anymore. I've always believed the only way to take down an organization is from the inside. So you either find betrayers, double agents, or you put yourself in the position to be one. Which is why sleepers are so scary.
Depends entirely on who takes us over then. I think most anyone out there who is ever going to get the kind of power necessary to invade us is never going to give an American any sort of position of power or authority, certainly not the kind of power necessary to effect any sort of widesweeping change in policy, and the militaristic home government would never allow the military to become that lax.
It strikes me as a rather high unlikelihood that any nation that ever gets that kind of power is going to have a real weakness, or allow a weakness to fester in its military ranks, or in its government oversight of the military (assuming the government isn't already owned by the military).
I think a popular uprising would be the only way to get rid of that sort of occupying power. But it's a moot point. There will never be another power on earth strong enough to occupy and hold America. Unless the entire world gangs up on us, and even then we'd nuke them all to hell before the got the chance probably. But assuming it's some sort of post nuclear age, America is too big, its population too spread out, and it's people too used to having their way/too independently minded to be held like that. If every American made it his/her mission to kill one invader a week, the foriegn power would lose from attrition inside a month. And that would certainly be what I'd be advocating, regardless of consequence.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by human_2.0: I'm not trying. My religion and its correctness is irrelevent other than what I know it shares with suicide bombers, which is the mentality of the Old Testament that it is ok to kill when God commands it. I'm trying to argue that their own actions are flawed in their own religion. Unless their religion is so insecure that they feel they have to kill anyone who disagrees. And maybe they are ok with that. I don't know. I would hope not.
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think want to kill us because we disagree with their religion. I was given to understand (very briefly) that Islamic doctrine views areas of the world as being Islamic or non-Islamic, with "Damascus, Palestine, and a bit of Jordan," as even more holy. The fundamentalists want to kill us because we have military forces occupying Islamic land, which makes us infidels and blasphemers, and is just cause for a Jyhad.
This is what I understand KoM to be arguing, and I think his comparisons are valid.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a popular uprising would be the only way to get rid of that sort of occupying power. But it's a moot point. There will never be another power on earth strong enough to occupy and hold America.
I'm not so sure. China's spooky.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: BTW, I think StarLisa is one of those who only sees things as Black and White
See, you live and learn. Because I see blacks and whites and greys. And have much contempt for those who see only greys or only black and white.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: People who see things in black and white scare me. Things are so much more complicated than that.... This is what causes this sort of thing, or a factor. Not realizing how truely complex and involved everything is.
People who are blind to black and white and don't realize that grey isn't all there is scare me even more.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dasa: Wait..are those who are offended by suicide bombers, offended because the bombers kill civilans or because they choose to commit suicide in the process?
I ask because many posts seem to emphasize the suicide rather than the bombing part. I see this a lot in the media too: emphasizing suicide, as if the suicide part which is immoral!
I don't see how killing civilians and children becomes noble all of a sudden if the bomber is clever enough to bomb remotely or manages to escape. If the American military were to bomb civilian regions deliberately because they have the means to do so, they would in fact be *worse* than suicide bombers. That they do not, is what gives them the moral high ground
Suicide bombers at least get rid of themselves in the process. One less crazy person to deal with, as far as I am concerned. If they were blowing only themselves up, I would be all for it.
Me too. In fact, I would like to encourage Irami in his dream to be a suicide bomber. So long as he takes care not to harm anyone else, I think he should definitely stick to his principles and blow himself up.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't be a suicide bomber because it combines two things I wouldn't want to do: suicide (because I happen to think living is good) and murder (which I happen to think is wrong.) I certainly wouldn't do one bad thing just to accomplish another bad thing!
Beyond that, however, I also think suicide bombing would be a real waste of my life and efforts. I cannot think of any examples in which suicide bombing ultimately achieved the greater goal of those engaged in the bombing. But I can think of many examples where suicide bombers thought it would, and killed many people only to end up causing even more unhappiness in the long term for those they thought they were helping. If you want to enact meaningful, effective change in the world, you will have to find a more effective means. As Gandhi suggested, be the change you want to see in the wrold. Don't blow something up instead! If you do that, then not only will you likely fail to accomplish anything other than creating conflict, but you will be dead too, and thus unable to accomplish anything further after that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden?
