Could You Kill?

[irishslappop]

easy enough. explain yourself as well.

[Danger Bird]

In self defense maybe but never in any other circumstance. I wouldn't kill people if I got drafted into the army or something. Even if it was self defense I would feel bad about it. Not for the person I killed, but for the rest of my life I would have to know that I ended a life.

[Akira]

I think this is one of those hypothetical situations that you cannot accurate predict. Unless you have killed someone, or not killed someone when you had a motive and opportunity, then I don't believe you can know if you would.
It's one of those things that you just have to hope you never find out...

[Der Übermensch]

I dunno. I've never felt anything that would truley keep me from taking another persons life... I've always though I'd have a harder time killing a dog than a human. Animals seem much more innocent, harder to garner the rage against that you would need... Of course once you are actually IN that position, who knows what goes through your mind.

[lunchforthesky]

I'd find it very difficult I think.

[Left Shoe]

self defense = no sweat

[dei]

Only if the person was trying to hurt someone I care about. It'd be impossible for me to do it in any other situation, even if it's my life that's in danger. I couldn't live with the guilt.

[Danger Bird]

Animals seem much more innocent, harder to garner the rage against that you would need...

Dude, you've never had a dog chew up your shoes or piss on your carpet?

[dei]

Dogs don't know any better.

[Danger Bird]

That's what they want you to think.

Also, why is revenge in option 3? That seems very different than a loved one's life at stake.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Easily.

I killed a dog before, didn't feel too bad. Motherfu'cker was savaging me.

[Knifeboy]

I can't really imagine me being put in a situation where I would kill someone knowingly

[Danger Bird]

I can't believe nobody would feel weird after killing in self defense.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Closest thing I've got to an answer is a bloke I know who did 3 years for attempted murder. He stabbed a guy who raped his sister. He (naturally I suppose) didn't feel much in the way of remorse etc, except for getting caught.

[Mr. Ron]

I would if it was either him or me. Its not like I'm going to let him kill me.

[Permanent Solution]

I could kill someone very easily I think. I have no good sense of morality.

[MattyBlade]

in self defense, yes...but it'd have to be an accident on my part as I'd only want to injure the person enough to incapacitate him

[Mr. Ron]

I've thought about killing people before (not seriously, just hypothetically), I think that is a fairly common thought to think of.....right?

>_>

<_<

[Independent_CA]

Yes as long as there was a good reason.

[Mr. Ron]

Well, it was sort of a "how would I feel after I killed them" type thing.

[White]

only if it were him or me/if someone elses life was at risk, and it was the only option, never out of revenge or hate lol.

[Reaganista]

in addition to all other reasons metioned i would kill for fame

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Now I would definatly kill for revenge. Probably even over self-defence (I'd rather take an a'ss-whuppin' and get my own back later). I dunno, something about revenge, it just makes me feel so very complete and at peace with the world.

[siva_chair]

"When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing"

/Rambo IV'd

[MattyBlade]

in addition to all other reasons metioned i would kill for fame

reported to your local authorities =)

[PerpetualBurn]

For the lulz.

And money.

Or just for the banter.

[corb]

I've been reading a book called On Killing lately, and I've found it very interesting. According to this book, the ability to kill someone (for the normal 98% of people) is based on distance. I'm talking about not just physical distance, but also social and moral distance. Certain factors such as religion and language or something like desire for revenge can help us further the distance emotionally from another human being, which makes it easier to hurt/kill them. Physical distance is also important, as it is easier (psychologically) to kill someone with a sniper rifle from far away than it is to plunge a knife into their chest face to face. Another important factor is conditioning. Improved training and preperation during the Vietnam conflict helped improve % of soldiers who shot to kill and did actually kill in battle. The numbers were something like in WW2 only 2% of all American soldiers shot to kill, whereas in the vietnam conflict the % went up into the 90s. An interesting note is that for today's generation, kids are a lot more likely to resort to aggressive violence because of constant conditioning (violence in movies, video games, and the internet, i blame you!). It's a lot easier for a teenager of our generation to kill than it was for a teenager in the 40s.

