"Killing is [morally] fine" Discuss

[MikeMike]

The man grabs a knife? That's a threat right there, I'd respond with a knife.



So because he's in your house uninvited he's there to hurt or kill you? This is a logical fact based conclusion to you?

No, he is a threat to my livelihood... which means he is a threat... which means I eliminate him...

 

[FallenHero]

The man grabs a knife? That's a threat right there, I'd respond with a knife.

So up until the point where he grabs a knife, what would your actions be? I'm trying to explore the "caution" side of your logic here. Because "caution" to me is much different than yours. So I am trying to understand it and have you actually explain it.

 

[HAL9000]

No, he is a threat to my livelihood... which means he is a threat... which means I eliminate him...

So thieves deserve the death penalty?

So up until the point where he grabs a knife, what would your actions be? I'm trying to explore the "caution" side of your logic here. Because "caution" to me is much different than yours. So I am trying to understand it and have you actually explain it.

Up until then I imagine it would be to defend the property that he is holding.

 

[MikeMike]

So thieves deserve the death penalty?



Up until then I imagine it would be to defend the property that he is holding.

Wait... since when are we assuming he is just a thief? now YOU are making assumptions...

Up until then? huh? you make no sense (even though that isn't my argument)

 

[HAL9000]

Wait... since when are we assuming he is just a thief? now YOU are making assumptions...

Up until then? huh? you make no sense (even though that isn't my argument)

You told me he was a threat to your livelihood. I assumed that meant he was a thief?

I do make assumptions of course, everyone does, but when it comes to ending someones life I do not.

 

[corwin]

You are risking their lives on statistics...but I'll leave you with one more distinction. Someone who breaks into your home while you're not there is going to be stealing your shit, someone who breaks on while your home is more likely to be there to cause you harm, which is why they're called home invasions vs burglaries. I would never risk our lives on any statistics...but why don't you look up the statistics on home invasions vs burglary

 

[FallenHero]

Up until then I imagine it would be to defend the property that he is holding.

Unarmed?

 

[MikeMike]

You told me he was a threat to your livelihood. I assumed that meant he was a thief?

I do make assumptions of course, everyone does, but when it comes to ending someones life I do not.

a thief steals, ONLY... a home invader will do anything...

 

[HAL9000]

You are risking their lives on statistics...but I'll leave you with one more distinction. Someone who breaks into your home while you're not there is going to be stealing your shit, someone who breaks on while your home is more likely to be there to cause you harm, which is why they're called home invasions vs burglaries. I would never risk our lives on any statistics...but why don't you look up the statistics on home invasions vs burglary

I will do, but it's 6am, I'll do it another time. I should add, that I'm not assuming he's there to steal, someone asked what he was there for and I gave a most likely scenario.

Unarmed?

If the other guy is then yeah I'd have thought so. I think that's more of a judgement call at the time, I.e. can I defend myself against him physically without some kind of aid.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So because he's in your house uninvited he's there to hurt or kill you? This is a logical fact based conclusion to you?

Does he care about the law? No.
Does he want to get caught? No.


Ok, then if this is the case then he's got no reason not to kill you and every reason to kill you.

 

[HAL9000]

a thief steals, ONLY... a home invader will do anything...

All home invaders will do anything? Where are you getting this fact?

 

[HAL9000]

Does he care about the law? No.
Does he want to get caught? No.


Ok, then if this is the case then he's got no reason not to kill you and every reason to kill you.

I see. What's your point?

 

[FallenHero]

If the other guy is then yeah I'd have thought so. I think that's more of a judgement call at the time, I.e. can I defend myself against him physically without some kind of aid.

So you would go off the assumption that if you approximately physically equal or you are a larger person, that you could defend your property successfully without any sort of aid against an unarmed assailant?

 

[HAL9000]

So you would go off the assumption that if you approximately physically equal or you are a larger person, that you could defend your property successfully without any sort of aid against an unarmed assailant?

