[PenultimateManStanding]

Had he called one of my girls the cracker equivalent of a Nappy-Headed Ho in my earshot he would have lost more than his job.

Strong words, Pops. What is the equivalent? Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park? I believe Carville used that one. Probably we should bring back dueling with pistols. Then if someone wants to talk trash they'll know their honor or their life is on the line. Could bring back some civility.

[Pops]

Strong words, Pops.

I remember when my son lost the spelling bee to a black kid and some older boys said the Nigger didn't deserve to win and shouldn't have even been in the contest he tried his best to kick their ass.

I was probably more proud of his bruises than his ribbon, PMS.

[Ludi]

Because I am not discussing 'what I want to do', I am exploring a needed maturation of public perspective, with an eye toward such options no longer being illegal.

Ok, so you want it to be acceptable to kill the helpless.

Thanks for clarifying.

[vision-master]

Because I am not discussing 'what I want to do', I am exploring a needed maturation of public perspective, with an eye toward such options no longer being illegal.

Ok, so you want it to be acceptable to kill the helpless.

Thanks for clarifying.

I have a mental condition that is opposite of suicidal. I need to keep my stress levels low.

[TWilliam]

Ok, so you want it to be acceptable to kill the helpless.

Thanks for clarifying.

No Ludi. I want it to be acceptable to kill the hopeless, and in a compassionate manner. I'm sorry but I can't help you if you can't recognize the difference.

But never mind Ludi. Let's just go along our merry old ways, insisting 'all life is sacred', meanwhile allowing the hypocrisy of our actions to condemn ALL life to death. God forbid we actually grow up enough to face the fact that choices such as these NEED to be made, regardless of how distasteful we may find them. Far better to 'hold the moral high ground' (even tho' in truth it isn't) while the world dies right along with us, right?

[SeaGypsy]

Ok, so you want it to be acceptable to kill the helpless.

Thanks for clarifying.

No Ludi. I want it to be acceptable to kill the hopeless, and in a compassionate manner. I'm sorry but I can't help you if you can't recognize the difference.

But never mind Ludi. Let's just go along our merry old ways, insisting 'all life is sacred', meanwhile allowing the hypocrisy of our actions to condemn ALL life to death. God forbid we actually grow up enough to face the fact that choices such as these NEED to be made, regardless of how distasteful we may find them. Far better to 'hold the moral high ground' (even tho' in truth it isn't) while the world dies right along with us, right?

If you want to do this witch hunt thing, why not reveal your own dirty linen to the world& see if there is consensus your life should be spared by the new Eugenics movement?

Who will be the impartial arbiter?

Murder is was and has always been Murder.
You can't just put on sheep's clothing& change the meaning of what you are saying here.

Unless these people you advocate 'Compassionate' slaughter of are trying to kill you& you can prove it; you are talking about legalizing murder.

[TWilliam]

you are talking about legalizing murder.

No, I am not. And if you cannot grasp the fundamental difference between murder and what I have been discussing by virtue of everything I've already said, then there's no point in engaging you further regarding the matter.

Murder is distinguished from other forms of killing by virtue of the perpetrator holding a specific mindset while engaged in, or preparatory to, the act. In other words, the motive behind a killing determines whether or not it is murder, not merely the act of killing. Even the law recognizes this. Your apparent inability or unwillingness to do likewise does not change that fact.

[SeaGypsy]

you are talking about legalizing murder.

No, I am not. And if you cannot grasp the fundamental difference between murder and what I have been discussing by virtue of everything I've already said, then there's no point in engaging you further regarding the matter.

Murder is distinguished from other forms of killing by virtue of the perpetrator holding a specific mindset while engaged in, or preparatory to, the act. In other words, the motive behind a killing determines whether or not it is murder, not merely the act of killing. Even the law recognizes this. Your apparent inability or unwillingness to do likewise does not change that fact.

Absolute frogshit TWilliams.

Murder is the deliberate taking of another human life; other than as punishment for a crime seen by the commons as warranting such or in self defense against an equally armed attack.

[paimei01]

http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/16not ... ahood.html

A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: "Have you ever read the Christian Bible?"

"No, read it to me," said Gasan.

The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for rainment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these... Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."

The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened."

Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915

Why humans might have traded this approach for the complexities of agriculture is an interesting and long-debated question, especially because the skeletal evidence clearly indicates that early farmers were more poorly nourished, more disease-ridden and deformed, than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries. Farming did not improve most lives. The evidence that best points to the answer, I think, lies in the difference between early agricultural villages and their pre-agricultural counterparts—the presence not just of grain but of granaries and, more tellingly, of just a few houses significantly larger and more ornate than all the others attached to those granaries. Agriculture was not so much about food as it was about the accumulation of wealth. It benefited some humans, and those people have been in charge ever since.

