return conscientious objector to USA?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Is this what your previous post was about? It seemed to be about many things other than this.

Someone once said, "The most just war is still a ghastly tragedy for those who fight it and are affected by it."

You might want to consider that perhaps this is because no war is "just". It's just foolishness. Invariably both sides believe that they are in ...[text shortened]... er that your argument pretty much boils down to "That's the way it's always been done."

As I thought, you have no argument. The position that it is justified to kill in self-defense is not based on tradition, but on a fundamental truth.

One more time: why do you think it is wrong to kill in self-defense?

Originally posted by no1marauder
As I thought, you have no argument. The position that it is justified to kill in self-defense is not based on tradition, but on a fundamental truth.

One more time: why do you think it is wrong to kill in self-defense?

Why is self-defense excepted? What is self-defense? The invasion of Iraq was basically an act of self-defense according to the Bush administration. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was basically an act of self-defense according to the Japanese. The extermination of the Jews during WWII was basically an act of self-defense according to the Nazi's. Seems like pretty much everything can be "self-defense". Seems like rationalizations to me.

It's no "fundamental truth", but merely a widely recognized belief. A belief borne of the fear of dying.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why is self-defense excepted? What is self-defense? The invasion of Iraq was basically an act of self-defense according to the Bush administration. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was basically an act of self-defense according to the Japanese. The extermination of the Jews during WWII was basically an act of self-defense according to the Nazi's. Seems like p ...[text shortened]... mental truth", but merely a widely recognized belief. A belief borne of the fear of dying.

Specifically on Pearl harbour was no act of self defense, the Japanese knew fine well that they were being the agressors, this is well documented.
Also No.1 is right, everybody is entitled to defend themselves. Can you honestly say that if I was to corner you with a knife, with every intention to use it you wouldn't defend yourself? Lethally if necessary. furthermore if I was to threaten the life of your Wife/husband/child/mother that you wouldn't defend them with just as much vindiction?

Originally posted by Mexico
Specifically on Pearl harbour was no act of self defense, the Japanese knew fine well that they were being the agressors, this is well documented.
Also No.1 is right, everybody is entitled to defend themselves. Can you honestly say that if I was to corner you with a knife, with every intention to use it you wouldn't defend yourself? Lethally if necessary. fu ...[text shortened]... of your Wife/husband/child/mother that you wouldn't defend them with just as much vindiction?

If I remember correctly, the Japanese saw embargos placed by the US against Japan as being a threat to the Japanese Empire.

Yes, I can honestly say that I wouldn't use lethal force to defend myself or anyone else.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If I remember correctly, the Japanese saw embargos placed by the US against Japan as being a threat to the Japanese Empire.

Yes, I can honestly say that I wouldn't use lethal force to defend myself or anyone else.

You play too much Nipsie young dude.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by smw6869
You play too much Nipsie young dude.

GRANNY.

Meaning? What is "Nipsie"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Meaning? What is "Nipsie"?

Actually, my mother used to say that when i spent too much time in the bathroom.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by smw6869
Actually, my mother used to say that when i spent too much time in the bathroom.

GRANNY.

Like talking to a little kid.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like talking to a little kid.

When you've graduated from high school and been around the world a few times you WILL lose your idealism.....talk to me then. I used to be just like you. Hold on as long as you can.

GRANNY.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If I remember correctly, the Japanese saw embargos placed by the US against Japan as being a threat to the Japanese Empire.

Yes, I can honestly say that I wouldn't use lethal force to defend myself or anyone else.

Yes, I can honestly say that I wouldn't use lethal force to defend myself or anyone else. (My italics.)

We’ve had this disagreement before. Note the italicized words. Why is that not pure moral egoism? That you will preserve your own moral sanctity, according to your pre-determined moral judgments, in spite of anyone else’s unwilling suffering? (Your own willing suffering does not remove the moral egoism.)

Now, I’m not referring to anyone else’s justifications for their actions—only you. Why do you think (if you so think) that your moral self-justification is worth someone else’s suffering? “Hey, so the child was raped, tortured and murdered. It so happened that I couldn’t prevent it short of (or without risking?) lethal force.”? “But, hey, I was willing to die too.”?

I don’t question your courage, TOO. I just think you don’t see the moral egoism here. I think you believe you can spare yourself moral risk by applying predetermined formulae, predetermined rules for what you are or are not willing to do in any situation, no matter what the cost—to you, or anybody else.

