|
Post by Stal on Aug 17, 2011 12:32:20 GMT -5
Well, you know what? You won't change my mind. I believe in love. If I didn't, I would die. End of. [/blunt] Sae, please try to stay civil. You're welcome to your belief and viewpoint. No one is denying you that. But you keep asking questions and contriving situations for others to answer while explaining why you would do such-and-such. When people answer and disagree with you, they're not attacking you personally. They're answering your questions and explaining why they disagree, the same way you explain why you feel as you do. There's no need for the kind of attitude and approach as you showed there. Carrie, if there were no other possible choices, if it was thoroughly known to me that the only two outcomes were that and no other possible options (which is a contrived situation, I must say), then yes. With tears in my eyes, bile in my throat, and the knowledge it'd haunt me forever, I'd take both lives. Why? Because they're already dead. The baby dies if we're caught. The old man dies if we all drown. Their death is agiven. If we already know that, I would do what I had to to ensure the best possible outcome otherwise. Call it cold and cruel, but in a situation as lose-lose as that, emotion has to be put aside and rationality must take over and guide the actions. But I don't believe in such situations happening.
|
|
|
Post by Fraze on Aug 17, 2011 12:34:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure I have it in me to take a life. But more importantly, if it's to have any impact at all, an action like the one in the opening post needs to be a Statement. With a capital S. Capturing a hypothetical evil person, having that person receive a well-publicized and fair trial in front of an impartial jury, and eventually (hopefully) facing a justified execution--that makes a far more powerful Statement than a random act of street violence.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 17, 2011 12:37:28 GMT -5
Oy. Of course that'll come up as I type.
Look, Sae, this is a thought discussion. These are not real circumstances. And to be honest, no matter what people here say, you never know what they'd really do until they're faced with that kind of situation.
We're the exact same people you knew before. We haven't changed. It's just your view of who we are has changed. And people will always disappoint you and never live up to the fantasies of them we build up in our heads. This is true for everyone.
I recommend ending your point in this discussion if you're being hit that hard by it. You don't have to read or participate and there's no need to make yourself miserable. Go take a break, hun, and settle down.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Aug 17, 2011 13:45:38 GMT -5
Dju, in response, 1. I would do a memory charm and Voldemort and 2. I would grab Xandra and run away. I. CANNOT. Take. A. Life. Because it will tear me apart. It may not do that to you, but it will do it to. Also, I feel like...*sob* this is going to be very hard...but you're not the people I used to know anymore. As the Doctor has often said, you're not any better than a killer if you them. I think you're better. I want you to be better. I want you to be you again. I want you to be the people I knew, not this. It's like the ties I have to you are being painfully severed, one by one. I'm seriously on the verge of tears as I type this. I don't want to be disconnected anymore. Come back, everyone! Be good and sweet and funny like you were. It's almost as if you've turned into the people we're arguing about. I don't mean to be mean, but it's just what I feel. Come back! Please! *sobs more* And I don't care if jumping off the raft myself is not an option. It's either that or nothing for me. Ouch. Sae, we're the exact same people you knew before. We had these exact same thoughts, convictions, and moral resonings. Being willing to kill in this sort of situation - even having killed in this sort of situation - doesn't automatically rule out one's ability to love, to be sweet, to be caring, to be funny. A big part of almost everyone's argument for killing the Big Bad is that innocent lives would be saved. We would kill not out of maliciousness or for revenge, but because we would want to save these innocent human beings, who have so much potential and love to give to the world. I would be willing to kill someone attacking me or my family or friends not because I'm a homicidal maniac, but because I love my family and friends (oh, and myself, I guess =P) more than I fear for the state of my soul. I think Stal's right that you need to consider stepping back. You may also want to rethink what debates you get involved in; perhaps things you're really passionate about are not good things to debate over. I've had to avoid this section of the forum for a long time because I got too emotionally involved in debates; it could be you need to do the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Breakingchains on Aug 17, 2011 13:52:11 GMT -5
