If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
are you.................................................
...........a scientologist??????????????????????????
ps. I did already.
No......that's another wacky fuckstick nutcase belief. Like thinking you are in a country or whatever.
I missed it. I've reread the thread and saw nowhere where going off to kill someone was a good thing.
Ok...
Killing in self defense. You are atack , your gonna die if you don't do owt, you kill them. Its a good thing.
ah. Its just in that last post you sounded like a scientologist.
And if the guy thought you were going to attack him in future?
Would killing him be the best and most desired option?
ahh no!! Don't be mixing up pre-emptive striking with a one on one attack.
crafty buger.
You said any example of when killing is right.
case I juist gave is one on one self defense. Tomake it easier how about a woman and itsa guy thats about to rape, torture an dattack her or he has already raped and tortured her and will kill her soon. She kills him as he goes to kil her. Killiing is right then.
If its down to her or him then killing is the best option. The most desired might be to have the police shwo up beforehand but it unlikley.
Oh dear. In the real world there are only individuals. Unless you have some experience of telepathy that is. Being told by someone with a costume on to kill someone else can be refused by anyone. All people have free will.
Any proof of the existence of those groups such as "US" would be great.
Yup, I did. As there are only individuals in the world, and a rule that applies to one must apply to all, or not apply to all at all there can be no right killing.
Either everyone can kill at will like those wearing costumes do and therfore there is no right and wrong so it can never be right. OR no one can kill at will and therefore you can't make excuses and it's never right.
No, it's an entirely understandable bad one. Would we prefer that he merely capture and put him in prison? Of course we would, any sane person would not want vengence killing taking place. Given that we have a preferred option we must recognise that the action of killing another human being is never a good thing to do.
If someone came along and burually murdered and raped my wife and or daughter, I'd want to kill them myself and I rekcon plenty would say I was right for doing so.
Then debate it! or read the "politics and debate" thing and have a think what it could mean, at least. :rolleyes:
So would it always be right to kill people who have injured someone else? Leaving my own morality behind for a moment.
But you werent asking about all cases and not all cases aply to the one.
You asked for one case. I gave you one.
Sorry I am typing up recordings and it's as boring as fuck. Intellectually duffing up Walkinidiot is a nice distraction.
You cannot have rules that apply to only one group of people Walkindude, if you can't prove that there is such a group. As there are no groups, and only individuals then there can be no rule for individuals that does not apply to everyone. If it doesn't apply to some people, you have to point out exactly what is different about them, using facts from material reality.
There aren't any facts from material reality to bear out such a view.
your talking shit, you do relaises this don't you?
and no I don't mean your opinion, I mean using a roud about, word heavy, impressive sounding but ultimately clumsy, confused, unrelaistic argument thats just pouring from your hands in this case.
You stiull canot deny that killing someone in self defence is not right. It is, simple as. Only people that don't have intelcual capcity resort to insulting people to make their arguments klin.
thats what you just did.
Well, I think i am talking sense....and you think I am talking shit. Any sensible person at this point goes to objective, material reality to see who is correct. Soooo if we do this we see that I am right and you are wrong.
Based on facts and material reality, not your opinions or the madness of others claims.
I don't use "heavy impressive words" I se simple ones. I have a tendency to stack them together in a sentence with a few clauses, like this one, but if you cannot hold severalpoints in your head at once you really are an idiot.
As for being "unrealistic" i am the one asking for the facts of material reality to be the deciding factor.
I can what I damn well please. Regardless, that wasn't my question to you. My question to you was if it's right to kill someone in self defence then it must be right for all people to kill in self defence at all times and how do you prove that it is so?
I am sorry for the "walkinidiot" crack if you decided to be offended by it. You do come across as being subnormal though. If you don't like it, change. It was also not part of my argument in any way shape and or form.
what material?? what evidence?? you have nothing. Go out and tell someoone laws and countries don't exist and see what reaction you get.
maddness of others claim???