I know I left quite a bit of detail out of this post regarding some information, but I'm in a rush right now, and if anyone would like to know more or talk just let me know and I'll get back to you with more numbers and opinions :)

Oh and personally I can barely work myself into enough of a rage to even want to hit someone, much less try and kill them. But it's all about circumstance, so who knows.

[John Paul Harrison]

i don't think i could.

i don't know if i could shake off the social stigma of having killed someone, even if it was legally found as self defence.

[MattSharpIsCool]

The numbers were something like in WW2 only 2% of all American soldiers shot to kill, whereas in the vietnam conflict the % went up into the 90s.

I would like to know where you heard that. I find it hard to believe a soldier in WWII would not be trying to kill the enemy. In the military, you are trained to kill, not to injure.

[Mr. Ron]

I've been reading a book called On Killing lately, and I've found it very interesting. According to this book, the ability to kill someone (for the normal 98% of people) is based on distance. I'm talking about not just physical distance, but also social and moral distance. Certain factors such as religion and language or something like desire for revenge can help us further the distance emotionally from another human being, which makes it easier to hurt/kill them. Physical distance is also important, as it is easier (psychologically) to kill someone with a sniper rifle from far away than it is to plunge a knife into their chest face to face. Another important factor is conditioning. Improved training and preperation during the Vietnam conflict helped improve % of soldiers who shot to kill and did actually kill in battle. The numbers were something like in WW2 only 2% of all American soldiers shot to kill, whereas in the vietnam conflict the % went up into the 90s. An interesting note is that for today's generation, kids are a lot more likely to resort to aggressive violence because of constant conditioning (violence in movies, video games, and the internet, i blame you!). It's a lot easier for a teenager of our generation to kill than it was for a teenager in the 40s.

I know I left quite a bit of detail out of this post regarding some information, but I'm in a rush right now, and if anyone would like to know more or talk just let me know and I'll get back to you with more numbers and opinions :)

Oh and personally I can barely work myself into enough of a rage to even want to hit someone, much less try and kill them. But it's all about circumstance, so who knows.

Nice post. You should post more.


I think our society is a bit more violent then yesteryear...but I'm not so sure on how much things like video games actually condition youth to violence. I think it has to do with their upbringing and social predicament more than anything.

[lfantwister]

According to this book, the ability to kill someone (for the normal 98% of people) is based on distance.

i wrote a paper on that in like 10th grade. i think i read that same book. black cover?

i dont think i would be able to kill anyone. if i found it necessary i would hire someone or something. although it would be cool to have a gun

[BridgeToSolace]

I can't believe nobody would feel weird after killing in self defense.

People who say this probably have never killed in self defense.

I think I would kill in a him-or-me situation. But only if I was reaaaaallllllyyyy sure that there was absolutely no other solution.

And I would do everything possible not to put myself in a him-or-me situation.

And revenge is dumb, tbh.

[corb]

I would like to know where you heard that. I find it hard to believe a soldier in WWII would not be trying to kill the enemy. In the military, you are trained to kill, not to injure.

I also called bs when I first read that, but I'm coming to agree with it. I can't find the numbers right now, I'll have to dig a bit more, but I will get them for you.

In the meantime, here's an interesting (and related!) tidbit: The amount of rounds fired compared to the amount of hits in battles is pretty staggering. Consider the technology during the Civil War, I know very, very little about guns, but I'm sure anyone who does know much about them could tell you that they were more than accurate enough to mow down scores of open, advancing foes from a fortified position. So then, what explains the interesting ratio of rounds per hit? In, for example, the Battle of Wissembourg (in 1870), where the French, who were firing at Germans advancing across an open field, fired 48,000 rounds to hit 404 Germans. That hit ratio is 1 hit per 119 fired. That's insane! Also noted is that a fair amount, possibly even a majority of the casualties were sustained from artillery fire. That means the hit ratio is even more out of whack! So, what I'm trying to say here, is that surely with the accuracy of the guns during this point in time, more casualties should've been sustained? I think it's safe to say that this shows a natural resistance to killing fellow human beings. I realize this is just one example, but once I can find those numbers from WWI and II then I think it will help show this in more detail. Several other stories I have read tell of front line commanders yelling and hitting their troops just to make them not fire in the air. Simply put, it's not a part of human nature (for the vast majority) to want to kill a fellow human being.

