Tmutarakhan
21-01-2008, 22:00
Both events did occur. Both were supposedly based of moral justifications from two different groups of people.
You are being very obtuse. People may make erroneous *claims* to moral justification just as they can make erroneous claims about the law, or about facts.
Prince Michael Stewart asserts that there is no such thing as the "United Kingdom", that every act of the so-called "Parliament" since 1688 is legally null and void. What makes his opinion of the law any less valid than yours?
Maybe GoonaticLoofah asserts that there is no such thing as the "island of Great Britain", that we have been taught about this mythical location because it serves the propagandistic interests of the Illuminati Conapiracy. What makes his opinion about geography any less valid than yours?
In fact, there is a Great Britain, whether GoonaticLoofah has seen it or not; and regime called the United Kingdom does have a local monopoly of force there (and in Northern Ireland and other associated lands and seas) whether Prince Michael likes it or not.
You have stated one group does not have the moral grounds to do commit murder, yet in the next sentence, you say that you could see shooting doctors (presumably to kill), in that scenario.
He does not believe that there is any moral justification, but you demanded that he answer a hypothetical scenario in which the facts were different.
Considering the original constitution of the United States at its forming, I would have to say that the issue is muddy, because the laws that enable slavery would be at odds with the whole "liberty and justice for all".
The original constitution did not have any concept of "liberty and justice for all". The words you are quoting are from the (20th century) Pledge of Allegiance; the constitutional provisions (14th amendment) providing that every one born in the country is a citizen with the right to equal protection under the law of life, liberty, and property were added in the late 1860's.
At the time of the Underground Railroad, it was against the law to help slaves escape. That is a separate question from whether it was morally right.
So if I were to shoot down every passenger jet, sink every ship and butcher every survivor on a major travel route in international waters, I would have broken no laws so long as there is no military presence?
You would find that many nations with large militaries would hunt you down in such a case, and that is what makes it "illegal". If every nation in the world was indifferent and would do nothing in response, then obviously there would be no "law" involved; it would still be *wrong*, which is a separate question.
In the case at hand, we don't read the "law" the same way: I think the word "piracy" (which involves a motive to live by thievery) is ludicrously inappropriate to the Sea Shepherds' actions, and that the IWC does not give the Japanese any legal "right" to act as they are doing; you disagree on both these points. Now, what makes your opinion any more valid than mine? I say, the only opinion which matters, in a case of interpreting "international law", is a consensus among world governments. Not a single government has shown itself willing to stop either the Sea Shepherds or the whalers; therefore, there is really no "law". The moral question is a separate issue.
You are being very obtuse. People may make erroneous *claims* to moral justification just as they can make erroneous claims about the law, or about facts.
Prince Michael Stewart asserts that there is no such thing as the "United Kingdom", that every act of the so-called "Parliament" since 1688 is legally null and void. What makes his opinion of the law any less valid than yours?
Maybe GoonaticLoofah asserts that there is no such thing as the "island of Great Britain", that we have been taught about this mythical location because it serves the propagandistic interests of the Illuminati Conapiracy. What makes his opinion about geography any less valid than yours?
In fact, there is a Great Britain, whether GoonaticLoofah has seen it or not; and regime called the United Kingdom does have a local monopoly of force there (and in Northern Ireland and other associated lands and seas) whether Prince Michael likes it or not.
You have stated one group does not have the moral grounds to do commit murder, yet in the next sentence, you say that you could see shooting doctors (presumably to kill), in that scenario.
He does not believe that there is any moral justification, but you demanded that he answer a hypothetical scenario in which the facts were different.
Considering the original constitution of the United States at its forming, I would have to say that the issue is muddy, because the laws that enable slavery would be at odds with the whole "liberty and justice for all".
The original constitution did not have any concept of "liberty and justice for all". The words you are quoting are from the (20th century) Pledge of Allegiance; the constitutional provisions (14th amendment) providing that every one born in the country is a citizen with the right to equal protection under the law of life, liberty, and property were added in the late 1860's.
At the time of the Underground Railroad, it was against the law to help slaves escape. That is a separate question from whether it was morally right.
So if I were to shoot down every passenger jet, sink every ship and butcher every survivor on a major travel route in international waters, I would have broken no laws so long as there is no military presence?
You would find that many nations with large militaries would hunt you down in such a case, and that is what makes it "illegal". If every nation in the world was indifferent and would do nothing in response, then obviously there would be no "law" involved; it would still be *wrong*, which is a separate question.
In the case at hand, we don't read the "law" the same way: I think the word "piracy" (which involves a motive to live by thievery) is ludicrously inappropriate to the Sea Shepherds' actions, and that the IWC does not give the Japanese any legal "right" to act as they are doing; you disagree on both these points. Now, what makes your opinion any more valid than mine? I say, the only opinion which matters, in a case of interpreting "international law", is a consensus among world governments. Not a single government has shown itself willing to stop either the Sea Shepherds or the whalers; therefore, there is really no "law". The moral question is a separate issue.