[SeaGypsy]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915

Why humans might have traded this approach for the complexities of agriculture is an interesting and long-debated question, especially because the skeletal evidence clearly indicates that early farmers were more poorly nourished, more disease-ridden and deformed, than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries. Farming did not improve most lives. The evidence that best points to the answer, I think, lies in the difference between early agricultural villages and their pre-agricultural counterparts—the presence not just of grain but of granaries and, more tellingly, of just a few houses significantly larger and more ornate than all the others attached to those granaries. Agriculture was not so much about food as it was about the accumulation of wealth. It benefited some humans, and those people have been in charge ever since.

[/quote]

Wheat was a hugely important development to be sure.
If you read the Essene scrolls of the time of Jesus, wheat was venerated. Some people lived on nothing but wheat grass& wheat products for many years.

Some modern Essenes say this is the simplest, most morally sound, closed system agriculture. Simply humans& wheat in symbiosis.

[TWilliam]

Absolute frogshit TWilliams.

Murder is the deliberate taking of another human life; other than as punishment for a crime seen by the commons as warranting such or in self defense against an equally armed attack.

So revenge killing isn't murder, while mercy killing is?

Anyway sorry, but you are wrong. (And it's TWilliam. There is no 's'... )

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

Please note the statement in the first defining paragraph: "Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings". Note also the comment in the third paragraph about many jurisdictions "elaborat[ing] on the term [malice aforethought] in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind." Finally, note that the definition of murder encompasses unlawful killing, implying that there exist forms of lawful killing. Nowhere is euthanasia or assisted voluntary suicide equated with murder.

In nearly all of jurisprudence, great effort has been expended to make it clear that the decision of whether or not to label any specific killing as murder hinges on intent. Neither the desire to end the life of one who is suffering nor the desire to spare the human race from extinction is grounded in malice. It is grounded in compassion, and you have absolutely neither right, nor grounds, apart from moralistic horsesh*t, to presume otherwise.

[paimei01]

http://www.ascentofhumanity.com/chapter4-1.php

As that word mine indicates, ownership implies an attachment of things to self. The more we own, the more we are. The constellation of me and mine grows. But no matter how large the discrete and separate self grows, it is still far smaller than the self of the hunter-gatherer. The pre-separation mind is able to affirm, all at once and without contradiction, "I am this body," "I am this tribe," "I am the jungle," "I am the world." No matter how much of the jungle we control, we are smaller than the one who knows, "I am the jungle." No matter how dominant we are socially, we are far less than one who knows, "I am my tribe." And far less secure, too, because all of these appendages to our tiny separate selves may be easily sundered from us. We are therefore perpetually and irremediably insecure. We go to great lengths to protect all these accessories of identity, our possessions and money and reputations, and when our house is burglarized, our wallet stolen, or our reputation besmirched, we feel as if our very selves have been violated.

Not only does our acquisitiveness arise out of separation, it reinforces it as well. The notion that a forest, a gene, an idea, an image, a song is a separate thing that admits ownership is quite new. Who are we to own a piece of the world, to separate out a part of the sacred universe and make it mine? Such hubris, once unknown in the world, has had the unfortunate effect of separating out ourselves as well from the matrix of reality, cutting us off (in experience if not in fact) from each other, from nature, and from spirit. By objectifying the world and everything in it, by making an other of the world, we necessarily objectify ourselves as well in relation to that other. The self becomes a lonely and isolated ego, connected to the world pragmatically but not in essence, afraid of death and thus closed to life. Such a self, cut off from its true nature and separated from the factitious environment created by its own self-definition, will always be insecure and will always try to exert more and more control over this environment.

We will be all dead in 100 years max. Enjoy your time here. Why kill others, and for what purpose : better chances of survival ? I understand to kill someone to save yourself or others, when there is no other way, but that's about it.

[SeaGypsy]

Absolute frogshit TWilliams.

Murder is the deliberate taking of another human life; other than as punishment for a crime seen by the commons as warranting such or in self defense against an equally armed attack.

Sorry, but you are wrong. (And it's TWilliam. There is no 's'... )

The precise definition of murder varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being [b]with malice [/[b]b]aforethought. [/b]The term malice aforethought did not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing, or that he or she felt malice toward the victim. Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings and warranted stiffer punishment.

The definition of murder has evolved over several centuries. Under most modern statutes in the United States, murder comes in four varieties: (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies.

Some jurisdictions still use the term malice aforethought to define intentional murder, but many have changed or elaborated on the term in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind. California has retained the malice aforethought definition of murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187 [West 1996]). It also maintains a statute that defines the term malice. Under section 188 of the California Penal Code, malice is divided into two types: express and implied. Express malice exists "when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." Malice may be implied by a judge or jury "when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."

