No, its relevancy is difficult to grasp. - Edit 3
Before modification by (beat.) at 16/11/2010 07:30:31 AM
I didn't realise that's what we were talking about. I don't think it has anything to do with Snoop's analogy, or the matter of your subjectivity. You said treason was OK in that case because God gave the green light.
You have to either take that back, or simply say yes, you are being subjective, that treason is only OK if it's for a cause you support.
Was I, or Snoop, or anyone trying to rationalize the murder of women and children? No. Is the Al-Qaida? Yes. And, not that it's necessary, but if they wanted to show us any examples of what they think of as a tyrannical power murdering women and children, they would have no problem what so ever.
Right. Uh. So you're agreeing that the theory of social contract is naive? See that's not what I got from your previous message. You're very confusing.
You have to either take that back, or simply say yes, you are being subjective, that treason is only OK if it's for a cause you support.
Turn it around; show me where the British crown was murdering women and children (in America, anyway) and you might have some basis for rationalizing doing the same in resistance to it.
Was I, or Snoop, or anyone trying to rationalize the murder of women and children? No. Is the Al-Qaida? Yes. And, not that it's necessary, but if they wanted to show us any examples of what they think of as a tyrannical power murdering women and children, they would have no problem what so ever.
As to my argument presupposing my conclusion, take it up with Jefferson, Locke, Rousseau et alia, because they routinely argued that government is no more than a social contract, and loses its legitimacy when it defaults on that contract.
Right. Uh. So you're agreeing that the theory of social contract is naive? See that's not what I got from your previous message. You're very confusing.