Lannan13

To challenge many people's belief. Murder cannot be objectively immoral. For this we would have to see that due to the state of "is" this would mean in every situation, an absolute. Many can argue that murder is immoral, but since they would have the Burden of Proof to persuade that this is an ansbolute in every situation. There are many different cases of which this can be justified. The first theory of ethics that can lead to certainly is Utilitarianism. We do have to focus on the aspect of the Greatest Amount of Happiness for the Greatest Amount of Sentient Beings. Before there is a boss rush at me for the aspect of Sentient beings, we have to see that JS Mill favored the aspect of human pleasure over that of animals as humans have a higher potential of pleasure to expierence then that of animals. Many would certainly argue that if they had the chance to kill Hitler before he rose to power that they would. This is a blatant use of murder. Though let's use a less obvious example. One is that of Khan. A Serial Killer, who had been on the run and free for 12 years, had killed Khan's father. Khan, eventually, tracked the Serial Killer and then killed the Serial Killer. Was this murder justifiable? We could see that under this motion that it was moral since he perserved the lives of a multitude of people who could have potentially been killed by this person. This would greatly reduce the amount of Happiness if Khan allowed him to move forward. The next theory is that of the Kingdom of Ends. Kant, one of my favorite philosophers, argued that In a civilized society, we as humans must live together peacefully. One key issue is that we should move to create a Kingdom of Ends. The Kingdom of Ends is where people are treated as an end of themselves, not a means. This is important as it is part of the soceity that we should strive to as it maximizes human equality and the ability to live together peacefully. The Kingdom shows that many people can live together under common just laws as they are able to live as ends instead of means. At the End, they are able to live together as citizens in this Kingdom to be treated as ends and this will lead to an equality through individiual rights. When the aspect of another has intruded upon the Kingdom of Ends, then there is a possibility for one to attempt to rationalize with the person to act within the means of the Kingdom of Ends. When the aggressor refuses to take corrective action then corrective action must be made in order to perserve the Kingdom of Ends. It may justify the murder of others in order to save other in perserving the Kingdom of Ends, much like in Khan's case. There is also the Just War theory. If a war meets St. Thomas's 3 criteria for this, war can be justified as it is seem in "God's eyes" as not a sin. The murder of armed men from the opposition would then become justifiable. What are your thoughts?

What's to stop that from occuring in the status quo?

I realize that, but I do have to say it was quite fun and it would have been repaid if I had stayed, but with things piling up the way they did I couldn't be here anymore. Besides, summer is coming up, so the only thing I'll have to worry about is work.

Meh, it's just going to be a Trump vs. Clinton race.

They are, but so are plants.

I'll be the first to say that one's gender does not equivilate to their sex.

That's too bad.

The Brotherhood of Kyro https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=37973

Well I'm back now that life has finally gotten smoother. What'd I miss?

Well, today I'm closing my account. As much as I love playing this game, I just can't keep going. The game has become too much of a distraction and my growing busy schedule makes things impossible. So as much as I hate this, I have to go. Thanks for the fun.

Trump is a goddamn fascist who's going to destroy this country and that's all I have to say about that. I don't trust the site's policy on that. I talked to Sheepy about it and I'm not a fan of it. If I were to say "fvck the system" in a PM with Joe Smo and Joe Smo posted it in the forums, it wouldn't matter. Joe Smo has rights to the PM that I don't apparently. I'm leaving this thread before I derail it or something of that matter.

There's several issues with his campaign and one that I really fear, but I'm not going to say that publically or on P&W because there's no privacy policy when it comes to PMs.

I can post more, but I don't want to be tagged with spamming. I really just fvcking hate Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPAVj8NCt8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkGl2bDkS-I Now for some humor.

We need to build a wall north of the Quang Tri pronvince to keep those commies out.

Says the Communist.

Something else I would like to bring up. There are millions of billions of planets out there, possible life on many of them, what makes you think god cares so much about this one little rock or would he even notice with the other countless planets, galaxies, and superclusters to sort through.

Singularities In Singularities. BVG Radio Waves I win.

What proof do you have of this though? With a religious debate the BOP is on the Theist to attempt to prove the existance of a deity. There you are limiting god's power again which destroys the fact that Allah would be god. We know that everything begins and ends with this chain. It does not mean anything that you keep throwing god into this. You are using illogical arguments. With that said, could you solve the Omnipotence paradox?

If that's the case who says that it begins or ends with god?