"Morally' violent?

[pErvinalia]

That's fucking nuts. It was a contract dispute. Settle it in the courts.

[pErvinalia]

What if I pay a plumber to fix a problem and at the end of his visit he says he's fixed the problem and I say he hasn't. Am I entitled to shoot the cunt dead?

[Seth]

That's fucking nuts. It was a contract dispute. Settle it in the courts.

No, it's robbery.

[Seth]

What if I pay a plumber to fix a problem and at the end of his visit he says he's fixed the problem and I say he hasn't. Am I entitled to shoot the cunt dead?

Nope. But if he demanded payment in advance (as the hooker did) and then ran out the door with the money, in Texas you'd be justified in doing so. Not most other places however.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think if there is any intrinsic morality it's survival of the fittest. Which is to say that it's morally correct for a species to survive through evolutionary success. I cannot think of an example of evolution being morally wrong since ipso facto evolution selects (eventually) for the fittest.

"species" is a human construct.

And when (and how) do you decide that "eventually" has taken place?

Fuck off.

Rev (for once) has a very valid point here! There is no universally acknowledged, biological definition of a species - or of any other taxonomic rank! The current consensus is to describe heredity in terms of clades - groups of organisms that share a common ancestor - rather than such vague definitions.

And "eventually" is simply a synonym for "sooner or later" - about as scientific and precise a term as "whatever"!

[pErvinalia]

I think if there is any intrinsic morality it's survival of the fittest. Which is to say that it's morally correct for a species to survive through evolutionary success. I cannot think of an example of evolution being morally wrong since ipso facto evolution selects (eventually) for the fittest.

"species" is a human construct.

And when (and how) do you decide that "eventually" has taken place?

Fuck off.

Rev (for once)

Get fucked. My points (when I make the effort) are always valid.

Seth, when he actually recognises a logically valid point, always responds with empty rhetoric when he can't answer it. No point making a thing about it. He's a troll, after all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My points (when I make the effort)

Sadly, this is such a rare occurrence that your opponents have a huge statistical advantage in simply assuming that it never happened...

[mistermack]

The law distinguishes between burglary and robbery based on the presence and potential threat of harm to the victim. Taking something from someone's unoccupied home does not threaten the occupants. Home invasions are not "burglaries" they are "robberies" because they take place when the occupants are present and therefore their lives and safety are placed in jeopardy.

That's why sticking up a bank or a jewelry store is not burglary, it's robbery, and you're damned right a victim has a right to use deadly force to prevent robbery.

In this case, while he handed her the money, she robbed him of it by leaving without providing the promised service, which is the same, legally, as pointing a gun at him and demanding he hand over the cash. The law always treats crimes where the victim is present more harshly than when they are not present. And justifiably so.

You obviously don't understand what you actually write.
She didn't rob him, by your own definition. There was no violence, or threat of violence.
What she did was obtain money by deception. That's illegal, but it's not robbery.

Except in the US, apparently.

[pErvinalia]

My points (when I make the effort)

Sadly, this is such a rare occurrence that your opponents have a huge statistical advantage in simply assuming that it never happened...

Why should I make the effort?? I've been there and done that. Most people just respond with idiotic toilet humour. I tried to beat them, but in the end had to join them.

[JimC]

Sure, but there's no absolute morality, as you'd like there to be, to say that shooting someone who breaks into your home is absolutely wrong.

There are very few things that are absolutely wrong. Justin Bieber and Aubergines are the only two that spring to mind...

Karl Marx, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot spring to my mind.

I'm pretty sure they have taken up permanent residence there...

The haunting spectre of marxist evil...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My points (when I make the effort)

Sadly, this is such a rare occurrence that your opponents have a huge statistical advantage in simply assuming that it never happened...

Why should I make the effort?? I've been there and done that. Most people just respond with idiotic toilet humour. I tried to beat them, but in the end had to join them.

Agreed, you make no effort whatsoever to make an effort.

So... why do you clearly care so much that it makes that vein on the side of your forehead dance?

[pErvinalia]

I clearly do still make an effort (for some unknown reason) from time to time. And when I do, people like you can't fucking read simple English. Back to toilet humour, I guess...

[Blind groper]

Seth suggests that if there is any intrinsic morality, it is survival of the fittest.

What that view ignores is the fact that human survival since before we were Homo sapiens depends on social cooperation. Humans, whether in primitive hunter/gatherer tribal situations, or in the modern world, survive best by working with the people around us.

As a result of that, we have evolved a number of qualities to enhance social togetherness, including the need for human company, altruism, empathy, and caring for others.

Sadly, for primitive cultures (which includes city street gangs, and drug pushers) the cooperation and altruism is often confined to their local tribe. But the need to work together remains, and that includes helping others. Hence morality.

[cronus]

Morality? I have no need of that hypothesis.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have found evidence of a morel tea towel. Surely, if this exists, then so does morel tea?

morels-indigo_grande.jpg (98.93 KiB) Viewed 2534 times