Simply put, assassination is, by far, the most moral tool in conducting military conflicts between nations
First off, let’s dispense with sugarcoating and linguistic chicanery: the point and purpose of war is to kill people and break things. That destruction may be in the service of any number of strategic goals, but the point of going to war is to bring martial force to bear. For offensive, or defensive reasons, nations unleash martial force when there are people they wish to kill, and/or things they wish to destroy. The fundamental nature of war cannot be avoided.
I’d like to address the claim that an omnipotent, omniscient being, a being that wanted its will to be communicated with perfect clarity and fidelity to all people for all of time, decided to do so by having people grind up pigments in order to stain dead trees and/or animal hides with words.
– Axiom 1: Determinism and the ontological possibility of choice, are mutually exclusive.
– Definition 1: let deterministic mean: “a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.”
– Definition 2: let free will mean : “the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions by making choices”
– Definition 3: let omniscience mean: “knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge”
-Given 1: there is an omniscient entity
-Given 2: humans have free will
– P1: There is an omniscient entity (G1)
– P2: If an entity is omniscient, it will know the starting and ending states of a system, as well as all states in between. (D3)
– P3: if an omniscient entity knows every state, including the ending state of a system before the system gets to that point in time, then events within the system cannot vary from what is destined to happen. (P2)
– P4: Events that are destined to happen can not occur any way other than what is destined to occur. (P3)
– P5: If events cannot occur any way other than what is destined, the cosmos will always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state. (D1)
– P6: If there is an omniscient entity, then the cosmos will always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state. (P4, D1)
– P7: Any system which will always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state, is deterministic. (D1)
– P8: If a system is deterministic, any and all future actions are already destined, and choice is not ontologically possible. (A1, D1, P3, P4)
– P9: Free will requires the ontologically possibility of choice. (D2)
– P10: Free will and determinism are mutually exclusive (A1, D2)
– P11: Reality is deterministic. (P1, P2, P6, P7)
– P12: Humans have free will (G2)
∴ (P1 ⊕ P12 )
I’ve never had any truck with the concept of some sort of universal, inborn morality. It’s always seemed so patently absurd to me, that it wasn’t until later in life when I was exposed to apologists’ moral arguments, that I realized that some people not only buy into the concept of universal morality, they use that as a cornerstone of their conception of reality itself. It’s a tremendously weak argument, one that I can refute in one single word. I’ll start with the TLDR refutation, and then move on to the more loquacious refutation.
Okay, one word refutation for claimed universal morality: sociopaths.
My first video-cast debate.
I’m sorry the sound for my AC was so thoroughly awful. (Did kinda like that my lips blurred on film, that was kinda cool.) Here’s the text for my AC, and I’ll see if I can’t find the time to write up a transcript one of these days.
debate case and counter cases
Obviously, back in the 1950’s, people simply weren’t smart enough to realize that a flimsy desk wouldn’t protect you from the raw fury of a broken strong nuclear bond. Their Loony Tunes routine just highlights how laughably ignorant they were. Right? Continue reading