3 ms·

I wasn't aware we'd enjoyed a split second of civilization in the entire history of the earth. Could you list the civilized countries for me?

by b6 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago
Those that don't legally murder their citizens, for one. It might not be the litmus test of civilization, but it would be a good start (assuming the abolition of slavery, human sacrifice, and such as already surpassed as a bar).
- natecavanaugh 8y ago
  1. Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another. Unless you believe cases of self-defense also count as murder, but the right language, pedantically speaking would be, legally kill. 2. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being? I'm just curious, honestly.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another. That's the pedantic definition though -- not the one that goes beyond what "the books" say. By that metric, the killings of their own people by Nazi's, Communist, and right-wing regimes, where also lawful (the state dictated that those people were to be killed). And not only people have been calling government/law approved executions "murder" for ages, academics have as well. E.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide >2. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being? I'm just curious, honestly. "Justifiable" is a pretty low bar. A false-sense of increased security, or a request for revenge can also be used as justifications for capital punishment. But why exactly do you find this difficult to believe? Dozens of European countries have already decided that "there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being" -- and voted so. Those countries still have had e.g. pedophile serial killers, and other such creeps, in the half a century or so without capital punishment, and are totally fine with just keeping them in jail. Not only it is less hypocritical ("murder is bad, unless we do it judicially") and cheaper, it also prevents killing innocents, and allows for the possibility for exonerating evidence to clear them at a later date.
    - natecavanaugh 8y ago
      It's not that I find it hard to believe, but just trying to understand. Would an actor of the state be justified in killing someone who was threatening their lives or the lives of others?

I wasn't aware we'd enjoyed a split second of civilization in the entire history of the earth. Could you list the civilized countries for me?

by b6 8y ago

I wasn't aware we'd enjoyed a split second of civilization in the entire history of the earth. Could you list the civilized countries for me?

coldtea 8y ago

Those that don't legally murder their citizens, for one. It might not be the litmus test of civilization, but it would be a good start (assuming the abolition of slavery, human sacrifice, and such as already surpassed as a bar).

natecavanaugh 8y ago
1. Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another. Unless you believe cases of self-defense also count as murder, but the right language, pedantically speaking would be, legally kill. 2. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being? I'm just curious, honestly.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Legally murder is an oxymoron. Murder is the unlawful killing of another. That's the pedantic definition though -- not the one that goes beyond what "the books" say. By that metric, the killings of their own people by Nazi's, Communist, and right-wing regimes, where also lawful (the state dictated that those people were to be killed). And not only people have been calling government/law approved executions "murder" for ages, academics have as well. E.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide >2. Do you really believe there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being? I'm just curious, honestly. "Justifiable" is a pretty low bar. A false-sense of increased security, or a request for revenge can also be used as justifications for capital punishment. But why exactly do you find this difficult to believe? Dozens of European countries have already decided that "there is never a justifiable reason for the state to kill a human being" -- and voted so. Those countries still have had e.g. pedophile serial killers, and other such creeps, in the half a century or so without capital punishment, and are totally fine with just keeping them in jail. Not only it is less hypocritical ("murder is bad, unless we do it judicially") and cheaper, it also prevents killing innocents, and allows for the possibility for exonerating evidence to clear them at a later date.
  - natecavanaugh 8y ago
    It's not that I find it hard to believe, but just trying to understand. Would an actor of the state be justified in killing someone who was threatening their lives or the lives of others?