|
Post by gadreel on May 17, 2018 2:48:25 GMT
So if a police man is a serial killer, that makes serial killing legally sanctioned? merriam-webster dictionary definition of Legality is 1: attachment to or observance of law. 2: the quality or state of being legal according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder. The legality of the holocaust seems a little fuzzy. On the one hand, so far as I can find there were no laws in Nazi Germany making it legal to murder jews or anybody else. So technically, the holocaust may have actually been illegal. On the other hand, Hitler's orders did have force of law. So if he ordered the holocaust, then it would be legal. But there's precious little evidence demonstrating that Hitler directly ordered the holocaust, because the Nazis covered it up (though of course he certainly did). And of course the Nazis were not a group who overly concerned themselves with following laws anyway when it didn't suit them to do so. On the Gripping hand, the Allies took the view that there was such a thing as a "crime against humanity", meaning "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." So the Allies asserted that there was a law higher than ordinary national laws. And since they'd won the war, they got to do that whether other people think it's fair or not. Which means that yes, the killing of the jews (and others) in the holocaust was not legal but was in fact a crime, regardless of what German law had to say about it. I guess the reality of that is indicated by the fact that the men responsible were arrested, charged, given a fair trial, convicted, and jailed or hanged. Last point first, yes and in particular the Nuremburg trials were intended to allow the possibility of the Germans proving their innocence so as to avoid the possible accusation of a witchhunt. To the legality in Nazi Germany, no there was no codified law supporting the holocaust, and the Germans were a very law abiding people (being one of the reasons that Hitler was able to do what he did in power) which is why the secrecy, if the holocaust had been coded into law it would have been public knowledge, that would not have worked for any number of reasons (yes closer to the end most Germans knew exactly what was happening to the un-desireables but by that time it was too late). Yes you could argue that Hitler's orders had the force of law, which is to some degree what Lugh was promoting, Hitler being the supreme decider could simply say "we are killing the Jews" and it would have been essentially law. However Hitler took great pains to distance himself from the holocaust, so much so in fact that this is a basis of holocaust denial of one sort, that Hitler never wanted to kill the Jews, but the naughty lesser Nazis went and did it without his permission. I think this is laughable, at the end of the day, Hitler had been very clear from even prior to the publication of Mien Kampf that the Jews in particular would be eradicated, most particularly in relation to the 'bankers started ww2' ruse that Hitler propagated to try to ameliorate blame on the good old nazis. At the end of the day my position is that the holocaust contravened German Law by committing murder, and the most damning evidence I see is the secrecy. If they thought they could get away with it, they would have codified it into law so that they could get the German people on board, which would have helped dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 17, 2018 2:49:24 GMT
Holy crap! You Really don't want me to have to post the stats of every contraceptive percentage success and failure rate and multiply that by the number of times people have sex...do you? Please say no! You can do what you want, but birth control with a high failure rate is by definition not birth control. Further, it's silly to pretend that it is some high percentage of abortions. It is perfectly legal, i.e. justified, to get pregnant on purpose just to abort the thing, so there's no need to think of abortion as some grand champion of people who always take precautions. It's a big business specifically because people fail at taking precautions. We all know the reasons for most abortions and it is simply that the woman doesn't want the prekid they produced with a dude for any number of reasons...Although they sure wanted the unprotected sex that night. Bow chicka wow wow!!! the withdrawl method is considered a method of birth control and it has a pretty shitty rate of effectiveness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 2:56:14 GMT