So far, you have said that you will not lie (past discussion) or use lethal force to protect any innocent from any atrocity. At that point, how can anyone conclude that your overriding interest is anything other than protecting your own moral sanctity? How can anyone conclude that it is anything other than moral egoism?

I truly believe that if you saw this dilemma clearly, you would just drop such morally egoistic generalizations, in favor of realizing that situations could arise that compel you to assume moral risk for the sake of another.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If I remember correctly, the Japanese saw embargos placed by the US against Japan as being a threat to the Japanese Empire.

Yes, I can honestly say that I wouldn't use lethal force to defend myself or anyone else.

Let me give you a scenario: what if you were a London police officer who suddenly found himself confronted by this terrible situation: in the middle of a crowded subway station standing before you is a terrorist with a backpack full of explosives. Your gun is drawn and aimed at his head. In a matter of seconds he will detonate the explosives he carries, killing every man, woman and child present, including yourself. If you pull the trigger and promptly remove his addled brain from his skull, you will save everyone. If you seek to employ some other non-lethal means of putting the subject out of commission, you'd risk allowing the bomber to remain conscious long enough to detonate his explosives. You must either pull the trigger, or not.

Forget for a moment that it is British policy to shoot suspected bombers in the head immediately and ask questions later. How could you or anyone justify not killing the homicidal bomber in this situation? I dare say, you could not (assuming you survived the blast). You'd be publicly ridiculed and would spend the rest of your miserable life in agonizing shame and self-hatred.

In light of this scenario, how can you honestly say that you wouldn't use lethal force to defend yourself or anyone else? As much as I'd like to say I "honestly" wouldn't use lethal force, I know that I can't. If an intruder breaks into my house and threatens the lives of my wife and daughter, there's no way that I could ever gauge an acceptable level of violence toward the intruder in order to ensure that he doesn't die a horrible and painful death at my hands, especially when adrenaline is running so high and I'm driven to desperation in order to protect my precious family. If I kill the intruder in the process, that's a risk I must take to ensure their safety.

No1 is right, all these scenarios are supported by sound logic rather than tradition (though tradition is often based on sound logic).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why is self-defense excepted? What is self-defense? The invasion of Iraq was basically an act of self-defense according to the Bush administration. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was basically an act of self-defense according to the Japanese. The extermination of the Jews during WWII was basically an act of self-defense according to the Nazi's. Seems like p mental truth", but merely a widely recognized belief. A belief borne of the fear of dying.

The fact that some have used the rationale of self-defense in circumstances where it was inappropriate does not invalidate the idea itself. If you are unwilling or unable to tell the difference between a legitimate act of self-defense and what the Nazis did in the Holocaust then the fault is in you, not in the idea of self-defense.

Yes, shockingly enough, humans fear to die. They even fear their loved ones dying before their eyes while they do nothing. Perhaps that is primitive and atavistic to you, but as someone who believes in Natural Law I believe that this belief is part of what we are no matter how backward the anointed like you think the idea of protecting ourselves and our loved ones is.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Yes, I can honestly say that I wouldn't use lethal force to defend myself or anyone else. (My italics.)

We’ve had this disagreement before. Note the italicized words. Why is that not pure moral egoism? That you will preserve your own moral sanctity, according to your pre-determined moral judgments, in spite of anyone else’s ...[text shortened]... izing that situations could arise that compel you to assume moral risk for the sake of another.[/b]

This is an excellent and well-thought out post. I think the idea of preventing another's suffering by use of force if absolutely necessary is a fundamental part of human nature given that we are social, emphatic animals.

Originally posted by smw6869
When you've graduated from high school and been around the world a few times you WILL lose your idealism.....talk to me then. I used to be just like you. Hold on as long as you can.

GRANNY.

Good guess. A wrong guess, but a good guess nonetheless.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Yes, I can honestly say that I wouldn't use lethal force to defend myself or anyone else. (My italics.)

We’ve had this disagreement before. Note the italicized words. Why is that not pure moral egoism? That you will preserve your own moral sanctity, according to your pre-determined moral judgments, in spite of [i]anyone else ...[text shortened]... izing that situations could arise that compel you to assume moral risk for the sake of another.[/b]

[/i]Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here.

"Protecting your own moral sanctity"? Why is this the only conclusion? Why would you kill another to protect the life of another? Is it to protect your own moral sanctity or is it because you see it as the right thing to do?