Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
That presumes that alliances and trade relations are a necessity, and that lawful actions of defense would in fact destroy them. While I acknowledge the right to that opinion, and the possibility of what you suggest coming true, I do not surrender to it as foregone conclusion.
As to my violent proclivities, I'm actually quite against it...except when it seems to be a necessity for defense, or continuation of one's way of life. The problem is that our society is so far gone in so many respects that I see that necessity more and more often - as nothing else attempted is having positive effects. Given the results of similar situations throughout history it seems apparent to me that more serious actions are warranted.
Alliance and trade relations are most certainly a necessity. Defending one's self most likely will not harm many of them, but it really depends on how you do it and what it looks like to the eyes of the international public. If the public believe that the primary concern and only concern was safety then most likely they won't care too much. However, if they believe that safety was not the only concern and an additional motivation was the pure desire to kill the person who is being threatening even though it is not necessary in their opinion then it could become an issue. Furthermore, responding with additional violent acts towards Mexico on their own soil in retaliation for what they are doing to us will almost certainly be frowned upon quite a bit especially if the opinion is that it goes far beyond self defense and leans more towards punishment.
Also, be careful how you choose to respond to any failed attempts to control people and maintain safety. Just because an action is more serious and violent does not mean it will be more effective. History is history and that history has shown both great success and tremendous failure when it comes to responding with serious violence to solve problems. If anything, it should teach us that we need to be very cautious and think critically before responding in such a way. Not to mention that times have most certainly changed and are ever changing in ways that produce both differences and similarities in accordance to different times in history.
Lastly, just to sum up and hopefully simplify my feelings on this matter, I believe that killing someone else in self defense is perfectly fine when the situation is deemed necessary. Obviously, defining what it necessary not only relies on the law but it also relies on the honor system. I have come to realize that one of the biggest problems with our honor system is that when people are threatened they often have more than just the desire to keep themselves safe.
They feel angry. They want to punish. They hate the one who is threatening them. The desire to kill them. They feel it is warranted not because they want to be safe, but because the they believe that their attacker deserves to die despite how our system of justice instructs us that such things are not for us to decide and doing so is against the law. They want to kill them to both become safe and to feel an immense amount of satisfaction that they are dead. Being that it is so difficult to distinguish those who simply desire to be safe with those who desire to both be safe and to kill, this honor system is very often abused. To me, the only difference between the killers who are labeled as criminals and the killers who kill out of pure desire and abuse this system is just paperwork.
Facebook
Twitter