|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 17, 2013 4:06:10 GMT
In the time of a massive terrorist attack...would it be morally right to break the constitution to save millions of lives. I am not trying to imply the trashing of our freedoms in exchange for a false sense of protection. But this question has been eating at the back of my mind for a while. Obviously it is burned by our government whenever they get the chance. This is without a doubt, wrong. But if the system got corrected would it be wrong to break the constitution for the safety of our country? And trust me when I say I am all for following the constitution 100% of the time...I am curious if there is ever an exception... also under what kind of circumstances?
~DarkShadow
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorKat on Sept 17, 2013 12:09:42 GMT
In the time of a massive terrorist attack...would it be morally right to break the constitution to save millions of lives. I am not trying to imply the trashing of our freedoms in exchange for a false sense of protection. But this question has been eating at the back of my mind for a while. Obviously it is burned by our government whenever they get the chance. This is without a doubt, wrong. But if the system got corrected would it be wrong to break the constitution for the safety of our country? And trust me when I say I am all for following the constitution 100% of the time...I am curious if there is ever an exception... also under what kind of circumstances? ~DarkShadow No. There are ways to protect the populace without breaking the constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 17, 2013 12:43:06 GMT
In the time of a massive terrorist attack...would it be morally right to break the constitution to save millions of lives. I am not trying to imply the trashing of our freedoms in exchange for a false sense of protection. But this question has been eating at the back of my mind for a while. Obviously it is burned by our government whenever they get the chance. This is without a doubt, wrong. But if the system got corrected would it be wrong to break the constitution for the safety of our country? And trust me when I say I am all for following the constitution 100% of the time...I am curious if there is ever an exception... also under what kind of circumstances? ~DarkShadow In the event of a terrorist attack, if you were to break a bunch of laws...would that be acceptable? That's how you need to think about it. The Constitution is the law that government has to follow! If government can break their laws, then citizens should be able to as well. If citizens are required to uphold the law in the event of a terrorist attack, the government should as well. Make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 17, 2013 13:22:06 GMT
In the time of a massive terrorist attack...would it be morally right to break the constitution to save millions of lives. I am not trying to imply the trashing of our freedoms in exchange for a false sense of protection. But this question has been eating at the back of my mind for a while. Obviously it is burned by our government whenever they get the chance. This is without a doubt, wrong. But if the system got corrected would it be wrong to break the constitution for the safety of our country? And trust me when I say I am all for following the constitution 100% of the time...I am curious if there is ever an exception... also under what kind of circumstances? ~DarkShadow In the event of a terrorist attack, if you were to break a bunch of laws...would that be acceptable? That's how you need to think about it. The Constitution is the law that government has to follow! If government can break their laws, then citizens should be able to as well. If citizens are required to uphold the law in the event of a terrorist attack, the government should as well. Make sense? That makes sense. So should there be a set standard that would allow citizens to break the law in extreme situations (like 3 nukes get dropped on America kind of extreme)? ~DarkShadow |
|
Galt'sGirl
Junior Member
Posts: 29 
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Female
|
Post by Galt'sGirl on Sept 17, 2013 14:43:15 GMT
In the event of a terrorist attack, if you were to break a bunch of laws...would that be acceptable? That's how you need to think about it. The Constitution is the law that government has to follow! If government can break their laws, then citizens should be able to as well. If citizens are required to uphold the law in the event of a terrorist attack, the government should as well. Make sense? That makes sense. So should there be a set standard that would allow citizens to break the law in extreme situations (like 3 nukes get dropped on America kind of extreme)? ~DarkShadow Depends on the law...murder would not be acceptable even in a situation like that! |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 17, 2013 15:22:17 GMT
That makes sense. So should there be a set standard that would allow citizens to break the law in extreme situations (like 3 nukes get dropped on America kind of extreme)? ~DarkShadow Depends on the law...murder would not be acceptable even in a situation like that! Obviously... but keep in mind there is a difference between kill and murder. I would consider myself a constitutionalist (just so there's no misunderstanding. This is just an interesting question ive had in the back of my mind for some time now. I figured it would make for an interesting discussion. |
|
Galt'sGirl
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Female
|
Post by Galt'sGirl on Sept 17, 2013 15:25:02 GMT
Depends on the law...murder would not be acceptable even in a situation like that! Obviously... but keep in mind there is a difference between kill and murder. I would consider myself a constitutionalist (just so there's no misunderstanding. This is just an interesting question ive had in the back of my mind for some time now. I figured it would make for an interesting discussion. Murder is the act of killing. There is no difference between killing and murdering someone. They are synonyms. Yes it does make for interesting discussion, but there's no secular answer here. It really depends on the law at hand. Obviously jaywalking would be the least of our worries at a time like that, but things would only be worse if people were allowed to murder each other. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 17, 2013 15:32:03 GMT
Obviously... but keep in mind there is a difference between kill and murder. I would consider myself a constitutionalist (just so there's no misunderstanding. This is just an interesting question ive had in the back of my mind for some time now. I figured it would make for an interesting discussion. Murder is the act of killing. There is no difference between killing and murdering someone. They are synonyms. Yes it does make for interesting discussion, but there's no secular answer here. It really depends on the law at hand. Obviously jaywalking would be the least of our worries at a time like that, but things would only be worse if people were allowed to murder each other. Murderer is taking the life of an innocent person. Killing doesn't necessarily mean an innocent person. Such as an act of self defense ...that's the only time I would justify killing... while murderer is unacceptable under any circumstances. ~DarkShadow |
