When is it okay to kill someone?

[marharth]

Why is killing for your family self defense when the person is not currently a threat? Breaking someones kneecaps could easily kill them if they don't get help. Would you feel that it would be justified if the person who you broke the kneecaps of did die due to it?

 

That is a pathetic defense of your position on political murder.

Nice argument you got there.

[Aurielius]

Why is killing for your family self defense when the person is not currently a threat? Breaking someones kneecaps could easily kill them if they don't get help. Would you feel that it would be justified if the person who you broke the kneecaps of did die due to it?

 

That is a pathetic defense of your position on political murder.

Nice argument you got there.

It was clear, succinct and to the point and you still have not defended your position, but I no longer care. I think that will use my time more profitably by watching paint dry than argue with such as you.

[marharth]

Why is killing for your family self defense when the person is not currently a threat? Breaking someones kneecaps could easily kill them if they don't get help. Would you feel that it would be justified if the person who you broke the kneecaps of did die due to it?

 

That is a pathetic defense of your position on political murder.

Nice argument you got there.

It was clear, succinct and to the point and you still have not defended your position, but I no longer care. I think that will use my time more profitably by watching paint dry than argue with such as you.

Are you trying to reply to your own posts?

 

I have defended my position, you have simply made insulting comments without defending yours.

[grannywils]

Marharth, I will tell you what I do think. I think learning to read and comprehend would be an important lesson for you.

 

1. At no time did I say that it was not important for human beings to decide morals (your words).

 

2. I do not agree, by the way, that our entire society runs on human beings deciding what is morally acceptable.

 

3. I do agree that there is not much point in our debating, as I am beginning to believe that you have no clue what it is that I have already said. Nor do you really have much interest in what I am trying to say. Your interest seems to lie in saying what you want to say regardless of any response given.

 

3b. I also do not agree that this entire topic is "pretty much about morals". The topic is very specifically about "When is it okay to kill someone"

 

4. Your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me. If you are referring to something that someone else posted, you are doing it so poorly that I cannot understand what you are trying to say. I think you may be referring to some answers given to the questions posed by DariusMoranda. I may have said that I thought some of those answers (given by people other than me) were probably the best they could give under the circumstances. I think I also said that I was trying to be as honest as possible, and that although I do not believe that I could kill another human being, I could never be sure what I would do until I found myself in that position.

 

In any event, Marharth, you tire me. You seem to be attempting to flame me for no reason that I can possibly comprehend. I have done nothing on this thread but attempt to be honest with you and to respond to your questions.

 

My beliefs are what they are. I do not believe in war, and I do not think that killing another human being is something that I could do. I have remained fairly steadfast on these threads with respect to those beliefs; while at the same time acknowledging the fact that there are times when war is a necessary evil, and that people have been killed for reasons that have appeared to have been necessary.

 

You appear to be attempting to goad me into compromising my values, which is not really that surprising, since you seem to be fairly comfortable in that activity yourself. For someone who is opposed to war, you seem quite okay with the thought of self-rightiously bumping off a variety of miscreants with alacrity for their misdeeds.

 

I take these threads seriously, Marharth. I enjoy the give and take of a good conversation and a debate. But I do not particularly enjoy debating with you, as you seem to be someone who just needs to have an answer and to always "be right". It is sometimes more important to close mouth and engage brain on these forums. You could possibly hear what others have to say, and maybe even learn something

 

 

 

 

 

[marharth]

Marharth, I will tell you what I do think. I think learning to read and comprehend would be an important lesson for you.

 

1. At no time did I say that it was not important for human beings to decide morals (your words).

 

2. I do not agree, by the way, that our entire society runs on human beings deciding what is morally acceptable.

 

3. I do agree that there is not much point in our debating, as I am beginning to believe that you have no clue what it is that I have already said. Nor do you really have much interest in what I am trying to say. Your interest seems to lie in saying what you want to say regardless of any response given.

 

3b. I also do not agree that this entire topic is "pretty much about morals". The topic is very specifically about "When is it okay to kill someone"

 

4. Your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me. If you are referring to something that someone else posted, you are doing it so poorly that I cannot understand what you are trying to say. I think you may be referring to some answers given to the questions posed by DariusMoranda. I may have said that I thought some of those answers (given by people other than me) were probably the best they could give under the circumstances. I think I also said that I was trying to be as honest as possible, and that although I do not believe that I could kill another human being, I could never be sure what I would do until I found myself in that position.

 

In any event, Marharth, you tire me. You seem to be attempting to flame me for no reason that I can possibly comprehend. I have done nothing on this thread but attempt to be honest with you and to respond to your questions.

