was killing police officers in apartheid South Africa justified?

[Ebowed]

No, if you're not educated enough to understand the difference between killing and murder (lets see, at least 4 languages I know has different words for the two and makes a clear distinction between the two), then we can stop arguing here.  I do not argue in such a manner with uneducated morons.

This is the style Richius always uses when he's having an argument (I think he learned it from AuH2O): beat the person over the head with irrelevant insults like "you're an uneducated moron."  Obviously murder and killing have somewhat different meanings, but the outcome is the same: a human being is dead.

YES.  But the key is the DIFFERENT MEANINGS.  At least you're not dumb enough to not recognize when you made a mistake.

I'm just saying that the outcome is more important than the circumstances, imo.  I realize this is different for you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One was sentenced by a jury, the other was not.  However, I'm open to looking at circumstances in the latter.  Obviously if the brutal police officers were raping people, then you're justified in killing them.  (this is not murder)
[/quote]Well, all I'll say is that I'd never trust the infallibility of a jury...

[Richard]

Perhaps, but you're saying it like that means a bad thing.  Name THREE countries that are prosperous growing countries with a healthy outlook on the future with a black leader.  Please do.

It would seem to me that the only countries to ever have a black leader would be African countries, most of which are already horrible places to live, so it's not exactly like we have a representative sample of black leaders to choose from.

And why do you think it is a bad place to live in?  Hmmm?

[Richard]

No, if you're not educated enough to understand the difference between killing and murder (lets see, at least 4 languages I know has different words for the two and makes a clear distinction between the two), then we can stop arguing here.  I do not argue in such a manner with uneducated morons.

This is the style Richius always uses when he's having an argument (I think he learned it from AuH2O): beat the person over the head with irrelevant insults like "you're an uneducated moron."  Obviously murder and killing have somewhat different meanings, but the outcome is the same: a human being is dead.

YES.  But the key is the DIFFERENT MEANINGS.  At least you're not dumb enough to not recognize when you made a mistake.

I'm just saying that the outcome is more important than the circumstances, imo.  I realize this is different for you.

I would definitely kill someone that is in the process of raping a little 3 year old girl.  Would you?  (assuming there is no option of simply disabling him: the option is to let the rape continue by walking away, ignoring it, or to shoot the bastard, what is your choice?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but it does give legitamacy.  Otherwise you wouldn't believe in prisons either, eh?

[Ebowed]

I would definitely kill someone that is in the process of raping a little 3 year old girl.  Would you?  (assuming there is no option of simply disabling him: the option is to let the rape continue by walking away, ignoring it, or to shoot the bastard, what is your choice?)

I'd shoot him, but not in the heart or face -- perhaps a foot or leg.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but it does give legitamacy.  Otherwise you wouldn't believe in prisons either, eh?
[/quote]True that it does give legitimacy, but it's not always infallible, and besides-- it's reversed in this question, you want a jury to decide whether the police were brutal, not whether or not they jury did a good job in deciding.  I should have said that a jury isn't always necessary to say when a cause is just.

[opebo]

Here's where I'm confused: if you have no food and are dying of AIDS, in what way are you "free?"

Haha, you just made an argument against laissez-faire capitalism!

[Richard]

Here's where I'm confused: if you have no food and are dying of AIDS, in what way are you "free?"

Haha, you just made an argument against laissez-faire capitalism!

No he just made an argumetn atgainst socialim.

[opebo]

Here's where I'm confused: if you have no food and are dying of AIDS, in what way are you "free?"

Haha, you just made an argument against laissez-faire capitalism!

No he just made an argumetn atgainst socialim.

No, he equated economic well-being with freedom.  Under laissez-faire capitalism ones freedoms are freedoms from, not rights to anything material.  Hence a Rightist should not object to starving to death, as long as he is 'free'.  And of course he should believe that aids is the individual's own fault.

[John Dibble]

John posed a set of questions like "If a man threatens to kill your family, do you kill him?"  My answer remains the same: obviously no.  First of all, it's just a threat, so I don't give a sh**t.

The OBVIOUS implication was that he would actually do it - as in gun pointing at you/them/whatever, being in the position to do it immediately, and doing so if you failed to act - sorry Ebowed, but don't be moronic. The context of the question should be quite clear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the above doesn't change your mind, because the police won't be there in time to save you or your family. Killing him is the only way to ensure he won't be doing killing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone actually in a position to commit genocide would likely be in a position of great power - wouldn't be quite so simple to stop him without killing him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shoot the guy in the foot? He can still kill you for shooting him. Give him some wounds? No guarantee that'll incapacitate him enough to stop his actions. Jail him? No guarantee you can do so, especially in the genocide case being that the person would be a person of power.

No, unfortunately it won't - people like us, people who have the resolve to do what's needed, allow him to keep on living a life where he's free to think such things.

You are an incredibly pompous person.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I just simply recognize that killing is sometimes justified. Tyrants of all levels - be they dictators or your everyday thug - would walk all over us if good men weren't willing to kill them when needed. Because people like me exist, people are willing to do the dirty work when it's needed, people who aren't willing to ever kill can live in relative peace most of the time. Without us people like that would be nothing more than slaves to evil.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Perhaps, but you're saying it like that means a bad thing.  Name THREE countries that are prosperous growing countries with a healthy outlook on the future with a black leader.  Please do.