Bleh that's quite a paragraph, my apologies for rambling. It also should be noted that most of this info is taken from the book On Killing by Col. Dave Grossman. Another good book on the subject is Acts of War by Louis Holmes. I will continue to look for those numbers, mr. sharp

[corb]

i wrote a paper on that in like 10th grade. i think i read that same book. black cover?

i dont think i would be able to kill anyone. if i found it necessary i would hire someone or something. although it would be cool to have a gun

The cover of my copy has a dark gray soldier's face plastered on the front, with a little bit of white at the top and the title in maroon. Yeah it's basically black.

[Der Übermensch]

I've been reading a book called On Killing lately, and I've found it very interesting
One of the best books I've ever read!

[Der Übermensch]

In the meantime, here's an interesting (and related!) tidbit: The amount of rounds fired compared to the amount of hits in battles is pretty staggering. Consider the technology during the Civil War, I know very, very little about guns, but I'm sure anyone who does know much about them could tell you that they were more than accurate enough to mow down scores of open, advancing foes from a fortified position. So then, what explains the interesting ratio of rounds per hit? In, for example, the Battle of Wissembourg (in 1870), where the French, who were firing at Germans advancing across an open field, fired 48,000 rounds to hit 404 Germans. That hit ratio is 1 hit per 119 fired. That's insane! Also noted is that a fair amount, possibly even a majority of the casualties were sustained from artillery fire. That means the hit ratio is even more out of whack! So, what I'm trying to say here, is that surely with the accuracy of the guns during this point in time, more casualties should've been sustained? I think it's safe to say that this shows a natural resistance to killing fellow human beings. I realize this is just one example, but once I can find those numbers from WWI and II then I think it will help show this in more detail. Several other stories I have read tell of front line commanders yelling and hitting their troops just to make them not fire in the air. Simply put, it's not a part of human nature (for the vast majority) to want to kill a fellow human being.
I don't remember the WW1 or WW2 stats, but by Vietnam, it was something in the 100's of thousands of rounds fired per confirmed kill. (Contrast with 1.3 rounds or so for sniper confirmed kill).

[silicon71]

While I was in Penn Station in New York City last week and I was trying to navigate around the swarms of lifeless people I was thinking to myself, 'wow there are so many people i could kill if i had to because what is one life among all these people' troo story

[Reaganista]

o i would also kill for irony

[Knifeboy]

Irony is probably the only reason I'd kill anyone

but I'd be sure to get it right

or else some internet nerd would jump in and tell me that I'm not doing irony right

[Tyrant21]

well, i just heard a confession from my ex(who im still close with) that she got literally forced to give a guy a bj, like a bunch of guys held her down, when she was younger and she never told anyone since she was afraid(real small town, lots of violence). In any case I wouldnt buy a gun and shoot him but that kinda stuff puts me on another level even with people i dont even know, if i make the trip home with her sometime and see him I would likely(and willingly) beat him to death.

Other then that, I'm a mild mannered person but I've always felt I was capable of violence under the right circumstance, I like fighting people but dont ever start anything. I doubt i would have many issues with killing someone in a self defense situation. But in a situation where it's kill or be killed, in close quarters, I think instinct takes over your moral dispositions.

[Oriah]

I doubt i would have many issues with killing someone in a self defense situation. But in a situation where it's kill or be killed, in close quarters, I think instinct takes over your moral dispositions.

I agree.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I'll probably kill a few people with incompetence before I finally learn how to do my future job.

Then I'll kill some more with carelessness.

[PerpetualBurn]

When the fight or flight response kicks in, most people choose flight. Despite what they think.

[Danger Bird]

I sure as hell would, but then, I'm a coward.

People who say this probably have never killed in self defense.
Oh, what? You've killed in self defense?

I think I would kill in a him-or-me situation. But only if I was reaaaaallllllyyyy sure that there was absolutely no other solution.

And I would do everything possible not to put myself in a him-or-me situation.

And revenge is dumb, tbh.

