Now wait just a dang minute. What's going on here? Well, let's take a look and walk through this, step by step, shall we? And maybe, just maybe, we can figure it out.
I'll start with this exchange.
So in your parallel world, eliminating obvious murderers ( all tyrants) is “ murder” and “ gross abuse”.
So these scum should all be put on trial first ? I think not. They’ve had their trial.
So here I am arguing that murder is murder. I'm arguing that righteousness doesn't change the fact nor does it make for an exception to the definition. "Bad" guy kills (murders) someone and takes their life in wrongness. "Good" guy responds by killing (murdering) "bad" guy and takes his life in righteousness. In both cases the bottom line, which cannot be refuted - at least using sound logic, is that lives were taken via murder.
So oldschooler argues that killing (murdering) "bad" people is not murder. And his reasoning is that righteousness justifies his killing (murder) and therefore is NOT murder. Righteousness is the exception to the definition of murder.
So that's the basic argument we're having. Would you agree, oldschooler?
Next we have this exchange.
It’s another of these false fabricated “rights” ( the “right to life”) which don’t exist in nature nor in non- western societies where there are No Rights whatsoever.
Any “ rights” which do exist are hard fought for in blood and enshrined in the enforced laws of free nations, which for brevity are encapsulated in the idealistic, high- minded, beautiful even, UN Charter of Human Rights, which rights actually existed in the west from England’s “Glorious Revolution” Constitution 1689.
These rights are basically the right for government to defend - maintain- educate you in exchange for tax and not unduly interfere in your life. Not Intended to “ keep you alive at all costs in defiance of nature” which is where we are in UK and Canada with the stupid Covid lockdown tyranny and where NHS grossly abused by people who damage themselves by ingested toxins or foolish injury ( accidents aside)then demand NHS ( other peoples money) to fix them with new organs, joints, drugs etc.
Lately these rights were predictably extended by the Marxists to include other false rights like “right to work” , “ right to travel” , “ right to attend university”, “ right to emigrate anywhere”, etc.
So here we have oldschooler arguing that the right to life is a false fabrication and isn't a reflection of true reality. According to his "true" reality he reasons that the right to life is non-existent. He cites that it doesn't "exist in nature nor in non- western societies where there are No Rights whatsoever."
I'll skip his assertion that the right to life doesn't exist in nature for the moment, and so won't argue whether or not that is an accurate reflection of true reality or simply his belief about reality which he simply holds to be true. What I want to focus on is the latter part of his statement: "nor in non- western societies where there are No Rights whatsoever."
Now by inference we can deduce the unspoken part of that statement - it's opposite, which is that in western societies, however, the right to life does exist.
So here he has made a serious contradiction. Out of one side of his mouth he's arguing that the right to life is a false fabrication whilst out of the other side of his mouth he is making it clear that the right to life does exist in western countries.
He then concedes that humans do have rights, as "any "rights" which do exist" are enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights, and "which rights actually existed in the west from England’s “Glorious Revolution” Constitution 1689."
So here he has made another significant contradiction. The one side of his mouth states, "It’s another of these false fabricated “rights” ( the “right to life”) whilst out of the other side of his mouth he cites the "enshrined" human rights which do exist as outlined in the UN Charter of Human Rights. Funnily enough, Article 3 states quite clearly, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Just to note, England's Bill Of Rights 1689 do not outline any specific individual human rights of the commoners and subjects per se. What the Bill does spell out in their declaration, rather, is the rights of the "Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons" as to "their ancient rights and liberties."
Perhaps oldschooler is referring not at all to the individual's human rights but only to the rights of government since he immediately after states, "These rights are basically the right for government . . ." No mention of the individual; only the government.
Apparently in oldschooler's world view the individual has no inherent rights as he claims in his ending paragraph, "Lately these rights were predictably extended by the Marxists to include other false rights like “right to work” , “ right to travel” , “ right to attend university”, “ right to emigrate anywhere”, etc."
He contradicts himself yet again as this "beautiful" UN Charter which one side of his mouth claims to "enshrine" human rights, such as expressed in Article 13:
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
whereas the other side of his mouth then refutes his own assertions in his closing paragraph.
We'll move on to the next exchange.
Our friend Vigo, whose suppressed (thankfully! ) inner Rambo had admitted earlier in this thread that he would be killing all day if not for his other interests, interestingly responds with the most used Christian prayer word, amen, which means verily, whilst he does not appear to ascribe to any Christian ethos for it's 6th commandment states "You shall not murder." Notice it did not use the common synonym kill, which has a different meaning.
Given the multiple contradictions contained in the post Vigo is replying to, and is enthusiastically punctuating with "Amen," one wonders if he truly knows or understands what he's "verily" in agreement with.
Does our friend Vigo believe in the sanctity of life, which stated differently is the "right to life" plus the preciousness of life, or does he not? It's almost impossible to ascertain as Vigo has no clue as to what"sanctity of life" means since he has asked me to define it for him.
Again, what is going on here? So many contradictions. What on earth are these folks talking about exactly? Can anyone else here figure it out?
It's Sunday. Maybe these two need to go to church today.
What about instances where the drugs have been prescribed by a doctor and the patient unwittingly became addicted, because they were told the drugs they were taking were safe? Would they be subject to the same penalty?
It is 2023 not 1623. The man was mentally ill, not mentally retarded. There is mention of drug abuse, but there is no definitive link to this event. Perhaps, the drug abuse may have caused the delusions or it may have been an attempt to self medicate. The incompetent journalist who tossed out the reference without context, or background on the person, does not know and neither do you.
If the person is delusional, he requires appropriate treatment and if a danger, institutionalization. Hanging him upside down and beating him until his buttocks bleed will not cure the man if he is delusional. He may not even know what he did after his delusion dissipates. It might satisfy the carnal lust of a primitive and backward society to beat this mentally ill person, but it will neither rehabilitate the person or prevent future incidents.
There is one solution and that is to execute the man so he does not have the potential to do harm in the future. Perhaps if the nation's mentally ill could be executed on a regular basis, this would address many societal problems. Hopefully, the Russian, Iranian or Chinese parameters would not be used as they are currently employed to dispose of political dissidents in the respective countries. I expect that Thailand could easily find 10-50 mentally ill in any given week, and much more if the net was expanded to include western farangs. Perhaps you could volunteer to be on the euthanasia/ death squad. There was a fellow back in the 1930's who devised a special method of using a truck that fed the exhaust back into the cargo bay, so as to asphyxiate the passengers. Maybe you could do that. What do you think, or are you really into beating mens' buttocks until they bleed?