"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>> >> Quit dodging and answer the question. Should we be able to hire
>> >> murderers
>> >> with impunity?
>> >
>> > Of course, we can and do and the answer is yes. That some idiot is
>> > prepared to kill another on the promise of few pennies is just an
>> > excuse
>> > for their original desire anyway.
>>
>> So a smart and moral thing to do in Rons' World if you get fed up with an
>> annoying spouse, child or in-law would be to simply hire someone to bump
>> them off, with impunity. Pretty scary world.
>
> Nope, just the killer goes to prison. Once again, Dutch is relying on a
> very inconsistent legal system as grounds for a logical argument.

That's not logical, hiring someone to commit murder is just as bad as
actually comitting murder. Both acts contribute to an unjust death. The
killer would not do it without a motive, the one doing the hiring provides
that.

>> > Soldiers are hired killers. We justify their actions and so do they.
>> > Executioners in states with death penalties are hired killers. Some
>> > people argue doctors are killers in that abortion is killing and those
>> > are paid acts. The US is currently invovled in war, many people are
>> > being hired for those killings.
>>
>> None of those exceptional circumstances gives us the right to have any
>> person killed we choose to kill.
>
> I can't make you do anything that you haven't made a choice to do.
> Blaming others is just convenient.

It doesn't matter that you can't "make" me do it, it only matters that you
attempt to coerce me to do it and believe that I will carry it out.

>> > Now, don't dodge my question. Are you going to claim that the law is
an
>> > example of logic.
>>
>> Yes it is. If it is considered immoral to hire killers, then it is
>> logical
>> to make it illegal.
>
> I don't consider it immoral, so you are wrong. It is illegal. Anyone
> idiot willing to kill for a handful of cash is foolish and ought to be
> penalized for their actions. Blaming others is irrelevant to the action.

Those who hire murderers deserve to be blamed for doing so.

>> > I just provided several examples where the law DOES
>> > allow for the hiring of killers.
>>
>> Neither exceptions nor violations invalidate a moral rule. Morality is
>> not
>> mathematics, it's a social construct that is used to modify behaviour.
>
> LOL. Yes, it does. Clearly, hiring killers is legal and therefore moral
> in many circumstances. As we discussed, using the logically
> inconsistency of law as a basis for morality or logic is just flawed.

It's not logically inconsistent, morality is always situational. Murder is
defined as an "unlawful" killing. Killing an enemy soldier in battle is not
unlawful.

> Frankly, hire as many hit men as you see fit.

Bad idea.

> The one who I choose to
> see penalized is the one who pulls the trigger. They are the ones who
> are responsible.

Not the only ones.

> But feel better in a frightening world with such laws.
> A law against hiring a killer doesn't stop anyone from doing anything --
> it's a feel good proposition for people who feel afraid and vulnerable.

Sure it does, every time an undercover cop takes money to perform a hit, a
criminal goes to prison and a murder is averted.

>> >> >> > I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to
>> >> >> > their
>> >> >> > ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can
>> >> >> > live
>> >> >> > their daily lives without having to kill.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who or what will you kill today?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't need to kill. There are plenty of others who willingly take
>> >> > on
>> >> > that role for me.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly, just like vegans. Thanks for illustrating my point
>> >
>> > Once again, you hold others (the vegan) responsible for what others
>> > (the
>> > killers and farmers) do. I find passing responsibility is a consistent
>> > position for the vegan hater. The vegan is certainly better than me
>> > that
>> > they will choose to avoid harming an animal, but then I have my reasons
>> > to see that harm to animals continue to avoid harm to others.
>>
>> According to your logic neither you nor the vegan is responsible for what
>> others do, and since neither of you is killing any animals, how do you
>> conclude that the vegan is better than you?
>
> The vegan isn't willing to see an animal suffer for a human to live.

You haven't been listening, vegans are quite willing to see animals suffer
to live.

> I
> am.

So are they.

> I'd say they are quite right to take the "moral high ground".

They haven't taken the moral high ground, they've taken on a self-serving
illusion, not much more rational than your hilarious rationalization of
keeping the killers occupied in the slaughterhouses.

> On
> further reflection, I am similar to the vegan, we just have different
> approaches to resolving the same problem of human aggression and
> violence.

You are similiar indeed, you are both quite willing to see animals die to
serve your desires, and you are both deluded about it. Except, as I said,
you're just trolling.