quote:

---

Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.

---

So ... sometimes murder is wrong, and sometimes it's not? Either you were smoking crack when you typed that, or you've dropped the distinction between a "murder" and a "killing." Have you changed the definition, like you do with so much? Frankly, your statement (like you) makes no sense.

quote:

---

Proposing existence outside our universe doesn't solve the problem.

---

See? Here's the big problem with your hypothesis. You postulize (forgive my spelling) a supernatural being -- whether it be God, Allah, Mr. T or Q -- who created the universe.

Well, where'd it come from? The thing you're not understanding (as far as I can tell), is that God/Allah/Mr. T/Q/What The Fuck Ever is, to quote you, "existance outside our universe."

So, where'd this existance outside our universe come from, eh?

Oh, don't tell me. "It's timeless." Which, to quote (or at least, paraphrase) Rob is "a non-answer."

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

Likewise, he'll probably say something to the effect of "It ain't murder if God tells ya to do it."

quote:

---

Proposing existence outside our universe doesn't solve the problem. Where'd THAT universe come from?

---

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

(And later on the sixth day, The_Tom said that He is but a minor deity below the great Capps, who doth command that no posts be deleted under any cicrumstance lest the sheep and the sloths and the pastries lie down with the lamb and repeatedly assfuck it. So this post, despite it's general absence of content, shall remain timeless. It is the Alpha but hopefully not the Omega.)

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]

According to your own book of fairytales, killing is wrong under ANY circumstance.

Thou shalt not MURDER. You're dealing with a very old mistranslation.

So ... sometimes murder is wrong, and sometimes it's not?

No, I said that killing is murder- which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times. I thought it was quite clear.

So, where'd this existance outside our universe come from, eh?

I'm postulating existence that's eternal by nature. No assembly required.

He's going to claim that "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation of a phrase which actually said "Thou shalt not murder,"

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]

And if you think otherwise, please stick your beliefs somewhere where the sun doesn't shine very often.

quote:

---

Perhaps I should have said that physics AS WE UNDERSTAND IT requires a god.

---

quote:

---

No, I said that killing is murder- which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times. I thought it was quite clear.

---

So all killings are murders? Therefore, anyone who takes a life, be it in the process of a death sentence or self defense, should be smited by God? Yeeesh, looks like if you succeed in your theocracy, 2nd Ammendment is the first thing to go ... (not that I'd complain)

As I understand it (and as you've argued it), "murder" is an illegal killing, while "killing" is a legal killing. If suddenly you don't see that distinction, you can no longer use the defense, "God didn't say 'thou shalt not kill', he said 'thou shalt not murder.'"

No, that is the diametric opposite of what I said. Perhaps you don't understand the punctuation used. I will therefore bring it down another level.

Murder is wrong. Killing is murder under some circumstances, but not others. Therefore, killing is wrong under some circumstances, but not necessarily under others.

quote:

---

No, I said that killing is murder- which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times. I thought it was quite clear.

---

Punctuation my ass. You clearly were smoking crack. First, you said that killing was murder. See? I've quoted it like twice now. Then you said murder was wrong, sometimes, which can't be true because in countless gun threads you've said that the Commandment was "thou shalt not murder", therefore murders can never by "sometimes" not-wrong. Be more precise the first time you type, because I think The_Tom's reaction to the above was the same as mine: "Then it was most certainly insane." Clearly, you made a boo-boo writing the above, and now, instead of admitting it, you're frothing like a rabid mouse.

Now, stop beating around the bush and respond to the other points. You know, like as Rob said so well, "Same place your Creative Being came from. Gotcha." Because you haven't responded to it at all, which makes one think you can't respond to it. And if you won't respond to it, it makes one wonder why. Like, you realize you can't defend it so you hope if you can avoid answering it, you can still pretend to "win" this thread like you pretend with so much.

[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

I said nothing of the kind. This is where a working knowledge of punctuation comes in handy. Rob, you're the English major. You want to explain it to him?

Because you haven't responded to it at all

quote:

---

I'm postulating existence that's eternal by nature.

---

Non-answer. To everything there must be a beginning. Where was it's beginning? Where did it come from? And you're still postulating existance outside of the universe.

Okay, Rob, this --

quote:

---

Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.

---

-- was Omega's original, confusing, non-sensical statement. Tell me, does it or does it not say that sometimes murder is wrong and sometimes its correct?

I mean, me, myself, and I, think that if Omega had typed "killing under some circumstances is wrong, but not under others," he would be making sense (or at least, as much sense as he ever makes). Since murder by definition means the wrongful taking of life, there is no way by which it can be not-wrong. Yes? Or no?

quote:

---

This is where a working knowledge of punctuation comes in handy.

---

This coming from a guy who spells "prove" with two o's.

[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]

quote:

---

[Beer]Why is it okay to kill someone under one set of circumstances but not another?[/Beer]

---

quote:

---

[Omega]Because it's murder, which is wrong, under certain circumstances, but not under others.[/Omega]

---

Murder = Wrong ucc;

quote:

---

[Beer]So ... sometimes murder is wrong, and sometimes it's not?[/Beer]

---

quote:

---

[Me]According to your own book of fairytales, killing is wrong under ANY circumstance.[/Me]

---

quote:

---

[Omega]Thou shalt not MURDER. I said that killing is murder -which is wrong- sometimes, but not at other times.[/Omega]

---

Killing = Murder = Wrong ucc;

quote:

---

[Omega]There are those here that would define that statement as intolerance. They would be wrong.[/Omega]

---

First, it's "intolerant". Second, that's exactly how it was meant. I don't tolerate hypocritical religious d*mbf*cks who condone murder (or KILLING, or whatever YOU want to call it).

Back to the summary...

quote:

---

[Beer]So all killings are murders?[/Beer]

---

quote:

---

[Omega]No, that is the diametric opposite of what I said. Murder is wrong. Killing is murder under some circumstances, but not others. Therefore, killing is wrong under some circumstances, but not necessarily under others.
[/Omega]

---

Murder = Wrong;
Killing = Murder ucc; [Murder = Killing ucc;]
Killing = Wrong ucc;

quote:

---

[Beer]First, you said that killing was murder. Then you said murder was wrong, sometimes, which can't be true because in countless gun threads you've said that the Commandment was "thou shalt not murder", therefore murders can never by "sometimes" not-wrong.[/Beer]

---

quote:

---

[Omega]I said nothing of the kind.[/Omega]

---

Killing != Murder; [contradiction in Omega's statement;]

*Somebody* has definitely been smoking too much crack.

[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]