If your gonna quote me, at least get the quote right. I didn't say you used "heavy impressive words". I said you were "word heavy". There is a difference You bombared the reader with words , ideas and concpets that are hard to follow and put them out in such a way as it sounds right but is actually conjecture.
No, your orginal question was give an example of when it is right to kill someone and I did. Everything yu have said afterward is changing the goal posts.
Your comment was not needed I did nothing to warrent that comment. We were talking and debating and you had to insult me, a base level tactic that wasn't needed and now you have done it again.
tsk
And if I tell a fundamentalist christian that there is no god I will get strange looks. Strange looks do not make evidence. A country is a defined area with a border etc. Those borders :shocking: DO NOT EXIST :shocking: in the real world.
I am not the one claiming that something "isn't there" i am just pointing out that it's not. Your belief that something is there is the one that requires proof. In the absence of such proof, your a lunatic who by rights hould be in a mental intitution with all the other people who see things that aren't there.
So when we abandon "conjecture" what do we measure it by - objective material reality. in which case I am entirely correct and you should either
a) Change your mind
or
b) Stop pretending to be rational.
I already told you that was incorrect and why. I also asked you if that statement you made applied to everyone and you keep dodging the question.
It's not an insult, it's a description. BTW, you started off by calling me simple minded, so let's call it even so I can get back to kicking your arse on purely debating grounds. K?
Do you have any proof for your assertions that things like countries exist?
Countries exist on paper, legally, on maps, and if your wnat a physically existance, then most countries have borders, actually physically drawn borders with walls, fences and checkpoints. So the border exists physically and th eland exists physically and the land inside that border runs on a different sstem with different people and different history to the one next door, then it is exists.
what objective material?? You still haven't shown it.
I am being rational.
No you asked one question, then chnaged it to something else. I still answered correctly.
Reread the thread, it's right back at the start.
What a ridiculous statement. I just drew a line down the middle of "england" and called the two halves "strawberry" and "chocolate". Do they now exist?
Mine was a legal document.
yep, like mine.
So, if I put a fence in a field, we have a country? If I ask people for ID coming into my house I am a nation? Ridiculous nonsense.
If it exists physically why do you have to take actions like putting up fences to make it happen?
I don't need to. You're the one who is claiming the existence of something. You are the one with the burden of proof.
No, your consistently ignoring the evidence of your senses in favour of what you believe. Hence - irrational.
No, you came out with a lot of crap. I asked you a question about the nonsense you posted and never heard back about it. As you can't back up your original point I am assuming it was ill thought out nonsense like the rest of your assertions.
I love this argument because a) it is true and b) it works well.
We only have countries because once upon time it was the most useful thing to do. Now, it would work better without them... but we keep them because it keeps the current people in power there.
The reason why I keep having this argument is that it's fictions that excuse immoral and/or ineffective behaviour. Once you remove a set of fictions it's much much harder for people to then waffle on about say, blowing up "Iran" because al lot of the justifications have been shot to pieces.
Exactly as if you stop believing in the soul, you are left with a bunch of madmen torturing people for the sake of myths and legends. Without a nation, what is Tony Blair? A big fat conman and head of one of the largest criminal organisations in history.
If a woman has a choice between being raped or killing her attacker...let's say he has a blade, and the opportunity presents itself for her to grab one herself and use it...what should she do?
Attack him with it, obviously.
Totally understandable. If she kills him in the course of defending herself, it's an understandable murder. Doesn't make it a good thing which is my whole point.
Let's say he's a total nutjob. If she doesn't go for the kill he's going to kill her in retialiation. What's the correct course of action? Killing him, being raped, or being killed as a result of non-fatal retaliation?
Annnnd how do we know this in the real world?
She'll attack him, obviously. If she is certain of killing him she's hardly helpless, now is she?
Exactly the same as I said before.
Your missing the point. Killing people is always wrong, it's never ever desirable, but sometimes circumstances mean it has to be done. That's all i am saying. The other thing I am saying is that you decide who those people are by their actions, and not by political labels, uniforms or myths.
