Principles require you to cement your feet. Sounds good on paper, but the reality is principle does not always equal actions that lead to positive outcomes. You could say the Democrats are principled in their methods to subjugate citizens, so not the be all to be all answers you might be looking for.
then they don't stand on principle. Principles are things you show no quarter for. if there principle is to slowly concede ground that can't really be considered a principle unless your gonna count cowardice as a principle
If one with principles against murder sees many murderers set free to murder time and time again. And he decides to use this principle against murder to prove a point by committing the most vile and atrocious murder, gets convicted, yet the state reinstates a no murderer ever set free policy. Is the blood of the victim in his case still on his hands, or does the blood of potential victims of future repeat murderers who were never set free cover the sin of the principled murderers murder?
False equivalence. I said nothing of murdering a murderer, nor which context the act occured in. I merely inferred that in order to force the state to reinstate a no tolerance policy, one murdered a person in such a way as to show horror and destruction of humanity on such an unequal scale that no doubt be left in anyone's mind that a no tolerance policy is the only option. Therefore the act of self defense never enters the equation. Nor do I believe it, self defense, to be murder, simply an act that might kill. The intent of my response is to suggest that one that commits a heinous act, regardless of the rationale, is still guilty of that heinous act, yet may also he reponsible for the responding acts that might save lives, yet still does nothing to relieve one of the guilt of the act within itself.
muslims use the bible, rastafarians use the bible, jews use the bible, catholics, christians, mandaeists, people all over the world use the bible. it applies to everyone. ;)
Principles require you to cement your feet. Sounds good on paper, but the reality is principle does not always equal actions that lead to positive outcomes. You could say the Democrats are principled in their methods to subjugate citizens, so not the be all to be all answers you might be looking for.
eh i believe principles are extremely important as is the saying “A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
i believe in American principles what the founding fathers wanted not the crap we have now.
then they don't stand on principle. Principles are things you show no quarter for. if there principle is to slowly concede ground that can't really be considered a principle unless your gonna count cowardice as a principle
I don’t see how standing on principles can be bad. An example would be helpful to understand what you are saying.
If one with principles against murder sees many murderers set free to murder time and time again. And he decides to use this principle against murder to prove a point by committing the most vile and atrocious murder, gets convicted, yet the state reinstates a no murderer ever set free policy. Is the blood of the victim in his case still on his hands, or does the blood of potential victims of future repeat murderers who were never set free cover the sin of the principled murderers murder?
False equivalence. I said nothing of murdering a murderer, nor which context the act occured in. I merely inferred that in order to force the state to reinstate a no tolerance policy, one murdered a person in such a way as to show horror and destruction of humanity on such an unequal scale that no doubt be left in anyone's mind that a no tolerance policy is the only option. Therefore the act of self defense never enters the equation. Nor do I believe it, self defense, to be murder, simply an act that might kill. The intent of my response is to suggest that one that commits a heinous act, regardless of the rationale, is still guilty of that heinous act, yet may also he reponsible for the responding acts that might save lives, yet still does nothing to relieve one of the guilt of the act within itself.
We might be arguing the same case from different angles
there are 10 commandments, they're simple. follow them. ;)
guess I didn't understand the question =/
muslims use the bible, rastafarians use the bible, jews use the bible, catholics, christians, mandaeists, people all over the world use the bible. it applies to everyone. ;)
and the commandments are part of what is called divine law. its not a christian thing, it just is.