"Killing is [morally] fine" Discuss

[BePrepared]

I'll have a Dos Equis an it please thee

 

[Macamus Prime]

As long as you aren't trolling to use the self defense arguement, then killing is acceptable when done in self defense.

You do need to protect your life and loved ones. But, you don't need to be out at 3am with money hanging out of your pocket while strolling through a bad neighborhood as you are packing heat.

 

[HAL9000]

soon, i will make a detailed analysis of the flaws in your refutation, but, as i am somewhat stretched for time at this momen, let me begin by pointing out the OVERWHELMING flaw in your assertions.

Before I do this though, please allow me to request that you cease the use of the term "in my opinion" as this is nothing but an escape clause written into your side of our dialogue to allow an escape route when your logic fails. There is no "opinion" in a debate concerning the rationale of proper action. There is only logic, and blind assertion.

I use the term in my opinion often as morons on this thread are saying that I assert my conclusions as statements of fact rather than my own conclusion based on a premise. Sorry if you don't like it but you can't please everyone.

Now, to your statement. You seem to use the idea of "Absolute Certainty" as the standard upon which you base your determination as the whether a killing is justified.

This thing of which you speak "Absolute Certainty" does not exist. Even in retrospect, it is only illusory, but in relation to any standard of determining proper action, one can quite literally NEVER have "absolute certainty" BEFORE one acts.

Let us examine an example. A man kicks in your front door while you are sitting on the couch. He is carrying a shotgun and is covered head to toe in blood. He screams "I'm going to kill you" and points the shotgun at you. His finger is on the trigger.

By your standard, killing this man is utterly unjustified... there is no "absolute certainty" that he is going to kill you. Why?

Let us consider the options
1. It could be a prank... the gun could be fake and he could just be trying to scare you
2. He may no know HOW to use the gun... that being the case, he couldn't kill you with it
3. there could be an asteroid milliseconds from hitting the man in the head hard enough to incapacitate him before he can hit the trigger

there are literally an infinite number of alternative postulates which make it impossible to say with "absolute certainty" that he is about to kill you.

For that reason, if i am to accept your standard, the only way for me to know that i have the right to kill the man is to wait for him to kill ME first...

seems counter productive to me

Let "Absolute clarity" read as "beyond reasonable doubt" as you would in a court room.

 

[corwin]

Hal, let me attempt a brief summarization of your position...you would rather assume that any criminal entering your home uninvited is only there to rob and/or harm you short of killing you until it's past the point to offer any effective resistance should they decide to go further. I know you say you don't "assume" but that's exactly what you do since you don't "know" for sure.

So here's the great divide between you and the rest of us, you would rather error on the side of a criminals safety, we would rather error on the side of our family/friends/self safety...they made a choice to be a criminal and put themselves in harms way, we didn't.

 

[HAL9000]

Hal, let me attempt a brief summarization of your position...you would rather assume that any criminal entering your home uninvited is only there to rob and/or harm you short of killing you until it's past the point to offer any effective resistance should they decide to go further. I know you say you don't "assume" but that's exactly what you do since you don't "know" for sure.

So here's the great divide between you and the rest of us, you would rather err on the side of a criminals safety, we would rather error on the side of our family/friends/self safety...they made a choice to be a criminal and put themselves in harms way, we didn't.

I would rather not kill anyone.

 

[corwin]

I would rather not kill anyone.

I would prefer not to as well, but put into a situation I will error on the side of protecting myself and other innocents over the life of a criminal, you would rather protect their lives...it's a case of subjective valuation, you value their lives more than yours or those you love since your willing to gamble on the outcome being less tha fatal, of course even that could be massively traumatic victims. You should really let those around you know where they rank in your mind, below criminals.

 

[HAL9000]

I would prefer not to as well, but put into a situation I will err on the side of protecting myself and other innocents over the life of a criminal, you would rather protect their lives...it's a case of subjective valuation, you value their lives more than yours or those you love since your willing to gamble on the outcome being less tha fatal, of course even that could be massively traumatic victims. You should really let those around you know where they rank in your mind, below criminals.

I've never said that. I just don't kill people based on assumption / paranoia / delusion.

P.S. It's "to err on the side of caution" not "to error..."

 

[corwin]

I've never said that. I just don't kill people based on assumption / paranoia / delusion.

P.S. It's "to err on the side of caution" not "to error..."

Petty word play again, very classy:\ And yes you are saying that, you would rather take the chance whatever emotional/physical harm a criminal will inflict on you or others isn't worth taking their life, you ASSUME they're intentions aren't that bad...so one way or the other there's an assumption, we just tend to assume the worst of a CRIMINAL, I mean they are a criminal after all, not some stranger on the street walking by.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

<wall of text that will be misunderstood by H9k>

 

[soulcougher73]

If there was any doubt killing can be justified and neccessary just go to this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2161393

 

[HAL9000]

Petty word play again, very classy:\ And yes you are saying that, you would rather take the chance whatever emotional/physical harm a criminal will inflict on you or others isn't worth taking their life, you ASSUME they're intentions aren't that bad...so one way or the other there's an assumption, we just tend to assume the worst of a CRIMINAL, I mean they are a criminal after all, not some stranger on the street walking by.

