You like to use the Socratic method and that is fine, but first you need to tell me what you mean by "OK." If by "OK," you refer to the written law, then I did not say it was "OK." I think that the killers in both instances will probably be convicted of some level of homicide.

 

If by "OK," you simply refer to my own moral code, then the answer to me is obvious. Dr. Tiller (who incidentally, was a late-term abortionist, the last of the line, who would do what almost no other doctor would do) spent his time murdering unborn human beings. I could give a flying flip whether the law says that happens to be legal, I happen to believe the law to be wrong and the actions to be grossly morally repugnant. Therefore, the killing of him is "OK," in that I am glad that he is dead and will not be committing those actions anymore. He needed killing.

 

There is nothing obtuse about a person's differentiated "logic" (to use your term) in equating moral law with written law.

 

Both killers are going to jail. However, my moral law is outraged at the shooting of the soldier, and not at the shooting of Dr. Tiller. Since my moral code is my own (and the feeling is probably shared by many, many other people), it simply is what it is.

 

Now, your turn.

 

You're OK with the murder of one person because you disagree with his legal actions. The person that killed these two innocent recruiters believed the same. While these two military personnel were doing nothing illegeal, this guy took the law into his own hands in the name of protecting the innocent.

 

IMO you cannot rationalize it away simply because of either the innocent being the unborn(vs innocent foreigners killed by US military) or because you're pro-military. These two killers killed for the exact same reason - they felt the innocent needed protection.

 

The murdered of the recruiters is also glad these two are dead and will not be committing these actions anymore. How are they different?

I don't recall anyone here saying it was OK to kill the doctor but maybe I missed something. I don't think it was OK and I believe that the killer should be punished to the fullest extent of the law but I feel a whole lot less angst about the murder of the doctor then I do over these soldiers and I see no double standard at all.

 

To be clear , its "OK" to many because of the acts of the the doctor. Just look at the original thread and you'll see many comments supporting my contention.

You're OK with the murder of one person because you disagree with his legal actions. The person that killed these two innocent recruiters believed the same. While these two military personnel were doing nothing illegeal, this guy took the law into his own hands in the name of protecting the innocent.

 

IMO you cannot rationalize it away simply because of either the innocent being the unborn(vs innocent foreigners killed by US military) or because you're pro-military. These two killers killed for the exact same reason - they felt the innocent needed protection.

 

The murdered of the recruiters is also glad these two are dead and will not be committing these actions anymore. How are they different?

 

 

One had blood on his hands individually and the other was a symbol of what the murderer detested. I can see a difference. However, I'm not ok with either killing.

To be clear when I say "you cannot rationalize..." I am talking about people who react to the murder and not the actual murderer.

 

You're either OK with someone murdering in the name of "saving others" or you're not. It can't be rationalized away by making distinctions between the victims.

 

Isn't this whole argument irrelevant?

You're OK with the murder of one person because you disagree with his legal actions. The person that killed these two innocent recruiters believed the same. While these two military personnel were doing nothing illegeal, this guy took the law into his own hands in the name of protecting the innocent.

 

IMO you cannot rationalize it away simply because of either the innocent being the unborn(vs innocent foreigners killed by US military) or because you're pro-military. These two killers killed for the exact same reason - they felt the innocent needed protection.

 

The murdered of the recruiters is also glad these two are dead and will not be committing these actions anymore. How are they different?

 

I can rationalize it away. I have. For instance, the doctor directly kills the unborn, while the recruiters only indirectly recruits soldiers who might, at some point in the future, be sent overseas, and might, at some point in the future, kill a bunch of terrorists and also happen to kill some innocent civilians. Of course, most "innoncent civilians" are killed by the actions of the murderous thugs who hang around them. And the few "innocent civilians" who are shot or killed by U.S. soldiers are usually killed in airstrikes or similar special equipment, and those folks are not usually being recruited by station-to-station recruiters. Additionally, the unborn are truly innocent, while in all likelihood many of the claimed "innocent civilians" whom are killed overseas harbor terrorists and/or do nothing else to help themselves or discoruage the behavior. So I easily rationalize it away that way. In addition, there is a nobility, in my opinion, to being a soldier and killing legally in the cause of national protection and freedom, and there is no nobility, in my opinion, to legally murdering innocent unborn children. So I rationalize it away that way, too. Moreover, I know of no soldiers who intend to kill innocent civilians, while Dr. Tiller fully intends to kill unborn innocent children. So I rationalize it that way, too. Furthermore, the soldier acts with a greater good in mind, and perhpas some civilians are killed alo0ng the route to the greater good. With Dr. Tiller, I don't believe there is a greater good, only death and money, and a weak excuse that he is somehow making life easier and tough choices for mothers. So I rationalize it that way.