Self defence is one of those circumstances. If she wounded him, waited for an ambulance to arrive and then slit his throat we'd probably disaprove, although we might understand.
I'd just like to add that the fact such incredibly unlikely mythical scenarios have to be thought up to counter the basic point is kinda proof of it's validity.
Obviously not. She has the power to decide her fate with two options.
If it's always wrong and never desirable then why do you think it sometimes has to be done?
You're deviating from the given example here.
That's how moral systems are analysed.
Of course it's relevent. Our imaginary gal is making her decision based on it, so how she knows might be important.
That's kind of my point.
because sometimes you have to pick between two shit options. That doesn't make either of the options good, does it? I can kick you in the nuts or slap you in the face....pick one and tell me it was the good one. :rolleyes:
Better than an altermnative doesn't translate as "good".
No, I am playing with time within the example. If someone threatens you today and you wait for them to show up for 67 years before finally deciding that it's time to kill them it changes things, doesn't it?
Yup. My point was that you have to come up with an unlikely scenario not that you have to come up with a scenario at all.
Well, the fact he's threatening with her a knife and trying to rape her i reckon is a big enough indicator that he's a fucking nutjob. To not intentionally kill him is obviously putting her life at seriously great risk...if someone's trying to shoot you, what would you do, shoot for the leg or the head?
Stupid example. How you can go from the example of a women trying to fight off a rapist and potential murderer to slapping or kicking someone for no reason is amazing.
What point are you trying to make here? Of course it would change things - mostly, killing is wrong. What i'm taking issue with is that your claim that it's always wrong.
Not that it matters since you've already admitted it's permissible under certain circumstances and negated your own assertion.
You've just agreed then disagreed. Well done.
Body, if leaving wasn't an option.
I was dismissing your idea that if you have two options one of them HAS to be a good one. Which of course, you know i was.
Ok. Does the woman want to kill anyone? Is it a life ambition that she will be glad she's marked off?
Not fucking likely. So it's a baaaad thing.
Does she way up the options of doing something she doesn't really want to do (murder someone) with something she wants to do even less (get raped) and decide to murder?
Sure. Quite why you see one of these options as a "good thing" is a mystery to me. There are only bad choices in your example. You pick the least worse.
It being permissible doesn't make it a good thing. Your asumption there is of a "top down" moral view, I'd love to know where you got the idea I would support such a thing.
You onl think that because you have assumed your "it's a good thing" approach is valid. It ain't.
What a load of nonsense. Look, the crux of the matter is this - you say killing is always wrong, i've given you a theoretical example where you've agreed it's justified - thus, you don't even truly believe what your trying to argue. Pity you can't see it.
What assumption is that? What do you mean by a top-down moral view? God?
I have no idea what you're talking about. :eek2:
Justification only has to be done for things that are bad. You don't have to justify things that are good. Thank you for proving my point.
I was never arguing that you shouldn't, wouldn't, or couldn't kill in self defence, only that it was still a bad thing that you would prefer to avoid.
What god? Who do you think I mean? Who imposes their moral view on everyone else?
Oh...never mind.......your going to keep missing the point ain'tcha.
You have no idea how moral systems work or how they are analysed. Your ignorance truly is in full flow. I'm actually laughing at you klintock, i've never bothered to read your epics with blagsta but i now realise you're a total lunatic, and a highly ignorant one at that. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Of course the whole situation is bad, one which is preferably avoided. But when you make the statement "killing is always wrong", you're making a blanket statement which negates the justification/permissibility of killing under any circumstance.
Anything which you consider morally wrong all the time cannot rationally be considered permissible under any circumstance, theoretical or otherwise.
That principle really isn't difficult to grasp.
I'm talking permissibility with regards to morality, nothing else. Certainly not the state if that's what you're thinking.
No, it's YOU who's missing the point. I told you that using theoretical examples to test a moral system is standard procedure when dealing with morality when you were complaining about absurd scenarios being presented. You replied "yup" then started complaining again.