RE: THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".

in leftist •  5 months ago 

Thanks for the source.

That says a lot about how people who don't want to deal with their personal history incite others to take that personal struggle as ‘their own’. You could say that under this premise, those who didn't want to kill their inner demons/ideas and instead picked people as their targets to murder went along with it. Killing a family in their sleep is about the most mangy thing a man can do.

Ultimately, it can probably also be considered a suicide mission as far as Nat Turner is concerned, who presumably wasn't unaware that the cavalry would be sent after him, but in his fanaticism chose to ignore it. Since he was a slave, he probably realised that his actions would hurt his fellow blacks, but he apparently didn't care and preferred to indiscriminately murder whites for personal revenge. Ergo, he didn't give a shit about ‘the black cause’.

To call him "deeply religious" as it were in the text, I think, is injustice towards being religiously educated.

On the other hand, the whites acting hysterically, might also be something to investigate critically. As it seems, hatred and fear were the winners and rationalism was not.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  

it's a little funny to me that when one group enslaves and murders and slaughters

it's sort of dismissed as a "systemic tragedy"

but when a few individuals try and do the same thing on a much much smaller scale

somehow they're "monsters"

See by case and not by race.

  ·  5 months ago  ·   (edited)

Who slaughters but could have done otherwise, is not excused.
Murder is not excused, only because it happens on a smaller scale than the murder on a greater scale. Murder is murder.

it seems to boil down to

when a powerful group murders

it's heroic

You must be talking to someone else, not to me.
I neither "dismiss" murder as "systemic tragedy" nor do I see anything heroic in one group killing the other.

what disturbs you in my answer, if so?

what do most people mean by "murder"

generally speaking "unjustified killing"

what do most people mean by "unjustified"

generally speaking "it's ok to kill people we don't like and NOT ok to kill people we do like"

Do you ask me, what I myself think of murder?

do you believe "murder" is "unjustified killing"

and if so

what do you think qualifies as "unjustified"

I believe what the law says about murder.
As I understand the legislation here, it defines murder as ‘a wilful and intentional killing’. I look it now up.
Quoted from the penal code:

A murderer is who

out of lust for murder, for the satisfaction of sexual desire, out of greed or otherwise low motives,
maliciously or cruelly or by means dangerous to the public or
in order to facilitate or conceal another criminal offence,
kills a person.

In order to be able to justify something as murder, I would need to have the the aspects of murder to see fulfilled. If you give me a case - like you did with the story of Nat Turner, it's what I have withdrawn from it. IF it's true what had been said.