Friend of Bill
What, me worry?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2002
- Messages
- 1,572
That's right! Does anyone know of a good FREE download?
Originally posted by ECO
It doesn't matter what you'd rather want when it means someone has to die. Also, everyone eats up taxpayers' money because it's from the people and for the people, which obviously includes criminals. There's no moral way around it because they are people too. To rather have someone die than to help them be a better person makes you sound like a criminal.
Originally posted by catch23
If two wrongs don't make a right....then why do two negatives make a positive...
Originally posted by Tekumze
Last time I checked people refusing to fight against opponents were called unpatriotic.
In essence patriotism is pretty much the same as nationalism.
Some tribes were (and perhaps still are) canibals (spelling??). They consider eating dead people moral. Their patriotism considers eating opponents moral and good.
Yes I know that. It was just an example of someone being called unpatriotic if he doesn't want to fight. The reason I mentioned killing someone is coz it's easy to see where wrong suddenly becomes right or so we think.You don't have to kill anyone to be patriotic.
Yep... same as nationalism.Everyone has the ability to be patriotic. It's something that begins inside a person.
They are two different words alright. But the reasons and emotions behind patriotism and nationalism are the same. There's a very thin line between them and it gets crossed VERY quickly and VERY often.Though patriotism and nationalism are similar, they are two different words for a reason.
Heh... I am sorry to disapoint you but war is a very dirty business. The rules you mentioned get broken more often than not. Just look at WW2... and you don't have to look just on the axis side. All sides did their share of killing.I mention to you the Rules Of Engagement for military personnel.
I'm pretty sure it puts the option of killing someone at the bottom of the list of what should be done, and even then only for defensive purposes.
It was you who said that morality is what we consider right and wrong. I guess they don't consider eating people wrong. That's why I called it moral.I don't think that they consider eating dead people moral, because by definition that doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Tekumze
It was you who said that morality is what we consider right and wrong. I guess they don't consider eating people wrong. That's why I called it moral.
You're constantly mentioning a definition morality (I think). Where did you get the definition? Why do you think that definition is the right one and ewho has the right to define morality.
Originally posted by Tekumze
I am pretty sure it doesn't hurt nobody coz the guys they eat are already dead. So why would canibalism be immoral? Who gives you the right to say it's immoral? You could after all be wrong?
I never said what they are doing is immoral
I said that the tribes eating dead people is not a moral thing
who eat there own who are already dead is not a good thing, but yet not really a bad thing [for them].