|
[09 Feb 2009|04:14pm] |
|
[Private to Lupin] When I suggested that we take prisoners I had the intention behind it that we trade them for other prisoners. May I, or preferably, would you or whoever took it upon themselves to take Snape, please work out a trade or at least propose one? [/Lupin]
|
|
| BACK DATED TO SATURDAY |
[02 Feb 2009|12:38am] |
[ooc: written hastily]
[Private to Order Sympathetic] Right then, I'm ducking out to stop Megan from offing/getting offed by Zacharias Smith by barging into his place. Help would be appreciated.
No really, help. [/Private]
|
|
| just something to think about |
[06 Nov 2008|05:52pm] |
Proposal: Jus in Bello. Just War.
001. Understand that Murdering and killing are not synonymous. If we are to approach death from a logical stand point the only time it is appropriate to kill is out of necessity, otherwise known as self-defense or defense of someone who cannot defend him or herself. Why is this logical? In the society we live in we value order and order cannot be achieved if we are forever killing one another on a whim. Nothing could ever be accomplished (for obvious reasons). Something in us tells us that killing a fellow human being is wrong and for that reason along with the aforementioned we do not go about killing anyone we please (in theory, Bellatrix).
002. Knowing that There are two accepted exceptions to the logic laid out in article 001, it is only appropriate to kill in self-defense. The first exception is execution by the state and the second exception is war. The first exception is widely contested and for good reason. It simply is not logical. One might argue that the threat of the death penalty is the only way to be sure people will not commit terrible crimes but the fact is terrible crimes are still committed in the face of the death penalty. This happens for a variety of reasons, from individuals thinking they are above consequences to our passionate natures overtaking us, either way, the threat of execution simply is not effective. The other argument that exists in favor of executing people is that it is delivering justice. By that logic you are saying that by killing those who deserve to die you are committing a just act. The logical implication of this belief is that you will also be raising from the dead those who did not deserve to die. If we continue to be logical, if no one besides Jesus and Elijah, and mark as skeptical on that one can raise the dead to serve justice, then no one should kill to serve justice.
003. Therefore In war there are a defined set of rules civil societies follow under the reasonable expectation that when a war is begun it will also be finished. War is not meant to last indefinitely as it is the most uncivilized fashion of settling a dispute, but the point is still to settle said dispute. What is so interesting about war is that we enter it with the intention of ending it. No one ever begins a war that they do not intend to finish, that's simply illogical. A war ends when legitimate authority is established and agreed upon by both combatant sides, rights are reestablished and war crime trials are held. Furthermore both sides must agree to follow the rights and rules that are set forth and not exact revenge, which is to say when you truce, you uphold the truce and go back to living (ie: not killing one another anymore).
004. Since It has been established that for very evident reasons people cannot go about killing one another as they please and since it has been established that the purpose of war is to settle a dispute it only makes sense that there are inherent rules regarding killing in a time of war. Distinction is the first rule, which is to say killing a non-combatant (also known as a civilian) in unacceptable. Going along with this understanding is obligation combatants have to identify themselves as such (it's called a uniform or marker, a great example of this would be a Dark Mark). Proportionality is the second rule, which is to say every action may have an equal reaction. An overreaction or show of excessive force is unacceptable (see: why it is illogical to kill without discern). The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it fights. The third and final inherent rule regarding killing in a time of war is military necessity, meaning all attacks and action must be made with the intent of defeat of the enemy and subsequently the ending of the war. If an attack does not directly effect the opposing force then it is unnecessary and therefore illogical.
005. With this being said Do recall that it is illogical to go about killing people indiscriminately if only because our progress as a people in this world will become stagnant and nothing of any merit could ever be achieved over any length of time.
006. Therefore I propose that the leaders of the two waring sides submit to following these rules. I also propose that the citizens of England, no matter their affiliation in the matter, demand it so as to protect themselves and their families from harm and to uphold the installed governmental institutions which we pride ourselves on establishing. Demand it because you are a law abiding citizen and deserve to be met halfway by the government you support. Demand it because you believe in the sanctity of human life. Demand it because you do not want to squander your life locked in a perpetual violent dispute. Demand it because it is only logical.
Or don't. Whatever.
( Private to Lee )
( Private to Free Order )
( Private to Professor Lupin )
|
|
|
[25 Oct 2008|01:04am] |
Taking time away from a situation apparently can offer a whole new perspective. I'm not just saying this. It is actually an applied science. Try it out Hestia. Or don't. I don't care.
( Private to the Order )
( Private to Megan )
( Private to current and former Fort dwellers )
Topics of discussion:
Organization: makes for effective operations.
Halloween: rapidly approaching.
Christmas music: being played earlier and earlier every year. What's that about?
Christmas: to be canceled by Bellatrix Lestrange?
The marriage to death ratio: someone should look into this.
Heavy breathing: a sign of allergies or perversion?
My cat: more disgruntled than me?
|
|
|
[07 Aug 2008|06:09pm] |
|
[Private to Trish] I feel like I may be out of line but that's not my intention. I need to speak to Maisie and since you're her caretaker I thought it only right I consult you first. [/Private to Trish]
|
|