State Of the Union

[Lt. Fred]

For instance, launching a military coup is "and (sic) option", if you think it's in the best interests of everyone. Shooting political protesters is "and (sic) option". Spying on political opponents is "and (sic) option". Outright bribery is "and option".

There's obviously no need for any sort of political absolute, we can just trust everyone not to do anything wrong. Of course.

[m52nickerson]

For instance, launching a military coup is "and (sic) option", if you think it's in the best interests of everyone. Shooting political protesters is "and (sic) option". Spying on political opponents is "and (sic) option". Outright bribery is "and option".

There's obviously no need for any sort of political absolute, we can just trust everyone not to do anything wrong. Of course.

There is no such thing as a political absolute. 

Yes, all those things are options.  A person just has to be willing to deal with the consequences of taking such an option.  They become even better options when there is going to be little consequence.

[Lt. Fred]

Awesome. Almost unbelievable.

[ironbite]

We've been saying that about you for years.

[Lt. Fred]

I literally asked "do you think the government should be allowed to end democracy or perhaps murder someone," and the answer was yes. No consideration of moral concerns; just might makes right.

[Witchyjoshy]

I literally asked "do you think the government should be allowed to end democracy or perhaps murder someone," and the answer was yes. No consideration of moral concerns; just might makes right.

What?

[Askold]

I thought that m52nickerson meant it as: "Even a legally elected goverment might decide to break the laws and/or become a tyranny, just like a random person on the street might decide to kick puppies and steal candy from kids." I don't think he ever said that it would be a good thing or acceptable. Just that they could try to do that (I suppose that in a democracy there should be people, judges and organisations to stop them but if you look at history this has not stopped dictator from doing it in the past.)

And I kinda agree with that. Any given day I have the option of trying to get rid of my financial troubles by robberies, forgeries or other illegal activities. But I don't take that option. And seriously, the only thing stopping me is myself. Nothing stopping me from trying that is, my success in criminal activities is another matter since that cold be prevented by the police for example. Just like, if for ecxample, the US goverment would hypotethically decide to imprison people without a trial or torture prisoners or something then their internal safety mechanisms (supreme court, congress, people no longer voting for asshats who support torture etc.) should kick in and stop them. And I suppose soldiers who refuse to obey illegal orders would also prevent such atrocities.

[Lt. Fred]

Okay, I'll ask Mc52 again:

Do you think it is wrong for a government to murder people if they think that is the best thing to do?

[m52nickerson]

I literally asked "do you think the government should be allowed to end democracy or perhaps murder someone," and the answer was yes. No consideration of moral concerns; just might makes right.

No you asked if those were options, which they are if a government is strong enough to do them.  That does not mean I think it is right.

I really should have PMed someone before your post because I knew you were going to use that "might makes right" slogan.  You've tried to say this is my argument before and you have never been right.

Might does not make right.  Right and wrong is subjective.  Very often might does make reality.  The whole reason the US can do just about what ever the hell it wants, right or wrong, is because no one is going to stop us.

Okay, I'll ask Mc52 again:
Do you think it is wrong for a government to murder people if they think that is the best thing to do?

It all depends on the situation.  If you are talking about killing people in groups like Al-Qaeda I'm most likely going to be okay with it.

LtFred, I'm also going to ask that if you quote me in your signature you not add things I did not say.

[Lt. Fred]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were on topic when responding to my post, an assumption I never should have made. I should have know that you'd pick some trivial point to hammer on again. My mistake.


Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

[Witchyjoshy]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were on topic when responding to my post, an assumption I never should have made. I should have know that you'd pick some trivial point to hammer on again. My mistake.

Fred, what the hell is this?  What are you doing?

First the quote mining (which you still haven't acknowledged) and now this random crap and accusations and rampant strawmen all over the place.

You are not being a good debater here.  This is becoming the debate equivalent of button-mashing in Street Fighter.

Stop it.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

...are we still doing this? 

[m52nickerson]

Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

Again it depends on the situation but sometimes I think it is necessary for goverment to break the law to serve the public interest.  You can never foresee every situation when writing a law.

[Distind]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were on topic when responding to my post, an assumption I never should have made. I should have know that you'd pick some trivial point to hammer on again. My mistake.


Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

Honestly after this bit I'm surprised they aren't calling you a troll.

If you're going to completely re-write someone's quote, don't frame it as if they said it. This is bullshit:

"I do think that sometimes laws can and should be ignored when it serves to protect people, (for instance, by shooting them"

It's easily noted that he's referring to the legal indefinite detention measures(constitutional or not, it's technically legally until the laws which were passed are struck down).

Extenuating circumstances exist in the legal arena, there will always be some time where violating the law would be the moral thing to do, even if the law is normally a decent one.

Moderation Note
Consider this an offical warning under violation of "Don't be a dick". Your signature has been modified to include the full quote, feel free to remove it entirely if you wish to.

[Saturn500]

You are not being a good debater here.  This is becoming the debate equivalent of button-mashing in Street Fighter.

It's also becoming similar to credit-feeding your way through a shmup, or driving into a wall repeatedly in a racing game, or...