Of course you would, I'm not saying I wouldn't. It's just that afterwards living my life knowing that I killed someone would be a weird feeling, you know? All I'm saying is that I wouldn't kill a man in self defense and then skip down to the store for some ice cream.

I've thought about killing people before (not seriously, just hypothetically), I think that is a fairly common thought to think of.....right?

>_>

<_<

You don't get through high school without a few harmless fantasies...

[WhoDidTheElf]

The distance thing is for me. If I had no real conection to the person then it would no problem. Even people I've know doesn't seem hard sometimes, especially if I have a not-so-fond view of the person.

[ringworm]

hard to say what i would do in a real situation, but i dont think i would feel remorseful in any way over the death of a stranger that endangered me, if that was even the hypothetical case

a forced situation would be different, like a soldier or something else, i would think the casualties you inflicted would eventually get to you

[DBoons Ghost]

I voted the last option.

I could easily take a life. I am plagued by my conscience, but that doesn't mean that I am rendered unable to kill someone. I've beaten people into the hospital in my younger days and I never lost sleep about it. There has never been an issue where I started a fight or picked on someone and threw them a beating so don't judge me in that regard, but in defense of my life or my family's life there would be no hesitation at all. Killing just to kill I could not do, even if I could do it and get away with it. However, if I killed someone accidentally as in ran over a kid with a car I would more then likely be devastated about it, but if I killed someone in a street fight (accidentally) no matter the consequences, it would probably mean very little to me. I don't know if that justifes things, but that's about as honest as I could be.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

self defense, yes i could

revenge of someone i love, yes

any other situatoin, nah.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

The stigma against vengance here is odd. How many of you have actually exacted some revenge against someone? The cold comfort of revenge is without equal.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I've exacted some revenge (nothing to terrible) on a couple of school mates a while ago.

Sadly it's extremely satisfying.

[siva_chair]

A flaming bag of **** on someone's doorstep always nice. It is a revenge dish best served warm.

[DBoons Ghost]

I've often learned that sometimes you can leave revenge to karma and it works out.

[BridgeToSolace]

Oh, what? You've killed in self defense?


Duuuuuuuuuuude, I was agreeing with you.

"People who say this" meaning people who say they can kill without remorse.

:smash:

[ringworm]

I've often learned that sometimes you can leave revenge to karma and it works out.
it usually does if you're extremelyyyyyyy patient, but they usually dont remember of things done in the past, but it is still satisfying

[DBoons Ghost]

it usually does if you're extremelyyyyyyy patient, but they usually dont remember of things done in the past, but it is still satisfying

Yeah but I can't recall any need for revenge that went past something immature and non-violent. Like, when friends do stupid things like rat you out to your wife to get brownie points or whatever.. and it backfires because said wife wasn't born yesterday.. I laugh those off. If someone raped my sister and got off on a technicality, I'm fairly sure I'd be singing a different tune. I don't even have a sister but you understand the example.

[Iscariot]

yes but only because i was trained to and i don't think about killing the same way anyone else probably would

i'd also have to have a reason i wouldn't just kill someone because it sounded like the fun thing to do they would have had to have done something to me first

[BridgeToSolace]

I think I'm the only one who probably wouldn't kill someone for raping my sister or doing something to my family and getting away with it.

[Reaganista]

im surprised more of you wouldnt kill for fame
since this is theoretically a musician forum and all
i mean like after all of your best attempts at getting famous through more legitimate means have failed, why not just kill a few famous people or kill some normal people in shockingly horrible ways

[siva_chair]

im surprised more of you wouldnt kill for fame
since this is theoretically a musician forum and all
i mean like after all of your best attempts at getting famous through more legitimate means have failed, why not just kill a few famous people or kill some normal people in shockingly horrible ways

Perhaps someone on these boards should make you their first victim in their pursuit of fame.

[Reaganista]

lol try me

[Mr. Ron]

he can't he's a x-ian

[Reaganista]

he's already murdered me in his heart he needs to go repent his sins

[siva_chair]

lol try me

I really don't need to.

he can't he's a x-ian

Gee that was clever.

he's already murdered me in his heart he needs to go repent his sins

No I'm not Catholic.

