Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal mercedo's Journal: Justice 8

Journal by mercedo

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Justice More

Justice

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • 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

      • 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.
        • 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.

          • 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...
      • 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 pr

    • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Close