Yes you could argue that Hitler's orders had the force of law, which is to some degree what Lugh was promoting, Hitler being the supreme decider could simply say "we are killing the Jews" and it would have been essentially law. I believe that this is not simply a matter of the political reality - didn't the Nazis alter German law to actually officially state that Hitler's decrees had the formal status of law? Meaning the legally, he literally could do no wrong. Of course whilst Hitler distanced himself from the Holocaust officially and in documentation, it is nevertheless certain that he did in fact order the Holocaust - it's inconceivable that he didn't, really, given the way Germany worked. Which is actually kind of interesting... because since Hitler ordered the Holocaust, then under German law the Holocaust was legal. But a defendant accused of murder would not be able to actually prove that Hitler had ordered it as part of his defence, because there's no evidence of that. So the ironic reality is that you could actually be innocent as a matter of fact, but be found guilty because you were unable to establish that innocence because of the cover up!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 17, 2018 3:08:47 GMT
You can do what you want, but birth control with a high failure rate is by definition not birth control. Further, it's silly to pretend that it is some high percentage of abortions. It is perfectly legal, i.e. justified, to get pregnant on purpose just to abort the thing, so there's no need to think of abortion as some grand champion of people who always take precautions. It's a big business specifically because people fail at taking precautions. We all know the reasons for most abortions and it is simply that the woman doesn't want the prekid they produced with a dude for any number of reasons...Although they sure wanted the unprotected sex that night. Bow chicka wow wow!!! the withdrawl method is considered a method of birth control and it has a pretty shitty rate of effectiveness. I wouldn't consider it birth control unless gambling is birth control. Like everything else, anything can be redefined these days FAKE EDIT: Actually, true blue pull out is kinda effective 4% failure rate. Not great in relation to other BC, but not bad. The problem is what dude is going to pull out perfectly and why would they want to? That Isn't the fault of the BC method though.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 17, 2018 3:14:59 GMT
Yes you could argue that Hitler's orders had the force of law, which is to some degree what Lugh was promoting, Hitler being the supreme decider could simply say "we are killing the Jews" and it would have been essentially law. I believe that this is not simply a matter of the political reality - didn't the Nazis alter German law to actually officially state that Hitler's decrees had the formal status of law? Meaning the legally, he literally could do no wrong. Of course whilst Hitler distanced himself from the Holocaust officially and in documentation, it is nevertheless certain that he did in fact order the Holocaust - it's inconceivable that he didn't, really, given the way Germany worked. Which is actually kind of interesting... because since Hitler ordered the Holocaust, then under German law the Holocaust was legal. But a defendant accused of murder would not be able to actually prove that Hitler had ordered it as part of his defence, because there's no evidence of that. So the ironic reality is that you could actually be innocent as a matter of fact, but be found guilty because you were unable to establish that innocence because of the cover up! I know that there were laws that meant that Hitler could make new laws without consulting anyone, but I thought they still had to be codified somehow, I may have to look that up. Yes, I mean on the basis of how Germany ran, Hitler ordered the holocaust, although I suppose you could argue that he just took Heydrich aside one day and said 'Reiiny old pal (they were chummy), get rid of these Jews for me' and had no idea that he would do anything other than give them all a packed lunch and send them on a boat. But yeah Hitler had been pretty clear, and it seems likely, but that is kind of the point, if there was no paper trail, or even public statement, then there is no law. (unless private conversations became law somehow, in which case there must have been a couple of odd laws regarding bedroom antics " no no, it is the law that you must only twist the penis to the left, Hitler said it to Eva") Again I am not convinced that just cos Hitler said it, it was law,but yeah that is an interesting mind fuck.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 17, 2018 3:42:27 GMT
Holy crap! You Really don't want me to have to post the stats of every contraceptive percentage success and failure rate and multiply that by the number of times people have sex...do you? Please say no! You can do what you want, but birth control with a high failure rate is by definition not birth control.