[Reaganista]

apparently you're not an avid reader of the bible either

[siva_chair]

apparently you're not an avid reader of the bible either

Apparently you are still alive so you haven't been murdered.

[Mr. Ron]

I really don't need to.



Gee that was clever.



No I'm not Catholic.

I wasn't trying to be clever. You're the one making threats which are contradictory of Christian belief.

[Reaganista]

maybe you should reread matthew idk

[siva_chair]

I wasn't trying to be clever. You're the one making threats which are contradictory of Christian belief.

I never made a threat. Learn to read. I proposed a suggestion.

maybe you should reread matthew idk

Maybe you shouldn't worry about it, idk.

Disappearing would be a great idea on your part as well. That I do know.

[Reaganista]

there was something about a sermon on a mountian in there
i think it might be relevant to a self-styled christian
just a bit

[siva_chair]

there was something about a sermon on a mountian in there
i think it might be relevant to a self-styled christian
just a bit

I'm pretty sure I never threatened you. If God wills you to be killed by some random member of this forum in pursuit of fame then so be it. I am not going to have anything to do with it.

Perhaps you shouldn't give religious advice. Fools are never wise to do that.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm pretty sure I never threatened you. If God wills you to be killed by some random member of this forum in pursuit of fame then so be it. I am not going to have anything to do with it.

Perhaps you shouldn't give religious advice. Fools are never wise to do that.

looolllll

[Reaganista]

I'm pretty sure I never threatened you. If God wills you to be killed by some random member of this forum in pursuit of fame then so be it. I am not going to have anything to do with it.

Perhaps you shouldn't give religious advice. Fools are never wise to do that.

ya but god knows your thoughts
bullshit syntax technicalities dont even come into play
i'd hate for your soul to be tormented eternally over your hatred for me though, so you should plz go beg god for forgiveness so i dont have that guilt

[siva_chair]

ya but god knows your thoughts
bullpoop syntax technicalities dont even come into play
i'd hate for your soul to be tormented eternally over your hatred for me though, so you should plz go beg god for forgiveness so i dont have that guilt

I don't need to. I don't believe in hell in the traditional sense.

[Reaganista]

ya but jesus does

[siva_chair]

ya but jesus does

Yeah as an absence from God, not as an actual place of damnation.

[Reaganista]

absence from god is damnation

[The Stig]

If I absolutely had to, maybe. But since I've never been in that situation, I can't make a well-informed decision.

[siva_chair]

absence from god is damnation

It isn't some place you go after you die though.

[Mr. Ron]

It isn't some place you go after you die though.

except you don't know that for certain even if it does exist.

[siva_chair]

except you don't know that for certain even if it does exist.

I'm pretty sure the being I have chosen to call God wouldn't torment anyone for an eternity.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm pretty sure the being I have chosen to call God wouldn't torment anyone for an eternity.

you're referring to the god in the christian bible, right?

[siva_chair]

you're referring to the god in the christian bible, right?

I'm referring to the Great Spirit I have personally observed.

[Mr. Ron]

Ok lets not be ambiguous here. You're a christian right? You follow the teaching of Christ, correct?

[Der Übermensch]

He's something like that

[siva_chair]

Ok lets not be ambiguous here. You're a christian right? You follow the teaching of Christ, correct?

I refuse to partake in your attempts to categorically define me as something.

But, I do try to follow the teachings of Christ, yes.

[Mr. Ron]

I refuse to partake in your attempts to categorically define me as something.

But, I do try to follow the teachings of Christ, yes.
No, you just don't want to answer a simple question.


This divine experience you say you had, how can you possibly be sure it was even the Christian god? You can't. It could have been any number of supposed god(s) in the know pantheon of deities mankind has worshiped throughout history. So, until you have conclusive evidence that it was the god of the bible (which also translates into following Christ) then it doesn't make sense to really follow Christian beliefs.

[descendents1]

Anyway...

I would kill someone if my life was threatened or the life of a family member was threatened. I would give my best possible effort to not kill them and find that killing someone would result in only extreme circumstances. I would first and foremost keep a level head during an intense situation because I've been in plenty during my lifetime where I was almost killed. I don't see me ever killing someone in my lifetime, nor do I ever think about doing such an awful action.