Yeah I imagine I would, I'd assume that someone of a lesser stature or physical presence I would be able to best in a fight. Given the limited data available to me at the time.

 

[MikeMike]

I see. What's your point?

so... when you can't disagree with the statement, you act like it makes no sense to you???

and here, I have a question for you... Find me the statistic about a home intruder who is surprised by the home owner being home... How many run, how many turn violent?

 

[MikeMike]

Yeah I imagine I would, I'd assume that someone of a lesser stature or physical presence I would be able to best in a fight. Given the limited data available to me at the time.

I'm fairly certain anyone would be able to kick your ass and then... (not saying it it will get me banned)

 

[HAL9000]

so... when you can't disagree with the statement, you act like it makes no sense to you???

The statement made perfect sense, I just don't know what relevance it had to this debate or what point he was trying to make from it.

and here, I have a question for you... Find me the statistic about a home intruder who is surprised by the home owner being home... How many run, how many turn violent?

It's 6am, you're going to have to do your own research tonight I'm afraid.

 

[HAL9000]

I'm fairly certain anyone would be able to kick your ass and then... (not saying it it will get me banned)

I've been in fights before and one. Your certainty is misplaced. (not sure what the bit in brackets is about)

 

[MikeMike]

The statement made perfect sense, I just don't know what relevance it had to this debate or what point he was trying to make from it.



It's 6am, you're going to have to do your own research tonight I'm afraid.

it's 6am, yet for he past 13 minutes you have been posting... (hint, its 6:13am, maybe 6:14 now)... anytime you DONT want to do something, you make up a bs excuse.

 

[FallenHero]

Yeah I imagine I would, I'd assume that someone of a lesser stature or physical presence I would be able to best in a fight. Given the limited data available to me at the time.

So you are going off the assumption that the intruder has no weapon hidden from view, has no training in ground fighting/hand-to-hand, does not possess greater physical stamina then you (not strength, stamina), and is unwilling to fight just as hard as you are to win.

You don't see any of those assumptions as inherently dangerous? Because any one of those assumptions, if wrong, can kill you.

 

[MikeMike]

So you are going off the assumption that the intruder has no weapon hidden from view, has no training in ground fighting/hand-to-hand, does not possess greater physical stamina then you (not strength, stamina), and is unwilling to fight just as hard as you are to win.

You don't see any of those assumptions as inherently dangerous? Because any one of those assumptions, if wrong, can kill you.

but... he isn't making assumptions... remember?

 

[HAL9000]

it's 6am, yet for he past 13 minutes you have been posting... (hint, its 6:13am, maybe 6:14 now)... anytime you DONT want to do something, you make up a bs excuse.

You're right it's 6:15 am now.

So you are going off the assumption that the intruder has no weapon hidden from view, has no training in ground fighting/hand-to-hand, does not possess greater physical stamina then you (not strength, stamina), and is unwilling to fight just as hard as you are to win.

You don't see any of those assumptions as inherently dangerous? Because any one of those assumptions, if wrong, can kill you.

They absolutely could be dangerous assumptions to make, the same as pulling out into traffic could be a dangerous assumption to make if there is a blind spot around the corner, but unfortunately making dangerous assumptions that may affect our lives are common place. Making assumptions that validate a choice to end someone else's life is not.

but... he isn't making assumptions... remember?

I didn't say I don't make assumptions on anything. Of course I do, in fact I told you that a few posts back.

 

[MikeMike]

i didn't say i don't make assumptions on anything. Of course i do, in fact i told you that a few posts back.

trollllll

i'm not assuming anything.

 

[HAL9000]

trollllll

...

I do make assumptions of course, everyone does, but when it comes to ending someones life I do not.

 

[MikeMike]

You told me he was a threat to your livelihood. I assumed that meant he was a thief?

I do make assumptions of course, everyone does, but when it comes to ending someones life I do not.

so... which do you mean John Kerry?

that one? or

I'm not assuming anything.

that one??