It would seem to me that the only countries to ever have a black leader would be African countries, most of which are already horrible places to live, so it's not exactly like we have a representative sample of black leaders to choose from.

there's also places in the Carribbean too actually, but the point is made. I'll bite though: Grenada, Uganda and Ghana.

Perhaps, but you're saying it like that means a bad thing.  Name THREE countries that are prosperous growing countries with a healthy outlook on the future with a black leader.  Please do.

It would seem to me that the only countries to ever have a black leader would be African countries, most of which are already horrible places to live, so it's not exactly like we have a representative sample of black leaders to choose from.

And why do you think it is a bad place to live in?  Hmmm?

Because all countries that are predonominately black are either places settled by former slaves who obviously wouldn't have much to start on or in Africa which was seriously screwed up by European colonization. I think Leopold II might have more to do with why the Congo is messed up than the skin color of the inhabitants.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

True, but the same is true of almost everywhere else, even Europe itself was rather screwed up until about 50 years ago. The colonalization set the African societies back quite a bit when it came to rebuilding them, and created problems even existing today, such as how they drew the borders to countries without taking tribal relations into account at all, meaning that the inhabitants feel very little of a national identity, often just resulting in a dictator taking over. There are also many who believe the Belgians were largely responsible for the Rwandan genocide by creating animosity between the two tribes to make them easier to control.

[opebo]

And of course he should believe that aids is the individual's own fault.

Correct! But of course, that should be obvious to anyone, regardless of ideology.

Not to me!  So, I never noticed what a Republican/religious you were, Bob. 

But my point was that AuH2O was implying some connection between freedom and provision of a) economic well being, and b) some form of public health.

[Rob]

Not to me!  So, I never noticed what a Republican/religious you were, Bob. 

Yawn. You know I'm not religious, and you know I'm not a Republican. But, for the sake of posterity, I'll restate some of my social positions for you.

I'm pro-choice, I favor the legalization of prostitution and hard drugs, and I strongly oppose censorship. Oh yeah. I'm to the right of Pat Robertson.

[AuH2O]

Since when I am I libertarian?

The point is that the rhetoric used to initiate black rule was "democracy" and "freedom." However, blacks in South Africa have neither.

Their best bet is to let whites be in charge of the government, so they can do things like eat and be treated medically.

Also keep in mind that "colonization" took a different path in Africa than in, say, Asia, because the natives just are not capable of civilization as the West understands it. The number of times in human history blacks have defeated whites in a war is very, very low, even before modern technology (i.e. when there was conflict between Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa). There certainly is diversity within Africa-- Ethiopians have done alright overall compared to Hutus or something-- but the trend is clear.

The real problem that Westerners introduced was modern technology. That caused greater populations, increased urbanization, and more powerful weapons (in large part due to Cold War posturing). Nothing has really changed for thousands of  years otherwise, though various attempts are made to glorify ancient African civilizations that were never as advanced as, say, the Greeks or Chinese.

[Ebowed]

The OBVIOUS implication was that he would actually do it - as in gun pointing at you/them/whatever, being in the position to do it immediately, and doing so if you failed to act - sorry Ebowed, but don't be moronic. The context of the question should be quite clear.

It's never that simple-- you also implied by asking "Would you kill him?" that I'd have a weapon to be able to kill him, i.e. a gun.  I'd rather shoot him than kill him, and said so.

If the above doesn't change your mind, because the police won't be there in time to save you or your family. Killing him is the only way to ensure he won't be doing killing.

Anyone actually in a position to commit genocide would likely be in a position of great power - wouldn't be quite so simple to stop him without killing him.

Shoot the guy in the foot? He can still kill you for shooting him. Give him some wounds? No guarantee that'll incapacitate him enough to stop his actions.

You're right, shooting him in the hands would work better.

[Richard]

there's also places in the Carribbean too actually, but the point is made. I'll bite though: Grenada, Uganda and Ghana.

You think those are steller examples of good countries?  WTF?

Because all countries that are predonominately black are either places settled by former slaves who obviously wouldn't have much to start on or in Africa which was seriously screwed up by European colonization. I think Leopold II might have more to do with why the Congo is messed up than the skin color of the inhabitants.

So how come America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (and former South Africa) did so well?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I didn't say they were stellar, they just fit the definition you were asking for.

[Banana Republic]

No, absolutely not. Killing is wrong unless you are killing to prevent physical harm from coming to yourself or others. Being forced to use seperate, trashy facilities is not an excuse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, absolutely not. Killing is wrong unless you are killing to prevent physical harm from coming to yourself or others. Being forced to use seperate, trashy facilities is not an excuse.

Sharpeville and Soweto?

[Banana Republic]

No, absolutely not. Killing is wrong unless you are killing to prevent physical harm from coming to yourself or others. Being forced to use seperate, trashy facilities is not an excuse.

Sharpeville and Soweto?

I think the rioters might have had a hand in that. But if during one of those two events you were a black man who has been attacked without cause, then sure it's justified(but that's it. Bombing police stations and sniping police in thier cars is never justified).