 

See, to you, logic only deals with the subjective reasoning of the person doing the killing. To me, logic deals with the objective actions of those who are killed. So there are many ways that I can, and do, rationalize it.

 

Objectively, I don't think you are going to find many people who "shed a tear" like you do for Dr. Tiller, but a whole lot more who will "shed a tear" for the dead soldier. And nobody really gives a rats patoot about the assassins.

I can rationalize it away. I have. For instance, the doctor directly kills the unborn, while the recruiters only indirectly recruits soldiers who might, at some point in the future, be sent overseas, and might, at some point in the future, kill a bunch of terrorists and also happen to kill some innocent civilians. Of course, most "innoncent civilians" are killed by the actions of the murderous thugs who hang around them. And the few "innocent civilians" who are shot or killed by U.S. soldiers are usually killed in airstrikes or similar special equipment, and those folks are not usually being recruited by station-to-station recruiters. Additionally, the unborn are truly innocent, while in all likelihood many of the claimed "innocent civilians" whom are killed overseas harbor terrorists and/or do nothing else to help themselves or discoruage the behavior. So I easily rationalize it away that way. In addition, there is a nobility, in my opinion, to being a soldier and killing legally in the cause of national protection and freedom, and there is no nobility, in my opinion, to legally murdering innocent unborn children. So I rationalize it away that way, too. Moreover, I know of no soldiers who intend to kill innocent civilians, while Dr. Tiller fully intends to kill unborn innocent children. So I rationalize it that way, too. Furthermore, the soldier acts with a greater good in mind, and perhpas some civilians are killed alo0ng the route to the greater good. With Dr. Tiller, I don't believe there is a greater good, only death and money, and a weak excuse that he is somehow making life easier and tough choices for mothers. So I rationalize it that way.

 

See, to you, logic only deals with the subjective reasoning of the person doing the killing. To me, logic deals with the objective actions of those who are killed. So there are many ways that I can, and do, rationalize it.

 

Objectively, I don't think you are going to find many people who "shed a tear" like you do for Dr. Tiller, but a whole lot more who will "shed a tear" for the dead soldier. And nobody really gives a rats patoot about the assassins.

 

 

Boy, the "shed a tear" comment seems to have gotten under your skin since you've now mentioned it twice.

 

Your logic makes sense to most. However, its truly irrelevant to the argument.

 

We're talking about irrational people. In their minds they are taking the law into their own hands for the good and for the protection of the innocent. You disagree with their defintion and their logic. Doesn't matter to them. They are doing what they believe to be correct. In their warped minds (and both are warped) they are standing up for the innocent and nothing else matters. Your "degrees" argument of the recruiter recruting the soldiers who might..... doesn't matter to them. Its all about making the statement. That's the point.

 

So while you and others "get it" for one but not the other, realize that there are probably many on the other side who "get it."

 

So, in my opinion, if you "get it" on one side you should at least understand the thinking behind the other side even if it doesn't fit your moral code.

 

Make sense?

Isn't this whole argument irrelevant?

 

Ask Shooter. He's the one that started the thread by pointing out that while one story got attention the other did not.

 

I think they should both be looked at and understood.

 

If you disagree so be it.

Boy, the "shed a tear" comment seems to have gotten under your skin since you've now mentioned it twice.

 

Your logic makes sense to most. However, its truly irrelevant to the argument.

 

We're talking about irrational people. In their minds they are taking the law into their own hands for the good and for the protection of the innocent. You disagree with their defintion and their logic. Doesn't matter to them. They are doing what they believe to be correct. In their warped minds (and both are warped) they are standing up for the innocent and nothing else matters. Your "degrees" argument of the recruiter recruting the soldiers who might..... doesn't matter to them. Its all about making the statement. That's the point.

 

So while you and others "get it" for one but not the other, realize that there are probably many on the other side who "get it."

 

So, in my opinion, if you "get it" on one side you should at least understand the thinking behind the other side even if it doesn't fit your moral code.

 

Make sense?

 

I "get" the explanations both will make. I do this for a living. However, I am sympathetic toward one explanation and not toward the other.

 

Incidentally, there is very little that gets under my skin. I believe that you made the "shed a tear" comment for effect. So I use it many times in response as sort of a closing argument.

I "get" the explanations both will make. I do this for a living. However, I am sympathetic toward one explanation and not toward the other.

 

.

 

...and , as you suspect, I don't find that logical.