[Junooni]

I've killed a goat before, cut the throat in one slice.

If I had to, I could kill.

[Mr. Ron]

oh shi

[White]

Moses Killed...........why can't I?

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

God also killed too

story of Lot anyone?

[Junooni]

let's sue Lot while we're at it.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm on it.

[Eliminator]

i think i'd kill a lot of people if i could get away with it

[siva_chair]

No, you just don't want to answer a simple question.

No sorry. I don't call myself much of anything.


This divine experience you say you had, how can you possibly be sure it was even the Christian god?

I never said it was the image of the God described by some in the Bible. But it was of pure love.

Besides, the God described by the Jews in the OT is in sharp contrast to the characteristics attributed to God by some in the NT. Which one are you talking about anyhow?

You can't.

Stop assuming.

It could have been any number of supposed god(s) in the know pantheon of deities mankind has worshiped throughout history. So, until you have conclusive evidence that it was the god of the bible (which also translates into following Christ) then it doesn't make sense to really follow Christian beliefs.

Why not? I think what Jesus taught was perfectly applicable to life and is a good way to live.

[Mr. Ron]

No sorry. I don't call myself much of anything.




I never said it was the image of the God described by some in the Bible. But it was of pure love.

Besides, the God described by the Jews in the OT is in sharp contrast to the characteristics attributed to God by some in the NT. Which one are you talking about anyhow?



Stop assuming.



Why not? I think what Jesus taught was perfectly applicable to life and is a good way to live.

Well you certainly talk as though you were a Christian of some sort. Oh well I'm tired of arguing over this gg.

[siva_chair]

Well you certainly talk as though you were a Christian of some sort. Oh well I'm tired of arguing over this gg.

There are lots of different kinds of Christians, you know.

[Mr. Ron]

I certainly know that. I was one of them.


If I had to follow a monotheistic religion, it'd probably be Zoroastrianism. I mean come on, they have fire.

[griftadan]

i could probably do it in self defense or war or something

[Reaganista]

i dont see why killing in sef defense or war is any better than killing for fame

[Det_Nosnip]

I don't know.

[Reaganista]

i would never kill just because somebody else declared war that's crazy

[big80smullet]

I think i could. Im pretty damn good at disconnecting myself. I worked in a slaughter house for a while and i had to deal with the animals while they were still bleeding. I woulodn't just kill someone for no reason but if it was lifeand death or to save a loved one or whatever im pretty sure i could rise to the occaision

[Shadius]

It would have to be a very extreme situation to kill someone. I think everyone is capable, tbh, and those people who arn't fail at survival and natural selection.

If there was any way out other than killing someone I think I would, even if it was just injuring someone badly. I'm not sure what I'd do if someone killed all my loved ones though, that might be a reciepe for taking the law into your own hands. You'd have to see where you stand with the guilt later, I think.

I wouldn't kill during war, unless I absolutely agreed with the motives of the war, which I doubt I ever would.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I think if you have any kind of regard for your country (so reaginsta is excused) you kinda have to kill in a war they tell you to. It's kinda like your end of the bargain, you know?

[Mr. Ron]

I think if you have any kind of regard for your country (so reaginsta is excused) you kinda have to kill in a war they tell you to. It's kinda like your end of the bargain, you know?

No you don't.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I don't know if you have to, but it would prolly be wise to...

[Reaganista]

I think if you have any kind of regard for your country (so reaginsta is excused) you kinda have to kill in a war they tell you to. It's kinda like your end of the bargain, you know?
what why would i do that

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Well you regularly profess to not giving a fu'ck about your country, thus it wouldn't be hypocritical of you to go off to war for them. But if you profess some kind of patriotic sentiment, and believe that your country has done alright by you, you really should put in your bit when asked.

[BridgeToSolace]

Well you regularly profess to not giving a fu'ck about your country, thus it wouldn't be hypocritical of you to go off to war for them. But if you profess some kind of patriotic sentiment, and believe that your country has done alright by you, you really should put in your bit when asked.

It depends on what the war is about.

Most wars have some other byproduct besides serving your country's self interest.