 

My beliefs are what they are. I do not believe in war, and I do not think that killing another human being is something that I could do. I have remained fairly steadfast on these threads with respect to those beliefs; while at the same time acknowledging the fact that there are times when war is a necessary evil, and that people have been killed for reasons that have appeared to have been necessary.

 

You appear to be attempting to goad me into compromising my values, which is not really that surprising, since you seem to be fairly comfortable in that activity yourself. For someone who is opposed to war, you seem quite okay with the thought of self-rightiously bumping off a variety of miscreants with alacrity for their misdeeds.

 

I take these threads seriously, Marharth. I enjoy the give and take of a good conversation and a debate. But I do not particularly enjoy debating with you, as you seem to be someone who just needs to have an answer and to always "be right". It is sometimes more important to close mouth and engage brain on these forums. You could possibly hear what others have to say, and maybe even learn something

 

"I am in no position to make judgements on the behaviour of anyone other than myself. I, personally do not believe that I should take the life of another human being. I am not God (or whatever anyone else believes in). Therefore, I cannot make that call for anyone else. Hence, I am not saying whether or not it is morally acceptable for anyone else, as I have no right to say what is morally acceptable for anyone else."

 

What is that supposed to mean then? You clearly said you don't think it is up to you to decide morals since you are not god.

 

The last paragraph was a direct reply to Aurielius, which was the post above mine. That does not look very good for you when you are suggesting that I should learn how to read.

 

As I said before, I have no problem with necessary wars.

 

Saying that I always have to be right is simply incorrect. I have changed my mind multiple times on this forum. Just because I disagree with you or others on a subject does not mean that I am not listening to what you say.

 

Our society runs by control through laws correct? Do you think it runs through other means?

 

If I am asking when it is okay to kill someone, how can you possibly think that does not in any way relate to morals?

 

Also I am a bit confused how you can say your not ever willing to change your values, yet you try to criticize me for always trying to win? What is the point of a debate if your never willing to change your mind?

Edited August 31, 2011 by marharth

[grannywils]

Marharth, have you ever been tested for reading comprehension?

 

Let me simplify. I said, and I will quote again, "I am in no position to make judgements on the behaviour of anyone other than myself. I, personally do not believe that I should take the life of another human being. You specifically asked me if it was morally acceptable for someone else, and I specifically responded by saying that I was not in a position to make that call for someone else. I DID NOT SAY I DON'T THINK IT IS UP TO ME TO DECIDE MORALS SINCE I AM NOT GOD

 

The post above yours from Aurielius was only there when I posted my response. It was not the post from which I took your original questions. If you answer my posts with responses to other posters, do not expect me to realize that you are speaking to someone else. I speak directly to you alone in my responses and expect the same courtesy from you. If you mean to say something to someone else, at least address him or her by name. I do know how to read. Trust me on this one, Marharth.

 

I was under the impression that you were opposed to war. I apologize if I was incorrect.

 

Sorry, but you have not convinced me that you do not always have to be "right" or at least have the "last word". I will take a "wait and see" position on that one.

 

Ok, so now you are saying that our society runs by control through laws. Which is it to be? In the last post you advised me that our entire society runs on humans deciding what is "morally" acceptable. They are NOT one and the same.

 

Where did I say that this topic does not relate in any way to morals? I simply said that it is not "pretty much about morals" (your words) it is specifically about "when is it ok to kill someone" You just go ahead and translate my words to suit your purposes, don't you?

 

Again, you have changed my words around to suit your purposes... Here is exactly what I said, " My beliefs are what they are. I do not believe in war, and I do not think that killing another human being is something that I could do. I have remained fairly steadfast on these threads with respect to those beliefs; while at the same time acknowledging the fact that there are times when war is a necessary evil, and that people have been killed for reasons that have appeared to have been necessary." Please tell me how you got out of that the following: and I quote: Also I am a bit confused how you can say your not ever willing to change your values, yet you try to criticize me for always trying to win? What is the point of a debate if your never willing to change your mind?

 

Come on, Marharth. Get it together...

 

 

 

 

 

[marharth]

Marharth, have you ever been tested for reading comprehension?

 

Let me simplify. I said, and I will quote again, "I am in no position to make judgements on the behaviour of anyone other than myself. I, personally do not believe that I should take the life of another human being. You specifically asked me if it was morally acceptable for someone else, and I specifically responded by saying that I was not in a position to make that call for someone else. I DID NOT SAY I DON'T THINK IT IS UP TO ME TO DECIDE MORALS SINCE I AM NOT GOD

 

The post above yours from Aurielius was only there when I posted my response. It was not the post from which I took your original questions. If you answer my posts with responses to other posters, do not expect me to realize that you are speaking to someone else. I speak directly to you alone in my responses and expect the same courtesy from you. If you mean to say something to someone else, at least address him or her by name. I do know how to read. Trust me on this one, Marharth.

