Bush rapes the internet

[HeartofShadows]

Well this shit happens and on a later note I agree with renegade to an extent(Shocks!!).
I believe that protests are pretty useless and only force would have a chance at changing anything.
before I sound crazy I didn't mean to go out and kill the shit out of everybody you come across or anything like that, I only ment that if you had your own goals in mind or something like that and it differed from others then killing would be a unavoidable circumstance because others may stand in your way or worst try to kill you and self defense is shaky nowadays at best anyway.
I'm not saying anybodies goals are good or evil but I'm well just saying that oh you got my drift.

As for people throwing around the definition murderer..

Murderer=1. unlawful 2. killing 3. of another human person 4. with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought."

[i-am-the-liquor]

still gets a point across better than talking...

[thewake]

Rebelnerd Wrote:yeah, i fail to see how mass murder will save the internet. this is a technological war so far, so why not use technology to fight back? try and establish safe methods of communication, and if the government ends up taking over the internet then sabotage it. that will prove a point, and with so many people connected to the internet, it will prove a point to them too.

Make a Shadownet, like in the Star Wars Expanded Universe. It's be pretty awesome, but I wonder if there isn't already something like it.

[Thought Criminal]

GREED

[Puchiko]

Heart of Shadows Wrote:As for people throwing around the definition murderer..

Murderer=1. unlawful 2. killing 3. of another human person 4. with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought."

Well, the first three match-the fourth is questionable. However, I'm not sure of your definition-especially the unlawful part. The whole legality versus legitimity thing. For example, honour killings might not be illegal in Saudi Arabia, but I consider them to be murders.

So I looked at the Wikipedia article for "malice aforethought":

Quote:Specifically in the criminal law, malice aforethought (or malice prepense) is the element of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") which must accompany the actus reus of death, in order to secure a conviction for murder under the common law.

Malice aforethought is a precisely defined legal term that does not correspond to the lay definitions of either of its constituent words. It means one of any of the following states of mind concurrent with an act or omission that resulted in death of a person. One textbook defines it as "a term of art if not a term of deception."[1] The author further states that "murder does not require either spite or premeditation. Mercy killing can be murder, so can a killing where the intent is conceived on the instant." In English law the mens rea requirement is an intention to cause death or to cause serious injury. Intention in this context is found either when the perpetrator acts with the purpose of causing death or serious injury, or, following Reg. v. Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82, where death or serious injury is a 'virtually certain' result of the perpetrator's act and the perpetrator realises that death or serious injury is a virtually certain result.

So according to this, the malice aforethought requirement is met as well, as the intent to kill is present. Therefore, the definition of murderer fits.

Even if it didn't though, I think the argument I presented before would be valid even if murderer was replaced with "someone who kills (innocent) people for a shitty reason". "Innocent" is in brackets, because it would depend on whom he killed.

[thewake]

Honor killings are actually called duels, Puchiko.
I personally think that they should be legal with mutual consent. Doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and doesn't mean it isn't homocide.

I wouldn't do it, personally.

[Dragon4Anarchy]

therenagadeoffunk Wrote:its a good way of making a point, talking and protests dont work as well as killing a man infront of the white house

That's quite extreme, but then again so is taking away our freedom. I say if you're going to take such a measure do so only on government officials, because that my friends is self defense, they take our natural rights away and enslave us under their system with the threat of violence, and steal with their taxes, it's the same concept as killing a guy mugging you in an alley, self defense. Don't worry though, continue to speak freely and american government will turn to open tyrranny and martial law within a decade or two if not sooner, then you can openly be defending yourself against their troops as they march into your neighborhood to gather you all up and lock you away in prisons and/or concentration camps for the basic free speech the bill of rights and constitution were made to protect.

[Puchiko]

W-Dog32 Wrote:Honor killings are actually called duels, Puchiko.
I personally think that they should be legal with mutual consent. Doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and doesn't mean it isn't homocide.

I wouldn't do it, personally.

Ah, I should have been more specific-what I was thinking of upon posting this were females being killed by family members because they damaged the pride of the family (e.g. pre-marital sex). If they do it in Germany (large Muslim minority), they lock you up. If you do it in Saudi Arabia, it's okay.

Another example of murder condemned by law is below:

Quote:Perhaps the most dramatic example of this sort of thinking comes from Iran where six members of a state militia were found innocent of murder by the Iranian Supreme Court because the six human beings they brutally killed were all regarded by the killers as "morally corrupt."

No one denied that the killings happened; instead the killings were justified in a manner analogous to how one can justify killing someone in self-defense. Rather than claiming that their lives were in danger, however, the killers claimed that they had the authority under Islamic law to kill people who had not been properly punished by the state for grossly immoral behavior. All of the victims suffered greatly by being stoned or drowned, and in one case an engaged couple was killed simply because they were walking together in public.

Three lower courts had originally upheld the men's convictions, finding that a belief that someone is "morally corrupt" is insufficient grounds to justify killing a human being. The Iranian Supreme Court disagreed with the other courts and agreed with senior clerics who have argued that Muslims have a duty to enforce the moral standards handed down by God. Even Mohammad Sadegh Al-e-Eshagh, a Supreme Court judge who didn't take part in the case and who says that killings done without a court order should be punished, was willing to agree that certain moral "offenses" can be justifiably punished by the people — offenses like adultery and insulting Muhammad.

In the final analysis, this ruling means that anyone can get away with murder by simply claiming that the victim was morally corrupt. In Iran, personal religious morality has been given precedence over neutral civil laws and standards of conduct. Under civil laws, everyone is supposed to be judged by the same neutral standards; now, everyone can be judged by the personal standards of random strangers — standards based on their own personal interpretation of their private religious beliefs.

[thewake]

Lol, let's kill Iran's President and say he is corrupt.

[Puchiko]

W-Dog32 Wrote:Lol, let's kill Iran's President and say he is corrupt.

lol

That's only reserved for Muslims though.

[HeartofShadows]

I kinda see what you mean puchiko and What dragon said was what I was trying to get out.

As for the murder subject..

I hate my boss because he treats us like crap, cuts our paychecks, hours and sends us home early even though we take the time to come out there without any warning so I butcher him up with a cleaver in his office. To me this is murder..

[monkey]

Why dont we just build an illegal internet?

[KitsuneSefam]

--monkey666-- Wrote:Why dont we just build an illegal internet?

Huh, maybe because all the giant internet/cable companies or the government own the lines?