To help ensure your safety.Read again: "...paying to actually DO something..."

If you wanted to "actually DO something" then why go on the hunting cruise
when you could actually DO more by sending the money to a effective
anti-piracy scheme.

If by "actually DO something" you mean personally, then your motivation is to
have the experience of shooting at people. If you motivation was to help
merchant shipping then my first paragraph applies.

Here you go again, doing this thing where you try to use circular logic to invalidate a point you can't effectively counter.

Let's say, instead of this cruise, I wanted to go overseas and feed the hungry. So I go and cook. Now, I could have just sent money, but I decided to go and actually do something. Does that mean I wanted the experience of cooking?

Umm, no.

Let's please stick to common sense when attempted to discuss topics. Thanks.

Well...Yes, I would say it does mean you wanted the experience of feeding
the hungry and there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good experience to
have. If you didn't want that experience, you would not have done it.


The argument isn't circular, it's a fork. i.e. This else that.

But the point is that I wanted the experience of feeding the hungry, and accepted the fact that doing so would mean I will also experience cooking.

Likewise, someone on the pirate cruise may want the experience of stopping pirates and, as such, they will also have to accept that they may end up killing a pirate.

To just make the blanket statement that they want to kill people overly simplifies it, I think.

Aren't "the experience of stopping pirates" and "the experience of killing pirates" interchangeable in this case?

No. I'm sure there would be quite a few people on the cruise - more than will have a chance to actually kill a pirate. But by paying their fare, they will have in fact empowered others to kill a pirate.

But at least you finally acknowledge that this isn't just about killing "people", as you've stated - it's about killing "pirates". Indeed, pirates are people. But people aren't necessarily pirates.

....you thought that I thought that people are necessarily pirates?? :doh:

:O:

Of course not. But you weren't making the distinction, and it IS an important distinction to make.

Naturally, saying that someone wants to kill people versus that someone wants to kill pirates changes the moral equation somewhat.

How does it?

Assuming the tour host asks you to only shoot at pirates and not fishermen,
what does it matter if you came to shoot anyone, so long as you only shoot
pirates?

Aramike, would you find anything objectionable in selling the chance to carry
out state executions?

Perhaps an auction. The highest bidder gets to administer the lethal injection,
throw the switch or open the trap-door for a death-row inmate.

So wait - you're saying that killing an ARMED ATTACKER is the moral equivolent of killing a fisherman?

Huh?That would absolutely be objectionable. It's a good point you make, but it is off the mark.

The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime when he's executed, whereas the pirate is. Furthermore, the deathrow inmate isn't in a position to make the choice whether or not to commit the crime - the pirate is.

These are vast differences.

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.

[quote]
So wait - you're saying that killing an ARMED ATTACKER is the moral equivolent of killing a fisherman?[\quote] ed: wish the multi-quote system still worked


? No.
I'm asking why you think it is ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill
pirates and then kill pirates,

but not ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill any people, pirates
included and then kill pirates (and only pirates).




I don't follow your reasoning here. I don't see how you get from the
points you make to your conclusion. Perhaps you can clear it up...

1. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

1. Deathrow inmates are not in a position to make the choice whether
or not to commit the crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.



There are other bits there I could take issue on, but I would rather wait
until I understand your argument against the sale of 'the chance to carry
out state executions' first.

Sure, I make a disctinction between unborn children and murderous pirates :D It doesn't take much effort on my part, either.

The apparent contradiction says more about the inappropriate use of
"pro-life" as a slogan than it does about any contradiction of concepts or
ideals.


There is no real contradiction, as Neal points out.

Right. And if someone wants to start a "Help Somali pirates becomes legit fishermen" organization*, I would contribute. But once they show up with a gun pointed at me, all bets are off, time to open the season on pirates.



*Oh yeah, we have that, it's called the Red Cross and UN, doesn't always work though.

That's why I hate the term "pro-life", as well as I hate the term "pro-choice". Both are disengenious.

I have no idea what the hell this means. :doh:I don't understand how you cannot understand my reasoning considering that you summarized it perfectly.

I do object to selling outright the chance to kill a deathrow inmate because that inmate is doing nothing to cause himself to be at risk at the moment one would be killing him.

However, these cruises offer the opportunity to combat pirates WHO ATTACK, and I have no problem killing the aggressor.

Again, I do not understand how you fail to understand this simple point.

I don't see how you get from stage 1. to stage 3. Your conclusion can
not be logically deduced from stage 1. alone.

Your (unspoken) stage 2. might be:

1a. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2a. It is wrong to kill people who aren't in the process of committing a crime.
3a. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but that makes it an argument against the death penalty altogether and
I assume that is not your intention. (Can you confirm that you are
pro-death penalty?)

You could get round it by saying something like:

1b. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2b. It is wrong to pay to kill people who aren't in the process of
committing a crime.
3b. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but in this case it isn't clear why 2b. is true and not 2a.; you are obliged
to explain/justify 2b. without justifying 2a. or leave it as an arbitrary
premise.