 

I was under the impression that you were opposed to war. I apologize if I was incorrect.

 

Sorry, but you have not convinced me that you do not always have to be "right" or at least have the "last word". I will take a "wait and see" position on that one.

 

Ok, so now you are saying that our society runs by control through laws. Which is it to be? In the last post you advised me that our entire society runs on humans deciding what is "morally" acceptable. They are NOT one and the same.

 

Where did I say that this topic does not relate in any way to morals? I simply said that it is not "pretty much about morals" (your words) it is specifically about "when is it ok to kill someone" You just go ahead and translate my words to suit your purposes, don't you?

 

Again, you have changed my words around to suit your purposes... Here is exactly what I said, " My beliefs are what they are. I do not believe in war, and I do not think that killing another human being is something that I could do. I have remained fairly steadfast on these threads with respect to those beliefs; while at the same time acknowledging the fact that there are times when war is a necessary evil, and that people have been killed for reasons that have appeared to have been necessary." Please tell me how you got out of that the following: and I quote: Also I am a bit confused how you can say your not ever willing to change your values, yet you try to criticize me for always trying to win? What is the point of a debate if your never willing to change your mind?

 

Come on, Marharth. Get it together...

Ill start from bottom to top since its easier for me.

"You appear to be attempting to goad me into compromising my values, which is not really that surprising, since you seem to be fairly comfortable in that activity yourself. "

I was referring to that, not the quote you put.

 

How could asking the question "when is it okay to kill someone" NOT be related to morals in anyway? I really don't understand how it could be looked at from any other way besides morals. It is specifically about when it is okay to kill someone, but my point is that it is directly related to morals.

 

What are laws? Laws are made based on moral decisions of people in power.

 

I don't really care to convince you about anything if your not willing to look back at previous topics where I have retracted my statements and have changed my mind.

 

I will admit that I should of at least used quotation marks.

 

As said before, this is the quote I was referring to.

"I am not God (or whatever anyone else believes in). Therefore, I cannot make that call for anyone else."

What is that supposed to mean then? You are saying that you are not god, therefore you can not make that call for anyone else. The statement I made was not incorrect.

 

"Marharth, have you ever been tested for reading comprehension?"

 

Yes, it is part of the schooling system. I received extremely good grades in the subject.

[nosisab]

At this point the thread became a personal dispute and should stop this road once and for all before getting someone in serious troubles.

 

The reason I pointed the question should be about "when is necessary..." and not "when is OK..." was exactly to remove the "moral" aspect, quicksand field how the thread evolution already shows.

 

PS: Killing is never a moral choice. "Rational" killing has proved throughout the history being among the most irrational actions mankind is capable.

Edited August 31, 2011 by nosisab

[nosisab]

Sorry for the double post but this one is unrelated with the previous, so...

 

Is sadly mistaken those who believe killing, let's say, Hitler would resolve the problem. There is no doubt he was one to what he did but is naivety to think he was the cause of all that hatred, the field was already ready to sow. Killing him could be the excuse to Germany to do what it did then.

Edited August 31, 2011 by nosisab

[HeyYou]

How are you going to use the Criminal Justice system without evidence.

My point exactly. How do you say it is okay to murder someone when you have no evidence against him? You just "know" he is guilty.....

Politicians won't be charged with anything anyways. If a politician takes many lives, I have no problem with taking theirs to stop it.

Governor Fife Symington of Arizona was convicted of Fraud in 1997. (just an example. there are others, including presidents who have been impeached)

I understand if that is just how you would react though, I am not sure.

1. Seeing it with your own two eyes multiple times should be evidence enough. That also means that their is no evidence to present to anyone else however.

2. Its quite rare, and moral issues are not always covered by law anyways.

 

"I find trying to determine your moral center of gravity quite difficult, on one hand you deplore wars and on the other you propose and condone the above. Wars are sanctioned by governments which are in turn elected by the people, what you so glibly propose is murder by fiat. For someone who has never killed anything by their own admission I find this quite ironically droll."

I have no problem with war. I have a problem with wars that are done without good intentions. I understand war is sometimes needed, my problem is wars that are started without being necessary.

 

Erm, if you were a witness to a crime, actually SAW this guy kill someone, that IS evidence, and if you told the cops "I saw him kill X person." They would arrest him, and you would be a witness at his trial, where he would be convicted.