Reply #94: Think again. Or get help.

[TPaine7]

We all know that we don't speak the language of Martin Luther, or King James's translators, let alone Paul (who actually spoke Greek, of course), and that religious types who do, are fundies, speaking their own code, or perhaps sometimes theologians, speaking theirs. Those codes are not actually relevant to our subject. We aren't dealing in theology.

Which is why I didn't introduce quotes from a religious text into this discussion. Of course, now the irrelevancy of your own source is your point.

Me: But you've already shown that the words are synonyms in normal language.

You: "The words"? Just and justified? Nope. Righteous and justified? Nope. Why would you say that I have shown something I have not shown?

And yes, one dictionary definition of "righteous" is "morally justified". If that were the impression that the use of the word were intended to convey, I can't think of why someone would not simply say "justified".

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196259#196501

"Morally justified" is synonymous with "righteous." The subject matter shows we are talking about the moral dimension, as any fool can see. But feel free to play on that missing word. Knock yourself out.

Me: Self defense is a right.

You: No, it isn't. It is an exercise of the right to life. As are eating and breathing. Eating pizza, in fact, which of course is also an exercise of the right to liberty.

That's just pathetic. You yourself have said such things, and you were correct when you did. I have a right to life, but not a right to breathe?! Hypertechnical BS.

We don't need no stinking "natural law" here, ta. We really have moved on. We don't let blood to cure disease, either, or claim that the gods approve of slavery. Progress. It's a good thing.

Natural law and any other suchlike crap you might dredge up -- including your own words, the sound of which you are so fond of -- are of no relevance to our subject. We deal in positive law. And in positive law, self-defence is an excuse for the commission of an offence, and precludes punishment. This is because prohibiting the use of force in self-defence would violate the right not to be deprived of life without due process.

I see you've crowned yourself. Last I knew, you were Revered Teacher of Bull Style Kung-Fu. Now you're "we."

It's quite a step up to Empress of Bull. Congratulations.

Now that the festivities are over, let's get back to reality.

We don't need no stinking "natural law" here, ta. We really have moved on.

LOL

"We" needs to understand that "we" has absolutely no authority here. As a matter of fact, part of the reason America has the Second Amendment is to protect the security of this free state against pompous, illegitimate foreign dictators. And it seems to be working. Your serene majesty, the Empress of BS, has stated that she won't come to America because of our gun laws. This citizen, for one, is pleased. The system works.

And don't think I didn't notice you making yourself an authority when you decry it when you imagine you see me doing the same. Hypocrite.

Naturally. Hypocrisy is definitely in your realm.

Me: "It was self-defense, your honor" is a "reason" for one's actions. Naturally you prefer "excuse" as that carries strong implications of guilt and inadequacy.

You: No, it's an excuse, in law, and we're dealing in law, and I prefer "excuse" because it's the correct term, and I'm not a silly undergraduate with a little bit of larnin' and an overweening ego that interferes in my learning anything more.

Funny how you emphasized the wrong meaning; equivocation is such fun, isn't it?

If you say so. Or it could be illiteracy. Or stupidity. Or the gun control reality distortion field.

I'm sane, so I don't think I rule the world. Or America. Or DU. But I did start the thread; the thread is about a philosophical question, with law explicitly excluded:

Duty is, according to dictionary.com, “something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation.” Moral means, according to the same source, “conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to IMMORAL )...”

Putting it all together, a duty is something one is required to do because it conforms to the rules of right conduct. (I left off the legal part because there clearly is not a legal duty to defend oneself in most of America today.)

That's what we're talking about in reality.

As you've demonstrated over and over again, you are incapable of reading when the subject is gun control. You've cited sources to support points 180 degrees away from what they actually say. Repeatedly.

Learn to read, iverglas. Or to think. Or get a friend to help you. It's hard explaining stuff to a pompous, condescending, functionally illiterate online character. It's not that I would mind explaining things down to the intellect of a child if I were faced with the humility and curiosity of a child. That would be fun. Being condescended to by one is tough.

And even if you were right on the subject matter being law, you would have been wrong on the rest:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justify

1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3. Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.

5. Law.
a. to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.

That's your source, exactly as you cited it. It says that in law it is a "reason or excuse." I based my comments on your source. You don't get to cite a source and then impeach it when convenient by quoting law from the Klingon Empire, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Laws of the Empire of Bullshit, or any other source. Really. That stuff may fly in your realm, but this isn't your realm. We aren't your subjects here.

(Ok, you have a few agents.)

It's just my strange and inexplicable fondness for ACCURATE TERMINOLOGY. My livelihood depends in large part on it.

Does your livelihood depend on literacy? Critical thinking? Logical skills?

If so, it better not have anything to do with gun control. I wouldn't want even you to starve.