Yes. The question of whether the Ten Commandments, for example, refer to the taking of human life generally, or are limited to the _unsanctioned_ taking of life:
Main points of interpretative difference: Killing or murder
And, of course, there's the whole "ask permission" vs. "beg forgiveness" thing.
Frank McKenney
"Kill" is a mistranslation - it really means 'murder', and 'unsanctioned murder' at that. "Only kill who we tell you to", IOW.
-- Les Cargill
What is sanctioned murder?
Killing in war is sanctioned killing. It is not, however, murder. Because it's sanctioned...
-- Les Cargill
Precisely my point. If there is "unsanctioned murder", you must have some idea what "sanctioned murder" is, no?
Cargill
=20
Given the timescales involved it is more effective means of suppressing = is likely to be all of it. Thus not really less violent by nature, but usually having more options to apply.
Property rights are not the straightforward thing you assume them to be. Check some of the notions of the various pre-columbian Americans and some of the South Pacific, Austrailian, and African tribal ideas on the subject. Quite a few are very different from Western European ideas. =46or that matter consider the differences between English inheritance = laws and Napoleanic inheritance laws.
?-)
yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Didn't mean to imply that I thought they were... still, a lot of the differences in outlook on human behavior comes from what Robin Hanson calls "farmer vs. forager" mores.
Absolutely, although I'm most familiar with Amerind versions.
Ooh, good point - it's always easy to overlook Napoleonic systems.
-- Les Cargill
If it's sanctioned, it's not murder. But I repeat myself...
-- Les Cargill
You don't read well, do you?
When you put the word "sanctioned" in front of the word "murder", you are describing a null set. So my idea of "sanctioned murder" is that it is... a null set.
I don't know what you could possibly mean by it other than that.
Are we having fun yet?
-- Les Cargill
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you even read what *YOU* wrote? As a clue, I've underlined it above.
Maybe if you could read...
Cargill
Cargill
about
suppressing is
be.
=46irst i have of this distinction, and just stating it makes sense to = me. It also adjusted the alignment of some of my ides. I found it helpful. Thranx.
some
laws
That's an argument that didn't hold water in Nurenburg
It was just "sanctioned" by the wrong government. The winners make the rules. ...retroactively.
The Geneva Convention, and common humanity, were the rules. Six million innocents killed in gas chambers is murder by any sane rules.
If the good guys had lost the Battle of Britain, which they nearly did, the world would be very different.
The winners write the histories, among other things...
"LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win? " - Robert Strange Macnamanara, "The Fog of War"
-- Les Cargill
The "unsanctioned" in the term "unsanctioned murder" is redundant. I agree, it's something that, if I were more carefully editing the prose, I would have done differently.
-- Les Cargill
I have read British historians who don't think that was the case.
Consider our own casualty estimates for invasion of the home islands of Japan; now add the effects of US resupply ( if not outright participation ). The Nazzies also hadn't done as thorough a job of bombing the bejeezus outta Britain as we had Japan.
We were the swing element in that war, and we pretty much picked the winner.
-- Les Cargill
Nurenburg was about a lot more than the Holocost.
True. The "English" would be speaking Russian.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required