|
Galt'sGirl
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Female
|
Post by Galt'sGirl on Sept 17, 2013 16:42:26 GMT
Murder is the act of killing. There is no difference between killing and murdering someone. They are synonyms. Yes it does make for interesting discussion, but there's no secular answer here. It really depends on the law at hand. Obviously jaywalking would be the least of our worries at a time like that, but things would only be worse if people were allowed to murder each other. Murderer is taking the life of an innocent person. Killing doesn't necessarily mean an innocent person. Such as an act of self defense ...that's the only time I would justify killing... while murderer is unacceptable under any circumstances. ~DarkShadow I understand what you mean, but the statement is false. Murder and kill are the same thing. They are synonyms. Look up "kill" in a Thesaurus. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 17, 2013 17:03:10 GMT
Murderer is taking the life of an innocent person. Killing doesn't necessarily mean an innocent person. Such as an act of self defense ...that's the only time I would justify killing... while murderer is unacceptable under any circumstances. ~DarkShadow I understand what you mean, but the statement is false. Murder and kill are the same thing. They are synonyms. Look up "kill" in a Thesaurus. You are right. But if you killed someone in self defense... You wouldn't say I murdered someone in self defense...or at least I hope you wouldn't. I guess Thats what I am trying to get at. |
|
Galt'sGirl
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Female
|
Post by Galt'sGirl on Sept 17, 2013 17:06:55 GMT
I understand what you mean, but the statement is false. Murder and kill are the same thing. They are synonyms. Look up "kill" in a Thesaurus. You are right. But if you killed someone in self defense... You wouldn't say I murdered someone in self defense...or at least I hope you wouldn't. I guess Thats what I am trying to get at. How people use the word "murder" and how it should be used are two very different things. Murder is a synonym for kill. Whether or not people use it that way is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 17, 2013 17:33:53 GMT
You are right. But if you killed someone in self defense... You wouldn't say I murdered someone in self defense...or at least I hope you wouldn't. I guess Thats what I am trying to get at. How people use the word "murder" and how it should be used are two very different things. Murder is a synonym for kill. Whether or not people use it that way is irrelevant. Valid point. |
|
|
|
Post by AmazingDomo on Sept 17, 2013 18:57:22 GMT
In the time of a massive terrorist attack...would it be morally right to break the constitution to save millions of lives. I am not trying to imply the trashing of our freedoms in exchange for a false sense of protection. But this question has been eating at the back of my mind for a while. Obviously it is burned by our government whenever they get the chance. This is without a doubt, wrong. But if the system got corrected would it be wrong to break the constitution for the safety of our country? And trust me when I say I am all for following the constitution 100% of the time...I am curious if there is ever an exception... also under what kind of circumstances? ~DarkShadow If it means the difference between millions of lives being saved, and protecting one person's privacy. I'll take the millions of lives saved thank you. Being free means nothing if you're DEAD. |
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 17, 2013 19:35:14 GMT
In the time of a massive terrorist attack...would it be morally right to break the constitution to save millions of lives. I am not trying to imply the trashing of our freedoms in exchange for a false sense of protection. But this question has been eating at the back of my mind for a while. Obviously it is burned by our government whenever they get the chance. This is without a doubt, wrong. But if the system got corrected would it be wrong to break the constitution for the safety of our country? And trust me when I say I am all for following the constitution 100% of the time...I am curious if there is ever an exception... also under what kind of circumstances? ~DarkShadow If it means the difference between millions of lives being saved, and protecting one person's privacy. I'll take the millions of lives saved thank you. Being free means nothing if you're DEAD. I'd rather die in freedom, then live in slavery. If you prefer safety over freedom, then you deserve neither and will get neither. Also, what makes you think breaching the constitution would save lives? What breach of the constitution would 'save millions of lives'? The constitution is not a set of recommendations that the government can follow at its leisure...it is LAW! Unless you think it should be okay for citizens to break laws to save lives, you should not even consider letting the government do it. There was meant to be a balance of power between the People and the Government. They were meant to keep each other in check. Both the People and the Government have laws they must abide by. Guess which group is NOT following the law? The government can not expect us to follow their laws, when they don't follow ours. Simple concept. |
|
|
|
Post by AmazingDomo on Sept 18, 2013 2:31:39 GMT
If it means the difference between millions of lives being saved, and protecting one person's privacy. I'll take the millions of lives saved thank you. Being free means nothing if you're DEAD. I'd rather die in freedom, then live in slavery. If you prefer safety over freedom, then you deserve neither and will get neither. Also, what makes you think breaching the constitution would save lives? What breach of the constitution would 'save millions of lives'? The constitution is not a set of recommendations that the government can follow at its leisure...it is LAW! Unless you think it should be okay for citizens to break laws to save lives, you should not even consider letting the government do it. There was meant to be a balance of power between the People and the Government. They were meant to keep each other in check. Both the People and the Government have laws they must abide by. Guess which group is NOT following the law? The government can not expect us to follow their laws, when they don't follow ours. Simple concept. Well good. When you are lying in a coffin because you thought hunting was more important than your life, let me know how that works out for you. Letting everyone and anybody own a gun. Conservatives call it "a breach of the constitution", but right now it's real easy for a terrorist to go and pop off a couple dozen students at a school. |
|
