Cite that one in eight are innocent?
Who are the ruling elite exactly? The persons voted into power by you and me? Because I don’t really see my City Councilor, Member of Provincial Parliament, or Member of Parliament as being particularly elite.
I am not a part of the ruling elite and I would hate for Barack Obama to be assassinated more than I would hate for a person who murdered his wife and daughters to be executed. You can call it pure rhetoric if you like, but it’s part of the social contract as I and many others see it. There are laws against murdering me as well.
So be dismissive, but people are telling you why they make their decisions.
Are you kidding? You never heard of Abraham Lincoln? Or was he a plebe? The term “assassin”, specifically, implies the sort of precise and expensive kill I specifically associate with powerful, wealthy targets. (To take out the local grocer, you hire a thug.)
Which people are taught this and how? I was not taught that it was OK (outside of a defensive war).
And are we taught the assassinating him was a good thing ? And was the assassin sent by another member of the ruling class ? No, and no.
We all are; it’s part of our culture, and has been since forever.
Cite?
Apparently you’ve never heard of a guy called John Wilkes-Booth, who actually WAS a member of the ruling class. Do a little bit of research on the Booth family. They were famous actors, the equivalent of say, the Baldwins. The last play the Booth brothers were in together, ironically was Julius Caesar. Edwin Booth started what has been ever since then one of the premiere social clubs in New York City, ‘The Player’s Club’, across from Gramercy Park.
Got a cite for that? Because, like I said, I was never taught that aggressive war is OK. Never. Perhaps that was true a hundred or two hundred years ago, but not now.
So…what you’re saying is that No True Assassination is targeted at the wealthy and powerful?
It it’s necessary then how can it be anything but morally ok?
Marc
Agreed: it seems that when some (like lekatt) say “killing is never right,” they really mean something like “killing is never pleasant” or “killing is always unfortunate.”
If killing is “never right” but sometimes necessary/justified, then you’re really saying that killing is sometimes right.
So ? An actor isn’t part of the ruling class.
:rolleyes: Oh, please. America’s been involved in any number of aggressive wars, including Iraq right now.
No, I’m saying that they are seldom either sent by one member of the ruling class against another, and even more seldom openly approved of. Yes, they often ARE aimed at the ruling class, which is exactly why they are disapproved of.
God, you didn’t read a damn word I wrote did you? They were hobnobbing with the wealthiest of the wealthy in American society at the time.
So…you’re saying that murder of the plebes is openly approved of? By whom?
If we look back at the post that started this, you said “That’s also why executions are approved of ( since the powerful almost never get executed ), while assassination is considered bad ( because assassination puts the powerful at risk, not the expendable commoners ).” I contend that this is completely incorrect. It’s like saying that birds fly because they’re lighter than rocks and that rocks fall because they’re heavier than birds. It doesn’t matter that your supposed reasons are based in true facts - (execution does kill mostly the poor/rocks are heavier than birds) - they’re still not the real reasons for the reactions mentioned.
People do seem to get more upset in general at celebrities or their leaders getting killed than total strangers getting killed - but this has exactly nothing to do with the power or wealth of the celebrities or leaders. It has everything to do with the amount of sympathy and interest the person has in the victim. Kill “my” president/favored celebrity, will they? But kill someone poor that they actually know and care more about, and they’ll become even more upset.
And, of course, executions are approved of (by those that approve of them) because the people who get executed are believed to have earned it. It is not caused by the fact that violent criminals tend to rise from the poorer classes. I consider this to be obvious and observe that you have backed up your ridiculous claim to the contrary with absolutely nothing. Feel free to rectify that if you can - I won’t hold my breath though.
But they were marketed as defensive wars, else people wouldn’t have accepted them. I’m still waited for the cite that we’re taught to believe that aggressive war is OK. I’m not holding my breath on that…
He has stated the statistic incorrectly.
Stated correctly, it’s that there approximately 1 person on death row found innocent for every 8.5 that are executed. (Based upon about 129 acquittals, and 1100 executions.)
That is not the same thing.
If irt were so simple the soldiers would not suffer guilt. Yet many do. They come back and are haunted. The Iraq war with its up close and personal type of killing will result in many young men suffering mental problems. It is wrong to kill. Sometimes we can justify it by property rights . Sometimes we send soldiers far away to fight presumably for their country. But there is a price to pay and many will pay it.
That killing is never OK. Ever. Not even in self-defence.
We should go back to this system.
To quote Kevin Costner’s character in The Postman - “Wouldn’t it be great if wars were fought only by the assholes who started them?”