[Mr. Ron]

Well you regularly profess to not giving a fu'ck about your country, thus it wouldn't be hypocritical of you to go off to war for them. But if you profess some kind of patriotic sentiment, and believe that your country has done alright by you, you really should put in your bit when asked.

It greatly depends on what the war is over.


But I don't think "patriotism" is throwing yourself into some sort of martyrdom for Uncle Sam is required.

[Reaganista]

Well you regularly profess to not giving a fu'ck about your country, thus it wouldn't be hypocritical of you to go off to war for them. But if you profess some kind of patriotic sentiment, and believe that your country has done alright by you, you really should put in your bit when asked.
um no my country isnt worth killing or dying over

[Mr. Ron]

um no my country isnt worth killing or dying over

bUt dey giv yew freedumz!

[Reaganista]

not really
they just decide not to take some freedumz away

[Mr. Ron]

You are anti-americaN tway. GET OUT.

[Reaganista]

ya but i wouldnt go to war for any country

[Mr. Ron]

...damn.


The only scenario I could see myself going to war over would be if we were invaded, but thats not happening so oh wellz.

[Reaganista]

no even if we were invaded im not gonna go to war that's stupid

[Mr. Ron]

no even if we were invaded im not gonna go to war that's stupid

I see. But if your very lively hood was threatened, that would be a nice motivator to defend yourself, would it not?

[Reaganista]

not really who cares about a livelyhood

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

people?

[Mr. Ron]

not really who cares about a livelyhood

I'd rather not be a slave or subject under a dictator though. It's an extreme scenario, but I think somethings like your own life and the ones you care about is a very worthy cause to fight for. But, other than that, I agree with you.

[Reaganista]

um you wouldnt be a slave or a subject under a dictator unless you stayed

[Mr. Ron]

So just let them dominate us?

[Reaganista]

no i would leave
:confused:

[Mr. Ron]

What if they kept following you and wanted to wipe you and your people out?

[Reaganista]

i dont have a people

[Mr. Ron]

Ok then what about just you?

[Reaganista]

well that wouldnt be a war that would be somebody trying to kill me
and if i had the means of course i would kill them first

[AA-12]

I would kill if:

Someone tried harming myself, my friends, my family, and my pets.

[corb]

I would kill if:

Someone tried harming myself, my friends, my family, and my pets.

You would kill another human being for harming an animal?

[Der Übermensch]

I would kill someone if they tried to harm my dog. She's done less to deserve dying then most people....

[Mr. Ron]

I would kill someone if they tried to harm my dog. She's done less to deserve dying then most people....

Same.


I always liked that question....what really makes a human life more valuable than a regular animal's life?

[pulseczar]

I would never kill anyone.

[Mr. Ron]

I would never kill anyone.

For a Klondike bar?

[The Chemist]

I couldn't kill someone.

[pulseczar]

For a Klondike bar?

Oh wait, that's why I'm getting the lethal injection.

[italic zero]

Same.


I always liked that question....what really makes a human life more valuable than a regular animal's life?
humans have a stronger interest in continued existence

[Mr. Ron]

humans have a stronger interest in continued existence

I don't see how that makes human life superior?

[italic zero]

it means we should save humans over dogs

[lfantwister]

I don't see how that makes human life superior?

We think

or some of us do

[Reaganista]

animals that cant value arent deprived of anything by killing them

[lfantwister]

except life

plus it sucks more for people that liked them than for the animals themselves. same goes for humans i guess

[pedro durruti]

humans have a stronger interest in continued existence
We use our faculties and our body to the best of our survival, as do animals. Every living species has just as strong an interest in living, humans only have the mental capabilities of realizing theirs despite varying threats. Whereas animals are deprived of that and subjected fully to natural selection, minus human interaction of course, which is just a more complex form of evolution.

[Oriah]

We use our faculties and our body to the best of our survival, as do animals. Every living species has just as strong an interest in living, humans only have the mental capabilities of realizing theirs despite varying threats. Whereas animals are deprived of that and subjected fully to natural selection, minus human interaction of course, which is just a more complex form of evolution.

