How do we teach the value of human life?

[Blaze]

Not destiny, per se. I believe that God knows our lives, fully, but not so much because he set them as because he is present at all points in time. I believe in our power to effect our present and our futures, and I don't believe divine preordination needs be in conflict with that.

Besides, even if those people were fated to die that day in such a horrific way, it doesn't mean we can't, as a species, better ourselves and as such improve our fates down the line.

Can't change what happened, but fate must not go against what's happening now, either.

[Deacon]

There is no such thing as an "innocent".

Yes, there is.

[mikehendo]

There is no such thing as an "innocent".

Yes, there is.

Wow, what a compelling argument..

If you had wanted to know why I said that you could have just asked.. But now I want to know how you define your argument.

[Deacon]

No. Consult a dictionary.

[Spero]

It's an absurd statement taken alone, so if you hope to sway anyone, mikehendo, you should consider explaining yourself.

[StruckingFuggle]

That provides a definition, Deacon, but no arguments for how it might or might not apply to people. So it's not really an answer.

[Arc Orion]

Fuggle, in case you missed it, refer to the post directly above yours.

[StruckingFuggle]

I did, and it doesn't change what I said about Deacon's post.

[Arc Orion]

How else do you propose he answer to absurdity, other than to question if the person knew what he was saying?

[mikehendo]

Okay Deacon, which simple version of innocent were you referring to ( I will even give you a multiple choice..):

in·no·cent /ˈɪnəsənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-uh-suhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3. not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4. not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.
5. devoid (usually fol. by of): a law innocent of merit.
6. having or showing the simplicity or naiveté of an unworldly person; guileless; ingenuous.
7. uninformed or unaware; ignorant.
–noun 8. an innocent person.
9. a young child.
10. a guileless person.
11. a simpleton or idiot.
12. Usually, innocents. (used with a singular verb) bluet (def. 1).

1. sinless, virtuous; faultless, impeccable, spotless, immaculate. 2. Innocent, blameless, guiltless imply freedom from the responsibility of having done wrong. Innocent may imply having done no wrong at any time, and having not even a knowledge of evil: an innocent victim.

how blase, i wish there was more to your argument..

[Deacon]

What argument? There is no argument, as you have put forth no argument in support of your claim, a claim that is wrong by definition.

[Blaze]

Hendo: You need to explain why there is no innocent. You can't just challenge an accepted social norm and expect people to accept and or defend against it. I can't just say there's no such thing as love, or hate, and expect anyone to take the time to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd have to first tell them why I think there's no love or hate.

[mikehendo]

The fault is that a young child in the definition doesnt do the word justice. or an idiot, because surely an idiot isnt innocent or guiltless. or guileless. lets take a look at that: truthful.. You dont honestly believe that someone acting truthfully is inherently innocent, do you?

How about we move on to "sinless, virtuous; faultless, impeccable, spotless, immaculate". Do you even believe that there is someone out there who embodies those qualities? To say yes would be to take a devil's bargain. To take a quite frankly innocent look at the world. However, that is not an innocent. Or rather, it is.. And that is why there is no such thing as an innocent.

Anyone who stands by in an oppressive system and does nothing is working in that system. The act of not comming clean of it omits them form the label of innocent. The kids who harrassed Kleibold and Harris every day.. Did they deserve to die, no, but they werent innocent.

What about the "freedom from the responsibility of having done wrong" part of the definition. if someone is mentally unfit to stand trial it is said that they cannot be held responsible for thier actions. or to definition 3 thier actions are " not involving evil intent " and they are, to borrow 2, "free from legal or specific wrong".

Or how about "free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children." Which innocent children are we talking about here? Are we really relying upon a notion that has been out of use since Freud. Innocent children, please. No one is free from moral wrong or without sin. Free from moral wrong is to have never lied. To be without sin? Everyone sins every day. Whether it is in the guise of harrassing a sibling, or playing the victim. There is no such thing as the sinless person in our world. To be sinless is in effect to be a god, or god-like. Do you believe that little children are gods?

Sure, i will give you definition #7. There are a lot of ignorant people in the world. but if anything, ignorance should be the first sign that someone is not innocent.

How about we go with the definition of an innocent victim there at the end: Innocent may imply having done no wrong at any time, and having not even a knowledge of evil.

Having done no wrong at any time, and having not even the knowledge of evil? To know evil is to be human. It is part of the human experience. It is so human that people have to explictly try to escape it by going to self-help groups, or joining a monestary. or the more common example of self-medication.

To be without evil, to be without prior knowledge of wrong? How about we return to immaculate? I can only think of a few figures who have been immaculate and wouldnt you know it, they are all in religious stories. name a religion, they all have AN innocent. Only one, and thats what sets them apart. The innocent is the one that everyone strives to be, it is an ideal. Simple people cannot be that ideal innocent. So we fudge. We say that some random person who gets shot in cross-fire is an innocent. But they hardly abide by the definition. Who's to say that person wasn't killed on thier way to rape a defenseless woman.

Who's to say that kid that got killed by a suicide bomber wouldnt have been worse than the suicide bomber had he been allowed to live?

Your definition of innocent is too limited.

[Blaze]

Again, Hendo, your deffinition is the limited one. You are requiring someone to be completely without blame, guilt, or emotional guilt in order to be considered innocent. Everyone else's deffinition allows for innocence in X situation, but perhaps not in Y situation. Yours is the limited one.

[adciv]

mikehendo, is a 1 day old child not innocent? What have they done to make them not innocent?