marharth Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Let me give you another example: during my college days I had a brief chat with a Muslim student, who claimed that Islam is a peaceful religion, and non-believers misinterpret it. I cited to him the verses where the followers of the true faith are called upon to fight relentlessly against 'infidels', to disregard promises made to infidels and so on. He said, yes, but they are only applicable if infidels attack the followers of the true faith and there is a war. Then I asked him, why, the terrorists claim that Muslims today are under attack by infidels and there is a war. The problem with this is that it is a different interpretation. The things written in that book can be speculated to what it really means, or what it should really mean. Mein Kamp has pretty much no room for interpretation. I get your point, but its not the same imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I just don't have a problem using deadly force. Be it in defense of myself, my family, or some stranger that is in a life threatening situation. I don't shoot to wound either. If I am going to pull my gun, with the intent to use it, I will continue firing until I am SURE my target is no longer a threat. Ya gotta keep in mind, that if you are going to pull a gun on someone, chances are extremely good that said person ALSO has a weapon of some description, if it's a firearm of some description, it really doesn't take much to be able to point, and shoot, and a wounded target is going to be far more likely to be willing to pull that trigger. Solution? Make sure they are UNable to pull the trigger. A dead threat, is a threat no longer. (so, I can stop firing. :D) I was in the military though...... Military Police to be precise.... so, I may have a slightly skewed view on these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balagor Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 It is never ok to kill, only for the killing. We are nearly the only animal of the mammals that kill each other in fight. Oh Balagor my old friend, Orcas, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Water Buffaloes, Hippopotamuses, Wolverines, Tigers,and Lions to name just a few engage in mortal combat. We might be the only mammal that does it for intangible reasons but nature is hardly pacifistic, you need to go hunting more often . As for the main question there are definitely exceptions to the rule , meaning certain people that would have been better terminated before they got a full head of steam...Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan come to mind. Ok, Aurielius my old friend too:I never claimed that nature is pacifistic, nor that other mammils don´t kill. I claim we the humans are the only species who kill for no reason i.e. we kill out of hatred, jealousy and all that stuff I mentioned. Other animals kill in the hunting for food, or in mortal combat IF either of them will accept defeat. I cannot explain how or what I mean, but there seems to be a kind of respect for the killing in those situations. That respect is abscent in most of the ways or reasons to we humans kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I'm with HeyYou on this , I have zero problem with the use of deadly force if the situation mandates protection of what is near and dear to me. Balagor,Sorry old friend, didn't see your reply until I posted. I agree that In the main animals do not kill for the same inane reasons that man does, but our closest primate cousins Chimpanzees do engage in murder and gang rape, intriguing that primates with supposed higher neural capacity seem to share similar traits. Edited August 12, 2011 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyMilla Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I'm with HeyYou on this , I have zero problem with the use of deadly force if the situation mandates protection of what is near and dear to me. You might be surprised but I agree with you on this one. When a guy runs towards me with a deadly weapons, it is no time for moralization. If I have the means, I will defend myself. If I'm not mistaken, you were a pilot. Obviously, you would not have been suitable for that role if you had been unable to make life and death decisions as the situation demanded. The trouble in this world is, we seldom enjoy the "luxury" of clear-cut situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balagor Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I´ll give you that one. I have been beaten many times, without fighting back (actually very frustrating for the violater), but I have never been in a life threadening situation, where someone actually wanted to kill me. I admit I do not know if I can stand my moral position, flee or defend myself, eventually kill my oponent. :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I'm with HeyYou on this , I have zero problem with the use of deadly force if the situation mandates protection of what is near and dear to me. You might be surprised but I agree with you on this one. When a guy runs towards me with a deadly weapons, it is no time for moralization. If I have the means, I will defend myself. If I'm not mistaken, you were a pilot. Obviously, you would not have been suitable for that role if you had been unable to make life and death decisions as the situation demanded. The trouble in this world is, we seldom enjoy the "luxury" of clear-cut situations.I think the real tick is not to enjoy it or be too overly introspectively analytical about what transpired , crisis moments rarely have the added luxury of pre reflective time available. However you have to survive to think about it one way or the other. Oh ..and the Air Force has pilots, the Navy has aviators..most any trained individual can land on an fixed unmoving runway.. :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 A, oy vey :facepalm: just kidding.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I'm with HeyYou on this , I have zero problem with the use of deadly force if the situation mandates protection of what is near and dear to me. You might be surprised but I agree with you on this one. When a guy runs towards me with a deadly weapons, it is no time for moralization. If I have the means, I will defend myself. If I'm not mistaken, you were a pilot. Obviously, you would not have been suitable for that role if you had been unable to make life and death decisions as the situation demanded. The trouble in this world is, we seldom enjoy the "luxury" of clear-cut situations.I think the real tick is not to enjoy it or be too overly introspectively analytical about what transpired , crisis moments rarely have the added luxury of pre reflective time available. However you have to survive to think about it one way or the other. Oh ..and the Air Force has pilots, the Navy has aviators..most any trained individual can land on an fixed unmoving runway.. :whistling: I wouldn't be overly sure of that...... I have seen some of the air force flyboys do some pretty silly things with some awfully large aircraft........(whattaya mean the runway is 40 feet to the right?) Of course, I must also say I have never seen a naval (that just doesn't sound right....) "aviator" flying anything that can go to russia, and back.... on a single fill up either. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) I find the hard and fast moralists quite droll, if you have never been in a 'kill or be killed. situation then I submit that your high moral position has yet to be put to the acid test. One simply does not know how they will react until the moment arrives, that is when you find out whether survival or morality is your paramount concern. I'm with HeyYou on this , I have zero problem with the use of deadly force if the situation mandates protection of what is near and dear to me. You might be surprised but I agree with you on this one. When a guy runs towards me with a deadly weapons, it is no time for moralization. If I have the means, I will defend myself. If I'm not mistaken, you were a pilot. Obviously, you would not have been suitable for that role if you had been unable to make life and death decisions as the situation demanded. The trouble in this world is, we seldom enjoy the "luxury" of clear-cut situations.I think the real tick is not to enjoy it or be too overly introspectively analytical about what transpired , crisis moments rarely have the added luxury of pre reflective time available. However you have to survive to think about it one way or the other. Oh ..and the Air Force has pilots, the Navy has aviators..most any trained individual can land on an fixed unmoving runway.. :whistling: I wouldn't be overly sure of that...... I have seen some of the air force flyboys do some pretty silly things with some awfully large aircraft........(whattaya mean the runway is 40 feet to the right?) Of course, I must also say I have never seen a naval (that just doesn't sound right....) "aviator" flying anything that can go to russia, and back.... on a single fill up either. :DI should have known that there would be repercussions from some Air Force personnel, just friendly rivalry..no offense meant. Edited August 12, 2011 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now