Very well put :thumb:

[italic zero]

We use our faculties and our body to the best of our survival, as do animals. Every living species has just as strong an interest in living, humans only have the mental capabilities of realizing theirs despite varying threats. Whereas animals are deprived of that and subjected fully to natural selection, minus human interaction of course, which is just a more complex form of evolution.
You're saying the connection between behavior and interest is inherent, but it is not.

[pedro durruti]

And why can't it be? Instinct, interest, what have you. Reflexive behavior in humans when they have to fly or fight where thoughts are suspended or invisible is an interest in existence just as planning to put a lock on your door is. As a conscious creature that perceives pain, light, pleasure, etc. you run towards what those sensations interest you, whether from mental deliberation or instinctive behavior (mental deliberation).

[Reaganista]

except life
life is worth absolutely nothing to animals that can't value

thus they aren't deprived of anything by killing them

[italic zero]

And why can't it be? Instinct, interest, what have you. Reflexive behavior in humans when they have to fly or fight where thoughts are suspended or invisible is an interest in existence just as planning to put a lock on your door is. As a conscious creature that perceives pain, light, pleasure, etc. you run towards what those sensations interest you, whether from mental deliberation or instinctive behavior (mental deliberation).
Interest is not instinctual. If there is no awareness there can be no detriment.

[recklessrick]

Violence is as American as apple pie who do you think is worth killing?

[pedro durruti]

life is worth absolutely nothing to animals that can't value

thus they aren't deprived of anything by killing them
They are deprived of existence, whether or not they value it, which they are when they attempt to preserve themselves. If you're going to go onto a slippery slope, then infants aren't deprived of anything either.
Interest is not instinctual. If there is no awareness there can be no detriment.
A lot of animals have plenty of awareness.

[One Groovin Clown]

With the mentality of "my life your his" I'm sure I could take a life.

This greatly effects a battle field situation or a self defense situation. But being able to take someones life for any other reason, I doubt I could do it.

[italic zero]

A lot of animals have plenty of awareness.
Yeah because you just took that word out of context. Of course animals are aware; that wasn't what I was saying.

[recklessrick]

You don't have to kill someone you can really f___k them up and make it so they need to get around with sticks or wheels,that is their just deserves.Next time they want to mess around they will remember how and why they are in their situation.

[pedro durruti]

Yeah because you just took that word out of context. Of course animals are aware; that wasn't what I was saying.
Well then can you please elaborate on what the devil you are saying.

[Reaganista]

They are deprived of existence, whether or not they value it
existence which is worth nothing to them because they can't value anything
thus
they are deprived of nothing
If you're going to go onto a slippery slope, then infants aren't deprived of anything either.
obviously but wtf does that have to do with anything

[pedro durruti]

existence which is worth nothing to them because they can't value anything
thus
they are deprived of nothing
Why can't sensation determine value?

[italic zero]

Well then can you please elaborate on what the devil you are saying.
I re-read my post and I admit I was unclear. So, sorry for that.

I meant awareness of self and awareness of cessation of existence. Animals (or most animals) don't have an idea of self over time and therefore do not suffer from a painless death. Humans recognize self over time and therefore have an interest in continued existence that animals do not have (as far as we can tell). To say that because animals act like they want to survive it means that they have a true interest in surviving is a fallacy and anthropomorphism.

[pedro durruti]

Hmmm, I would say that because animals would be oblivious of their condition in the event of a painless death (?), their interest is not weaker, it is just unable to reflect upon their condition. I don't think our interest is stronger exactly, just more capable.

When a human's behavior is reflexive and without thought, is their interest in self-preservation lessened?

[Reaganista]

Why can't sensation determine value?
what

[pedro durruti]

Why can't, for example, pleasure and the avoidance of pain, equal a clear valuing of existence?

[Smokey D]

Because pleasure and pain are pretty simplistic and things that feel good don't always produce good things.

[big80smullet]

Pleasure and pain are inextricably linked.

[Reaganista]

Why can't, for example, pleasure and the avoidance of pain, equal a clear valuing of existence?

i think that's a different topic i never said what it meant to value existence i just said what a consequence of not valuing it is

[Lupus]

Because pleasure and pain are pretty simplistic and things that feel good don't always produce good things.

Overall happiness is an end in itself however.