Justice

Justice
2006.03.20 0:35

You shan't kill others.
This seems iron axiom, but actually it's not, instead we have to say that You shan't kill others unless they do harm us.
When we found venom in our society, what shall we do? We keep on enduring without doing anything? No, it's not the kind of answer. We have to expel him out of the society we belong. It seems to me we need another venom to remove him. Actually we don't call the way to expel him venom, it's justice instead.
Justice should be done not only from someone's decision, but collectively. Otherwise we all are likely to be victimised from him. That ought not to be done. Oftentimes we our society as a whole collectively decides to execute someone. If someone did harm to us, we call it justice not manslaughter.
List all Journal entries
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Justice Preferences Top 8 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 8 comments 0: 8 comments 1: 8 comments 2: 2 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bad translation(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowski.angelfire@com> on 2006.03.20 21:34 (#14955958) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2006.04.30 3:54)
If you're referring to the biblical commandment. It should be more correctly translated as "thou shalt not murder". This allows for self-defense, warfare and other legally justifiable uses of lethal force.
--Government IS the problem.
Consistency(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2006.03.20 22:35 (#14956162) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2006.04.24 18:35)
I don't find the translation "thou shalt not murder" rather than "though shalt not kill" is compatable with looney teachings to "turn the other cheek", "forgive 490 times" (rather than seven), etcetera.
I believe that rightists are trying to turn a looney religion sane.
Better to give it up, IMO.
Mercedo: The idea of self-defense is that one acts to prevent harm to oneself or others, or else further harm. If they've already done you harm, the proper defense in law is provocation, as it's too late for self-defense to apply.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org]
[ Parent ]
Re:Consistency(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowski.angelfire@com> on 2006.03.20 22:42 (#14956192) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2006.04.30 3:54)
You're mixing New Testament with Old Testament."Thou shalt not murder" is Old Testament, and I've heard it from hebrew speakers that it is a bad translation to use kill instead of murder."Turn the other cheek" is New Testament.I'm not a rightest and I'm certainly not religious, but I have studied religion quite a bit out of morbid curiosity.
--Government IS the problem.
[ Parent ]
You're right, of course(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2006.03.20 23:06 (#14956321) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2006.04.24 18:35)
I think that my real point is that so many "Christians" pick and choose between the Old and the New Testaments. Actually, that's not fair: they pick the Old Testament, and interpret the New, emphasising Jesus's sufferring over his teaching, since his massage is utterly incompatable with their political beliefs.
Christianity, properly interpretted, is communism.
The "Christian Right" should covert to Judaism en masse, IMO.
Yeah, I find religion strangely fascinating, myself.
--The death [tinyurl.com] of reason [slashdot.org]
[ Parent ]
Re:You're right, of course(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowski.angelfire@com> on 2006.03.20 23:15 (#14956364) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2006.04.30 3:54)
In Texas, the Christian Right is converting to Islam because Christianity isn't fundamentalist enough.*rolls eyes*Now, if God himself appears on Earth and takes control of the world by instituting a literal theocracy, I'll bow down and do whatever He wants, communism, facism, democracy, whatever. Until that day...
--Government IS the problem.
[ Parent ]
Re:Consistency(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.03.22 3:20 (#14965567) (http://mercedo-compl.../2006/04/zen-ya.html Last Journal: 2006.04.28 3:11)
Mercedo: The idea of self-defense is that one acts to prevent harm to oneself or others, or else further harm.
Agreed.
If they've already done you harm, the proper defense in law is provocation, as it's too late for self-defense to apply.
My understanding as to provocation is even if someone committed crime in response to other's provocative acts, that wouldn't become a good excuse or reason for those who committed the crime to be lenient.
A little bit philosophical though, self-defence and acts against provocation, functionally speaking both are similar, but self-defence is lawful act, yet acts against provocation is unlawful.
Provocation is offence, being provoked by someone, something.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
[ Parent ]
Re:bad translation(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2006.03.21 1:19 (#14957297) (http://mercedo-compl.../2006/04/zen-ya.html Last Journal: 2006.04.28 3:11)
If so, my argument was entirely out of the point. Now I made it clearer than before. Writing articles makes me know clearer notions. This is also one of the Slashdot effects.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
[ Parent ]
Re:bad translation(Score:1)
by eglamkowski (631706) <eglamkowski.angelfire@com> on 2006.03.21 1:46 (#14957517) (http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski Last Journal: 2006.04.30 3:54)
Most people don't realize it is a bad translation and go through their entire lives thinking it is "thou shalt not kill". Common problem.
--Government IS the problem.
[ Parent ]