Zack

Sorry, I got it backwards.

In any case, with no personal offense towards you yourself, your argument in this case was totally incoherent. Unless you are a Gandhi purist, there's simply no logical place to take your argument at all. I'd suggest you use a different argument.

Or rather, here's an argument for you:

Do you support allowing people to shoot anyone who comes their your property, for any reason? No? Then how could you support self-defense?

Your argument was no better than this.

Uh, yes...

Something wrong with that?

I was, and I made it clear why its not inconsistent. You can't say "Either you must always support killing or never." That's like saying "Hitler or Gandhi" when in actuality, most of us are closer to Gandhi but not quite so pacifist (Most people support justified killing.)

No, I don't believe the right to life is absolute but I think you can't arbitrarily take it away. But if you kill someone, since you stole the right to live from someone else, I feel you should lose that right yourself.

That doesn't mean I support murdering innocent children in the womb, and those two are not inconsistent.

Sure. Basically, I knew you didn't have a strong opinion since we've discussed it before. But still, why is it logically inconsistent to teach that all people have a right to life from conception, but that right can be lost by killing someone? Again, I'm not asking why you disagree with it. There are plenty of valid reasons to disagree. I'm asking why it is inconsistent.

Wow, you are responding fast, we keep crossposting each other

Do you really think loaded questions would prove this though? Do you now see why the questions were loaded after reading my lengthy retorts?

I knew you didn't, unless your views had changed since last time we conversed, but still, why is it inherently inconsistent to say that at conception the fetus gains rights to personhood, but that the right to life can be violated by taking it from someone else? I'm not asking why you think its wrong (That would be easy) but why it is actually inconsistent.

At least 2/3rds of America supports Capital Punishment, and some estimates are as high as 80%. Even amongst our more liberal party (The Democrats), about half of them support it. Supporting capital punishment is not "Infatuated with killing full-grown, defenseless humans."

And why the biased line of questioning? Do you not respect me enough to at least ask me legitimately? Do you not think I'm smart enough to see through an obvious set-up question? If the answer to either of these questions is "No, I don't" then why ask in the first place?

What makes war different from other forms of self-defense, such as defending yourself from an armed burgler who is trying to shoot your kids?

I know this line of questioning is leading up to capital punishment, so why not just ask it that way? You aren't getting me to slip.

The best way you could ask the question is "Is it ever OK to kill someone who is defenseless?" That would at least get your point, and would actually be a better question to ponder. The answer, however, is still "It depends." Just because someone is defenseless doesn't mean they always will be. If someone commits murder, it shows that when the person is not defenseless, they will take out their wrath on a defenseless person. Executing them is simply deciding that the punishment should fit the crime.

I'd say that's where I stand, but that is where practically EVERYONE stands. Some people, such as George W. Bush support "Ends justify the means" theories that push them a bit closer to Hitler than Gandhi, others such as yourself would argue that many wars and all Capital Punishment are wrong, but I'm pretty sure you still think WWII is justified, so you can't really answer your question with "No" either.

So, in short, the answer is, "It is usually immoral, but it depends on circumstances." Exactly which circumstances are OK and which aren't could be debated, but nobody is going to say its OK in ALL circumstances, and very few will say its never OK.

Zack, you are being unfair. You want a yes or no answer? Life isn't that simplistic.

I believe it is wrong to kill unjustly, and I believe in certain cases killing is in fact justified. You can't just say "Say yes or no" because then your basically telling me to choose between being like Hitler and being like Gandhi. Obviously, given the choice, most people, myself included, would pick Gandhi. But if given a spectrum between Hitler (You can kill for basically any reason you feel like) and Gandhi (Never use violence, ever) most people would find themselves somewhere in the middle, in that sweet spot where you think that the occasional, limited circumstance warrants killing, but that killing can't be done arbitrarily. To be continued.

1. Is it moral to lock someone in a prison? I am well aware of your sly attempt to undermine me, and I can see straight through the question. And the answer, almost nobody can deny, is "It depends."

I think you are specifically referring to capital punishment here, and if I say "No" you'll say, well that proves capital punishment is wrong. But still, there is also self-defense, war of self-defense, exc. There are many motivations to kill. So the answer is "It depends on the motivation and reason." Unless you are a total pacifist or a "Kill all you like" type you can't possibly disagree with my answer.

2. I do not. I am totally depraived, like everyone else. But I do strive to be moral.

Glad to see you back.

I feel the same way about mafia, and I probably won't be joining anymore games. I'm barely even here anymore, but I saw your post, and I thought that it would be quite a shame if I never said anything to Zack again, so I thought I'd leave a message. I hope things are going well for you.

I could take over the game if people are still interested. I have the time to do it.

You'll be missed!

I'm starting to feel the same way, actually.

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've done here on cfc for mafia, and for fantastic games hosted. Star Wars #1 was really the first mafia game I was fully involved on here and thats what got me hooked.

Good stuff, keep it up and see you when you inevitably come back

You could at least pull a Catharsis and leave once the game is over.

of course not.

I didn't say you HAD to leave the possibility, I simply asked if you did.

That said, you can be certain of a positive, but not a negative. For instance, I can be certain I exist, but I can't be certain aliens don't exist, unless of course, something else that exists disproves them.

For instance, I can know Zeus does not exist, since I know an omnipotent deity exists, and that proves that Zeus does not exist.