Please note the statement in the first defining paragraph: "Generally, malice aforethought referred to a level of intent or reck-lessness that separated murder from other killings". Note also the comment in the third paragraph about many jurisdictions "elaborat[ing] on the term [malice aforethought] in order to describe more clearly a murderous state of mind." Finally, note that the definition of murder encompasses unlawful killing, implying that there exist forms of lawful killing. Nowhere is euthanasia or assisted voluntary suicide equated with murder.

In nearly all of jurisprudence, great effort has been expended to make it clear that the decision of whether or not to label any specific killing as murder hinges on intent. Neither the desire to end the life of one who is suffering nor the desire to spare the human race from extinction is grounded in malice. It is grounded in compassion, and you have absolutely neither right, nor grounds, apart from moralistic horsesh*t, to presume otherwise.


You are spin doctoring definitions TWilliam.
Here is the Wiki version:

Murder as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission. The word murder is related, in old English, to the French word mordre (bite) in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death.[1]

INTENT is THE KEYWORD not the semantics of malice, as you misguide us.

The only exceptions under common law relate to mercy killing or killing under extreme duress.

In the end the weight of common law rests with a Jury of Peers.

If you can get some kind of legislation likely to convince a Jury that what you are advocating is NOT MURDER you will have won the day.

No chance at all.

[TWilliam]

Why kill others, and for what purpose : better chances of survival ?

It's interesting that you ask such a question after having posted essentially a lament of the loss of our identification with a larger whole.

Perhaps because some of us are actually capable of identifying with the larger body of humanity, rather than with our 'lonely and isolated ego', and actually wish to see that whole survive rather than seeing it perish for the sake of consoling our pitiful, narcissistic individual egos?

[SeaGypsy]

Why kill others, and for what purpose : better chances of survival ?

It's interesting that you ask such a question after having posted essentially a lament of the loss of our identification with a larger whole.

Perhaps because some of us are actually capable of identifying with the larger body of humanity, rather than with our 'lonely and isolated ego', and actually wish to see that whole survive rather than seeing it perish for the sake of consoling our pitiful, narcissistic individual egos?

Has anyone ever called you a FASCIST EUGENICIST?

[SeaGypsy]

An amazing photograph I found in National Geography 20 years ago or so. It was a group of refugees who had died in the desert fleeing a war zone.

They were all laying together in a big circle, about 200 of them.

My 1st thought to this wa imagine 200 westerners starving in the desert.

They would be strung out over miles, most would be alone in their final moments.

These guys made a consensus & just lay down together to die.

Very touching.

Is that what you are advocating TWilliam?

I think you are more advocating rounding them up and killing them properly as a compassionate act.

Nice

[TWilliam]

You are spin doctoring definitions TWilliam.
Here is the Wiki version:

Murder as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission. The word murder is related, in old English, to the French word mordre (bite) in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death.[1]

Yes, and if you've been following this thread from the start, you'll note that I used that same source and definition earlier. It says essentially the same thing, so thank you for reiterating my point.

INTENT is THE KEYWORD not the semantics of malice, as you misguide us.

There is no misguidance, except perhaps in your statement here. You are correct, however that the keyword is INTENT (which is what I've been saying). Specifically, MALICIOUS INTENT, i.e. MALICE.

The only exceptions under common law relate to mercy killing or killing under extreme duress.

Precisely the point that I have been at pains to make, particularly with regard to mercy killing. Thank you again for reiterating it.

If you can get some kind of legislation likely to convince a Jury that what you are advocating is NOT MURDER you will have won the day.

No chance at all.

I suspect that my definition drawn from actual legal reference would likely trump yours taken from a source compiled by laymen.

Has anyone ever called you a FASCIST EUGENICIST?

None apart from ignorant idealists...

[SeaGypsy]

Oh great one please show us the precedent where Eugenic Murder is re-defined please?

[TWilliam]

I think you are more advocating rounding them up and killing them properly as a compassionate act.

Then you comprehend nothing of what I am saying.

I'm off to bed now. Goodnight...

[SeaGypsy]

TWilliam; I write what I write on this because I do understand.

My son's great grandmother was a Jew in Vienna in 1937.

The Grandfather of the family called an extended family meeting to discuss their response to Adolf Hitler's pending extension of his murderous rampage against Jews (amongst many other 'non Arians')

There were 67 people in four generations of the family at this meeting which lasted 2 weeks.

They decided to stay.

In 1947 in a refugee camp in France; the same lady was told her sole surviving relative, a second cousin was in a Russian Gulag. He died there ten years later.

She was only alive because she was used as a prostitute (read: sex slave) she payed for this sin for the rest of her life.

The trauma of this kind of human endeavor is worse than starvation or even outright war. There is no honor in this kind of arbitrary killing. Even if the most extreme circumstances.

I will happily go to war against a regime like the one you are proposing& I am a hard core pacifist.