Further, it's silly to pretend that it is some high percentage of abortions. It is perfectly legal, i.e. justified, to get pregnant on purpose just to abort the thing, so there's no need to think of abortion as some grand champion of people who always take precautions. It's a big business specifically because people fail at taking precautions. We all know the reasons for most abortions and it is simply that the woman doesn't want the prekid they produced with a dude for any number of reasons...Although they sure wanted the unprotected sex that night. Bow chicka wow wow!!! Are you serious? IF people think that they are practicing birth control, then it is 'birth control'. americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/birth-control-failure/Just multiply those failure rates with the number of times people have sex. As I said, if it fails, and it is a large percentage of unwanted births, then IF COURSE it is a large percentage of abortions. DUH! Re para 3. That is an inaccurate uniformed and sexist comment.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 17, 2018 10:32:30 GMT
Depends on the definition of "justified". Do you think abortion is justified in the case of a woman engaging in a promiscuous lifestyle leading to unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy yet is simply unwilling to deal the consequences?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 17, 2018 10:38:49 GMT
How so, there was no codified law that allowed the killing of Jews (or anyone). The holocaust was illegal killing as far as Nazi Germany's laws are concerned, why do you think it was kept a secret? As well as the holocaust you have the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge regime that murdered up to 3 million. Then for this example, you will need to show that the civic law was amended there making murder generally (and genocide specifically) legal in Cambodia, rather than just being 'policy'. I must admit not having much historical knowledge of this. Further, you will need to show that 'proper' genocide has ever been permissible under international law, most especially since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. Yep. And Christians used to, by due process of law, persecute the innocent to find and burn 'witches'. The persecution of native Americans by the way, and the institution of slavery was justified by, er ... Bible verse. You point is moot, since you are of course fully entitled, just as I am, to object to any form of killing morally, even though authorised by the law, and I defend your right to do so. I am afraid we must disagree over whether morality is ultimately objective or subjective, although objectively, we are told that all scripture, which a we know includes the notion of justified killing, is instructional. But the fact still remains that, if it is explicitly lawful , killing cannot be 'illegal' and can be justified under the law. Indeed, I would expect you to argue this very point when it comes to your purported deity authorising rape, mutilation, and murder in war, or the supposed widescale drowning of mankind, on the basis that, in those examples, God is the law. Have you ever wondered why there are no Amalekites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites today? If you believe the Biblical accounts of history in the Old Testament are accurate, it may be because God commanded the Israelites to slaughter those people group .. men, women, children, infants, and even animals. In my opinion, which I hope you would respect the right to express as much as I do yours, that is not action of a completely moral god. (That just points up a fine distinction that can be made between something justified and something moral, and which we can I think agree on.) But such considerations apart, it is still the case that calling the international spread of legalised abortions a 'genocide' is highly questionable, at least under any reasonable definition of the word. No abortionists have appeared before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 17, 2018 10:43:54 GMT
And I think you dodged the point, you claimed that it must have been ok to kill Jews because it was not illegal and therefore not murder. You were wrong. Under the Nazi government regime it was not illegal. ^Needs to go read some history books and a dictionary! For the record, killing Jews without due process was absolutely ILLEGAL. That’s why they had this thing called the Nuremberg trials! And anyone who tried to us me the excuse “I was only following orders” was burned. That’s why this excuse fails in the military today as a proper defense for commission of a crime.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 17, 2018 10:51:28 GMT
Under the Nazi government regime it was not illegal. ^Needs to go read some history books and a dictionary! For the record, killing Jews without due process was absolutely ILLEGAL. That’s why they had this thing called the Nuremberg trials! And anyone who tried to us me the excuse “I was only following orders” was burned. That’s why this excuse fails in the military today as a proper defense for commission of a crime. Indeed. The fact that the Nazis ultimately tried to cover up their crimes by burning records and levelling camps & etc - a futile exercise if genocide was previously distributed far and wide, say, as part of a revised criminal law system - rather makes the point too.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on May 17, 2018 11:16:02 GMT
Depends on the definition of "justified". Do you think abortion is justified in the case of a woman engaging in a promiscuous lifestyle leading to unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy yet is simply unwilling to deal the consequences? Yes. Such inferior genes should not infest to a degree that an entire lifeform is created that is polluted by them.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 17, 2018 11:17:22 GMT
Abortion is a tough one for me. In general, I don't like the idea, but I'm not a woman so don't think I should be telling them what to do with their bodies. I have no problem ending pregnancies at very early stages when it's just a handful of cells. I find late term abortions very unsettling and don't mind at all that they aren't permitted in most states. But, I don't think of the unborn as a person who can be murdered.