THat's the point, I don't assume, I don't make the leap between them being there and anything else. They could be there for any reason, no assumptions whatsoever.

 

[corwin]

THat's the point, I don't assume, I don't make the leap between them being there and anything else. They could be there for any reason, no assumptions whatsoever.

You are an idiot...there's no other explanation, I don't really mean that as an insult just a fact since you lack any common sense whatsoever as exhibited by that statement. You are ASSUMING someone breaking into your home has no ill intentions, saying you make no assumptions is moronic and patently false, saying they might be there for "any reason" (other than robbing/assaulting/raping/killing) is an ASSUMPTION on your part, and a potentially fatal one for you and anyone else around you.

 

[davmat787]

If there was any doubt killing can be justified and neccessary just go to this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2161393

Bbbbut you don't know if the dog is really going to die!!!111!!!1! You just ASSume!

 

[HAL9000]

You are an idiot

Read up to here, try again without the insult if you want a reply.

 

[corwin]

Read up to here, try again without the insult if you want a reply.

It's an observation based on your complete lack fundamental comprehension skills, not an insult...

 

[HAL9000]

It's an observation based on your complete lack fundamental comprehension skills, not an insult...

It's an insulting observation however you justify it, it's your personal opinion and a insulting word.

 

[corwin]

Bbbbut you don't know if the dog is really going to die!!!111!!!1! You just ASSume!

Of course, it will probably just be severly battered and broken, but it'll live...and the guy just needs a hug and a cup of tea and he'll reform his wicked ways and cure cancer

 

[corwin]

It's an insulting observation however you justify it, it's your personal opinion and a insulting word.

U mad?:'( Grow a pair and learn to admit when you make a mistake and say something stupid, like you don't "assume" anything when that's exactly what you're doing...you just have a victim mentality and "assume" that criminals aren't going to hurt you

 

[soulcougher73]

Bbbbut you don't know if the dog is really going to die!!!111!!!1! You just ASSume!

I dont care if the dog grew wings and flew away to safety. The guy attempted to kill the dog. I dont care if it didnt die or was just severly wounded.

This guy should be put down. Preferrably as painful as possible.

 

[HAL9000]

U mad?:'( Grow a pair and learn to admit when you make a mistake and say something stupid, like you don't "assume" anything when that's exactly what you're doing...you just have a victim mentality and "assume" that criminals aren't going to hurt you

I haven't made a mistake, I haven't said something stupid. I do assume things, but when it comes to killing someone I do not.

 

[corwin]

I haven't made a mistake, I haven't said something stupid. I do assume things, but when it comes to killing someone I do not.

Yes you do assume things, you assume the lives of innocent people are worth less than a criminal, or at least the potential harm and/or death about to be caused by a criminal isn't worth protecting others from by any means necessary. You subjectively value a criminals life and well being over that of innocent bystanders to their criminal activity, that's crystal clear...I wouldn't trust you to look out for the well being of a pet rock.


WOOT! My 1k post!

 

[HAL9000]

Yes you do assume things, you assume the lives of innocent people are worth less than a criminal,

I've never said anything like that.

or at least the potential harm and/or death about to be caused by a criminal isn't worth protecting others from by any means necessary. You subjectively value a criminals life and well being over that of innocent bystanders to their criminal activity, that's crystal clear...I wouldn't trust you to look out for the well being of a pet rock.


WOOT! My 1k post!

I've never said any of that, your assuming a lot.

 

[corwin]

I've never said anything like that.



I've never said any of that, your assuming a lot.

Haha...you talk in circles but basically that's exactly what you're saying, not a bit of assumption on my part...live with it or change, it's your life.

 

[Ichinisan]

H9K thinks the violent rapist deserves a chance to continue committing violate rapes and other horrible crimes. A violent rapist doesn't deserve the benefit of doubt.

So, going with our previous example, the violent rapist has just finished raping my daughter. Before moving on to rape my wife, he pulls out a knife and slashes my daughter's throat. You're saying it's ONLY THEN that it's OK for me to kill him? I couldn't try to PREVENT it from happening?

Sickening.

...and what if he just raped them and left? [sarcasm]That's a GREAT outcome! Everybody's happy and not mentally damaged at all! Best of all, the criminal didn't die! Now he can change and become a great contributor to society! Sure, he could rape more people. It's just a phase he's going through. Let him get it out of his system and all is forgiven![/sarcasm]

 

[Raduque]

...and what if he just raped them and left? [sarcasm]That's a GREAT outcome! Everybody's happy and not mentally damaged at all! Best of all, the criminal didn't die! Now he can change and become a great contributor to society! Sure, he could rape more people. It's just a phase he's going through. Let him get it out of his system and all is forgiven![/sarcasm]

That's our Hal! <cue sitcom laugh track>