ATOT post apocalypse Zombie meet?

[HAL9000]

Read it over to yourself sllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooowwwwllllly.

Sigh.

"I don't believe pre-emptively executing people for crimes other than murder is wrong"

Heck, I was only gonna shoot 'em if they threatened my life - YOUR stance is kill 'em pre-emptively for anything short of murder also?! Whoohooo! :biggrin:

Ahh, I used a double negative. Good spot. I don't believe pre-emptively executing people for a crime other than murder is acceptable. :biggrin:

 

[unxpurg8d]

Ahh, I used a double negative. Good spot. I don't believe pre-emptively executing people for a crime other than murder is acceptable. :biggrin:

hehehehehehehehehehehe tooooo late. I win.

You should know better than to argue with a woman anyway. We don't have to be right (although we usually ARE), we just don't shut up until you a) either cave for peace and quiet or b) forget what the heck your point was in the first place.

Neener. :biggrin:

 

[schneiderguy]

We don't have to be right (although we usually ARE)

We just let you think that

 

[mvbighead]

Fair enough, you are entitled to think that, but personally I don't believe pre-emptively executing people for crimes other than murder is wrong.

That's the problem. If someone doesn't care for your life enough to commit the act of rape to you against your will (which is what rape is), they clearly have no care for the preservation of your life. In that context, killing a rapist is completely justified, as you have no idea what step will follow your rape. If you wish to suggest that you don't know that they'll kill you, and you'd rather wait to find out, you'll be too late in defending yourself.

Whether you slash their throat with a knife, or shoot them in the head, the use of deadly force is authorized.

 

[HAL9000]

hehehehehehehehehehehe tooooo late. I win.

You should know better than to argue with a woman anyway. We don't have to be right (although we usually ARE), we just don't shut up until you a) either cave for peace and quiet or b) forget what the heck your point was in the first place.

Neener. :biggrin:

Very true, I concede your superiority madam Women are always more fun to talk to anyway so letting them win every so often is a small price to pay for the fun conversations.

 

[HAL9000]

That's the problem. If someone doesn't care for your life enough to commit the act of rape to you against your will (which is what rape is), they clearly have no care for the preservation of your life. In that context, killing a rapist is completely justified, as you have no idea what step will follow your rape. If you wish to suggest that you don't know that they'll kill you, and you'd rather wait to find out, you'll be too late in defending yourself.

Whether you slash their throat with a knife, or shoot them in the head, the use of deadly force is authorized.

Very true, but talking purely logically here, in terms of mass legalisation of weapons, allowing people to pre-emptively kill people based on the fact that they don't know what is going to happen next is wrong.

 

[unxpurg8d]

Very true, I concede your superiority madam Women are always more fun to talk to anyway so letting them win every so often is a small price to pay for the fun conversations.

"letting them"

That made me giggle...

 

[unxpurg8d]

Very true, but talking purely logically here, in terms of mass legalisation of weapons, allowing people to pre-emptively kill people based on the fact that they don't know what is going to happen next is wrong.

HAL, it's really tough to kill them AFTER they've killed you. Just sayin'... And I'm pretty darn sure I'm not going to stop and ask someone breaking into my house in the dead of night whether they're just after my tv.

 

[HAL9000]

"letting them"

That made me giggle...

See. You guys win the arguments but we make you laugh. Everybody wins

P.S. I love your sig. Haha

 

[HAL9000]

HAL, it's really tough to kill them AFTER they've killed you. Just sayin'... And I'm pretty darn sure I'm not going to stop and ask someone breaking into my house in the dead of night whether they're just after my tv.

I understand that, which is why I'm against all killing. I'm for it if you can definitely say that your life is in absolute danger. That is all.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Can't. Fucking. Believe it. The fact that is actually happened is just insane. Also, I just lost more of my life to wikipedia.

 

[mvbighead]

Very true, but talking purely logically here, in terms of mass legalisation of weapons, allowing people to pre-emptively kill people based on the fact that they don't know what is going to happen next is wrong.

Let me put it this way, if someone is willing enough to try to force their member inside of me, I will damn sure know that they have no positive intentions for the course of the next 5-60 minutes. Included in those intentions may quite possibly exist the intent to kill me to conceal their identity.

Additionally, given that the person is willing to try and do something like that to me or someone else, I would be willing to bet that they'd be willing to try it on someone else in the future. Thus I can conclude that they have little regard for the well being of others. That said, I'd be willing to bet that they would try their actions again on someone else.

So, rather than call it preemptively killing when not knowing what will happen next, I will base my actions on what I know is about to happen. If that seems to be rape, if I believe my life or body is in danger, I will kill the attacker. No questions about it. I will do anything and everything I can to stop the attack. If he dies, that's his problem... not mine.

And, whether I use a gun or not to defend myself is entirely up to the tools I have available to me at that time to stop the attack.

 

[SZLiao214]

Where should we meet? Dr. Pizza's farm?

 

[HAL9000]

Let me put it this way, if someone is willing enough to try to force their member inside of me, I will damn sure know that they have no positive intentions for the course of the next 5-60 minutes. Included in those intentions may quite possibly exist the intent to kill me to conceal their identity.

Additionally, given that the person is willing to try and do something like that to me or someone else, I would be willing to bet that they'd be willing to try it on someone else in the future. Thus I can conclude that they have little regard for the well being of others. That said, I'd be willing to bet that they would try their actions again on someone else.

So, rather than call it preemptively killing when not knowing what will happen next, I will base my actions on what I know is about to happen. If that seems to be rape, if I believe my life or body is in danger, I will kill the attacker. No questions about it. I will do anything and everything I can to stop the attack. If he dies, that's his problem... not mine.

And, whether I use a gun or not to defend myself is entirely up to the tools I have available to me at that time to stop the attack.

I read "no positive intentions" "quite possible intent to kill" "i'd be willing to bet" "they would try" none of these things warrant killing.

If someone is trying to kill you then fine kill them to defend yourself.

Other than that one rare, extreme circumstance killing is wrong.