You can condemn him by suggesting he is wrong to think that killing is righteous in this situation.
quote:Yes, yes, but how can I judge one religion against another?
The same way you judged your atheistic belief system to be better than Osama bin Laden's religion - by using evidence, reasoning, and faith.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
i used to think that suicide bombers did such things because they have had such a bad life. and for anyone that has had a tough and troubled life, religion usually is the main focal point of people's hope. and then to have being a suicide bomber be portrayed as religious martyrdom, and believing that by killing yourself others will remember you for your actions and you will go to the next life. hmm, it's in essence, "the easy way out." they dont want to keep living their crap life, and with everyone telling them that the next "perfect" life can be obtained through martyrdom, then why not? how long is too long of a rough life, until it pushes someone far enough to such a thing. whats worse is that people hide their ill-intentioned agenda behind the mask of religion. so now instead of an evil act of violence, its a righteous act to save one's soul.
okies, thats about all i feel like writing about right now. ive just handed in all my research papers for this semester and talking about this now makes me want to write a persuassive essay about all the reasons i think people might choose to become suicide bombers. bleh...
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me is the implicit assumption that understanding what might cause someone to be a suicide bomber is in some way equivalent to enumerating the things which might cause YOU to become a suicide bomber.
I feel that I understand the motivations of a suicide bomber fairly well, but I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I'd engage in cold-blooded murder.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:these demands make it impossible, or even unlikely, to obtain a sense of self-respect for an individual, and for the way of life that makes sense to that individual, then I can see the attraction of suicide bombing
I can understand the attraction of sacrificing one's life for the sake of a person's loved ones. I can understand the attraction of sacrificing one's life to defeat enemy soldiers. But killing innocent people in an attempt to garner self-respect just doesn't make any sense. You would be demanding the right to self-respsect while whithholding from others the right to life itself. Seems a bit hypocritical.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to comment on the discussion that KingofMen and Human2.0 are having. I can see both points clearly...well, I think I can.
The argument goes something like this. "Killing an entire nation is acceptable if they are trying to take away your religious freedom."
"We need re-education camps because that type of reasoning leads Islamic nations (and religious nations) to wipe out people who are not Islamic because it is a part of their religion."
I think OSC current essay does a good job of explaining why Human2.0's position is not compatible with KoM's scenario.
quote: Freedom of conversion is at the core of freedom of religion -- indeed, at the core of freedom of any kind. If you cannot change your mind, your stated beliefs, and the religious community you choose to associate with, you are not free.
What I find most amusing is the widespread belief among Muslims that this Sharia law is essential in order to preserve Islam.
Don't they see that it is exactly this law that destroys Islam wherever it is enforced?
quote: There is no faith under compulsion. Any nation where Sharia is enforced is not a Muslim nation, and none of its people are Muslims. If they cannot choose not to be Muslim, then they have not chosen to be Muslim. Without freedom not to believe, faith is a sham even if you think you are sincere.
I think KoM is not grasping that there are religious people who define religion as only being possible if people are free to convert away from the religion. If a religion/cult is focused on death and compulsion, then it is not a religion--at least not one that needs protected.
If someone tries to take away the freedom of my child, then I have a moral right and obligation to defend my family’s freedom. I obviously don't have the right to infringe on someone else’s freedom--unless their version of freedom is freedom to kill me.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe the key word in that statement isn't cold, but murder?
I guess it could be a variance in definition. I'm working off the idea that if you kill someone, on purpose, for any reason, it's murder.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe the word for what you're describing is "killing."
Then what distinguishes murder? Further, what distinguishes between what I described and, say, hitting a jaywalker with your car?
Edit: To clarify why I said what I said, I'll give an example: if someone were to hurt someone in my family - say if one of my children were kidnapped/molested, my wife raped, or any of them murdered - I would plan and execute the killing of the perpetrator. To me, that's murder - and I would have no qualms about it.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually baffled that you're equating cold-blooded murder with accidental manslaughter. What parallel do you think can be drawn?
(As a side note, by the way, I can't imagine a situation in which I'd KILL anyone in cold blood, either. But that's another issue.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm actually baffled that you're equating cold-blooded murder with accidental manslaughter.
You're the one equating them. I define murder as killing someone on purpose. I define accidental manslaughter as killing, not murder. You define both as killing. This is why I asked what differentiates them.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