Is the govt willing to pay prenatal care? If not, then I think they ought to stay out of it and let the woman decide. I am not impressed by the conservatives approach to the issue...using it as a defining aspect of a candidates overall political position by labeling anyone who is at all pro-choice a murderer and then acting as if they really care about the fetus but really seeming to be more interested in controlling reproductive activities because they bundle it with homosexuality and term it a "liberal" thing. It does seem very much to me like how Carlin puts it...they dearly love the unborn, but once born if the baby is so unfortunate as to be born into a poor situation, they are mere leeches on society, welfare sludge, a drain on our govt supported healthcare system.
My vote doesn't depend on how a candidate feels about abortion. It's a personal issue for me, not a political one. So I didn't answer the survey because of how the question was worded.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 17, 2018 11:35:09 GMT
It can be...and I’m surprised there aren’t more can be’s.
Surely most people would agree there are potentially good reasons and potentially bad reasons for a woman to abort her child.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 17, 2018 12:00:54 GMT
gozSo if a person thinks peeing on their foot before having sex will prevent pregnancy, they simply chose poorly regarding birth control? in any event, the failure rate on your chart are including human error & negligence Still, I'm not sure why you are persisting in coming up with a reason why people have abortions when it's not necessary and especially when you are trying to link two stats with no evidence of having a link - abortions numbers to birth control failures. Why can't you simply say that abortions are justified all the the time and leave it at that. By saying that, there is no need for this pretend noble reason. The act itself is noble because the couple do nothing wrong for having sex - protected or not.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 17, 2018 12:21:10 GMT
I don't kill anything unless it's something I plan on eating.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 17, 2018 13:30:26 GMT
Do you think abortion is justified in the case of a woman engaging in a promiscuous lifestyle leading to unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy yet is simply unwilling to deal the consequences? This is a good example for a loaded question. If the pregnant woman makes the decision, and if it's her decision alone, to have an abortion, then the abortion is justified. And deciding to have an abortion is dealing with the consequences of unprotected sex. Which makes your question a loaded one. However, forcing a woman to have an abortion, or even forcing an abortion on her without her consent and against her wishes, is not justified in my opinion. In short: The decision whether to abort or not should be the woman's decision alone. If it is, then the decision is justified.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 17, 2018 13:57:00 GMT
I don't kill anything unless it's something I plan on eating. Never used disinfectant or swotted a fly then, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 17, 2018 14:29:50 GMT
Do you think abortion is justified in the case of a woman engaging in a promiscuous lifestyle leading to unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy yet is simply unwilling to deal the consequences? This is a good example for a loaded question. If the pregnant woman makes the decision, and if it's her decision alone, to have an abortion, then the abortion is justified. And deciding to have an abortion is dealing with the consequences of unprotected sex. Which makes your question a loaded one. However, forcing a woman to have an abortion, or even forcing an abortion on her without her consrnt and against her wishes, is not justified in my opinion. In short: The decision whether to abort or not should be the woman's decision alone. If it is, then the decision is justified. Wow. Honestly how people can casually believe the decision to terminate an innocent(literally the most innocent) human life can ever be justified, like it’s nothing, is beyond me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 14:30:58 GMT
Depends on the definition of "justified". Do you think abortion is justified in the case of a woman engaging in a promiscuous lifestyle leading to unprotected sex resulting in pregnancy yet is simply unwilling to deal the consequences? In such a case getting an abortion IS dealing with the consequences. It's just not doing so in a way that suits you.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 17, 2018 14:31:06 GMT
I don't kill anything unless it's something I plan on eating. Never used disinfectant or swotted a fly then, eh? Apologies.. I meant nothing larger than a hamster. I eat some black ants that come into my house every summer, let's them know it's personal. House flies are not good to eat, too dirty. I've researched what insects are good to eat and which ones to avoid. I think most people who are against abortion are not against the killing so much, but the shameful waste of a potential protein source.
|
|