When is it okay to kill someone?

[draconix]

When I remove myself from the situation, I'm a utilitarian. When it's closer to home, I think on a case-by-case basis.

 

Then again, I'm not exactly donating money to every charity out there for starving people in other countries. I know my logic is flawed. I don't think I could correct it though. There's stuff that would work on paper, but in practice it's different. *shrug*

Edited August 10, 2011 by draconix

[Saraane]

I would say it's OK to take that country down in three cases - two of which are reflected in WW II.

 

Genocide - A government attempt to make an entire race of people within or without that country go extinct.

Attempted World Domination - Trying to play Alexander the Great in the 21st century = bad and kill them!

Invasion - They came here to hurt/kill us... let's kill them all!

 

Those are the only cases where I view it as justifiable.

[draconix]

...And people wonder why the US is targeted by everyone, we too have 2 of those 3 against us right now. :biggrin:

Of course, we're not quite as overt about it. We use phrases like "spread democracy" to conceal our agenda.

[Deleted472477User]

Self defense, and defense of loved ones/the innocent, especially if there's no other option. Killing in defense of one's country I can agree with, but all too often these days the US would rather force its beliefs on others, than defend itself from an in your face threat, which to me isn't right. WW 1 and 2 we minded our own business until we had to fight. I'm not going to start in on my reasons why imo we're in the Middle East: it's a different topic.

[Saraane]

...And people wonder why the US is targeted by everyone, we too have 2 of those 3 against us right now. :biggrin:

Of course, we're not quite as overt about it. We use phrases like "spread democracy" to conceal our agenda.

 

Actually, the initial reasons we enter a country are USUALLY pureish. We just need to learn when to pack up ALL OUR TOYS (guns) and go home. We usually enter a country for relief after a disaster, or because some country is trying to take over another (sometimes though.. I say we let them fight it out). But we STAY too darn long and try to "help" too much. And we leave our toys in the sandbox...

 

The trouble recently has been is that WE LEAVE OUR GUNS THERE... and then 10,15,20 years later find those guns aimed back at us.

 

Not fun.

[Nintii]

Violent REACTION should NEVER be the first option or choice when dealing with antagonists, a NON-VIOLENT solution should ALWAYS BE AT THE TOP OF OUR LIST of possible solutions.

And every attempt at this path of peace should be made.

 

However, our antagonist\s might not choose the same path of NON-VIOLENCE and still choose to ATTACK US.

It is at this point that we leave the path of peaceful solutions and enter into an even GREATER violent action than our enemy and so utterly and decisively destroy them

- kill them - that neither they nor there children's children down to the fourth or fifth generation ever mess with us ever again.

And all their friends get the message, *don't mess with those people, they're crazy*, and so you and yours get to live in peace for a very very very long time.

 

Alright, *clearing my throat* (time to be politically correct), we let them walk all over us and take our lives, take the lives of those we love, take our freedom

our nation, our stuff etc.

 

No honestly, It's ok to kill someone when they try to kill you.

 

EDIT: KILL HER, SHE DOUBLE POSTED !!!!!!!

Edited August 11, 2011 by Nintii

[Nintii]

Oops, how did the double post happen ? Edited August 11, 2011 by Nintii

[LadyMilla]

However, our antagonist\s might not choose the same path of NON-VIOLENCE and still choose to ATTACK US.

It is at this point that we leave the path of peaceful solutions and enter into an even GREATER violent action than our enemy and so utterly and decisively destroy them

- kill them - that neither they nor there children's children down to the fourth or fifth generation ever mess with us ever again.

 

The Nazis tried that in Lidice during WW II. Did not work.

 

 

 

[Nintii]

However, our antagonist\s might not choose the same path of NON-VIOLENCE and still choose to ATTACK US.

It is at this point that we leave the path of peaceful solutions and enter into an even GREATER violent action than our enemy and so utterly and decisively destroy them

- kill them - that neither they nor there children's children down to the fourth or fifth generation ever mess with us ever again.

 

The Nazis tried that in Lidice during WW II. Did not work.

 

Well I just "wiki'd" your reference to "Lidice", what a horror, what a pity that Himmler escaped justice by committing suicide.

Isn't that good enough reason - to really hurt our enemies in a serious way - so that such a travesty never happens again ?

[LordWushin]

In the Marines we shoot after being shot at. Now war is a little different, but the principles can be universal. Instead of how the Police shoot and ask questions later, I myself would attempt to incapacitate the individual before using lethal methods. That applies to others to, if my girlfriend and I was threatened with a knife, gun, or such I would do the same in that situation if it allowed.

 

Self defense is the one of the few things we have left in this country, in my view. The right to own a gun is profitable for situations like this. Never think twice about possibly using it.

 

In essence I am saying incapacitate first if able, then lethal means if no other way is available.