Also, I feel like...*sob* this is going to be very hard...but you're not the people I used to know anymore. As the Doctor has often said, you're not any better than a killer if you them. I think you're better. I want you to be better. I want you to be you again. I want you to be the people I knew, not this. It's like the ties I have to you are being painfully severed, one by one. I'm seriously on the verge of tears as I type this. I don't want to be disconnected anymore. Come back, everyone! Be good and sweet and funny like you were. It's almost as if you've turned into the people we're arguing about. I don't mean to be mean, but it's just what I feel. Come back! Please! *sobs more* First off, I'll join the others in saying that if this debate is affecting you that much, then you should reconsider whether participating in it is good for you. There's really no sense in hurting yourself emotionally over a hypothetical situation. But also, I think you should be aware that at times, when you get upset, your posts can turn out... less than kind, or rational. When you use phrases like, "You're not the people I used to know anymore!", it comes across as very disrespectful, perhaps judgmental, whether you really think that way or not. I'm not saying you should always agree with us. You always have a right to your opinion - but because we have different views on what would be right, whether in real life or this completely hypothetical situation, it doesn't mean we're turning into monsters. It makes it sound like you didn't even try to see the reasoning behind our points or understand us - like you just labeled our points "wrong" from the get-go and then got upset when we didn't abandon them. When you realize you're getting emotional over a post, it's usually best to wait at least an hour or so until you're calm again. When you approach things with a clear head later, it's much easier to avoid sounding insulting or treating the topic too seriously. And as Tiger says, you might want to pick and choose which topics you participate in in the first place - I know I've had to avoid entire subforums before because I knew my emotions would override my judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Aug 17, 2011 14:20:00 GMT -5
And, I want to point out that (I don't mean to be offensive) maybe, instead of pointing at everyone who doesn't agrees and saying we've changed and that we're wrong and saying we've turned into heartless monsters, you should consider that maybe you're the one with a bad attitude here...*holds shield* Not on the kill or not a man way, but on the 'you're not as you used to be' way. I'm not saying you're cold and monstruous, I'm just saying that maybe you're the one who sort...changed, and not the only person who got their feelings hurt.
Don't mean to be offensive, it's just contructive criticism...
*brick shower* Nyaah! D:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 14:36:32 GMT -5
I'm sorry everyone *hugs you*. Yeah, I think I will leave this debate. Especially since I was typing that during my lunch break and when I got back to class I cried. I was considering posting a rant thread begging for help, because I was afraid I would turn into the Ocean Gypsy (from a very good but sad song about a girl who gave so much and no one loved her in return ;_;). So yeah, I'm out of this thread. Again, I'm really sorry guys. I hope you can forgive me for saying all that.
|
|
Nim on sisters computer
Guest
|
Post by Nim on sisters computer on Aug 17, 2011 14:40:50 GMT -5
Dju, in response, 1. I would do a memory charm and Voldemort and 2. I would grab Xandra and run away. I. CANNOT. Take. A. Life. Because it will tear me apart. It may not do that to you, but it will do it to. Also, I feel like...*sob* this is going to be very hard...but you're not the people I used to know anymore. As the Doctor has often said, you're not any better than a killer if you them. I think you're better. I want you to be better. I want you to be you again. I want you to be the people I knew, not this. It's like the ties I have to you are being painfully severed, one by one. I'm seriously on the verge of tears as I type this. I don't want to be disconnected anymore. Come back, everyone! Be good and sweet and funny like you were. It's almost as if you've turned into the people we're arguing about. I don't mean to be mean, but it's just what I feel. Come back! Please! *sobs more* And I don't care if jumping off the raft myself is not an option. It's either that or nothing for me. Sae, take a deep breath and slow down for a bit. Number 1. We're the exact same people we were before. It's just that you're getting to know us better, and the fact that we're real 3 dimensional people, not fictional people jammed into some character archetype. Perhaps for your examples as to what makes a "good" person, choose a real person instead of a fictional character. Yes, The Doctor says that Killing is Wrong but he's fictional, has the ability to go and fundamentally change a person without their permission (how is that any more moral?), and is always given a problem that can be solved in less than 50 minutes via use of near divine abilities that lesser mortals do not have. (Even then, as a character, he's hypocritical, seeing as he's killed a lot of people -- including the genocide of his own species). Having killed someone does not automatically make you a soulless homicidal maniac. Thinking and saying otherwise is very unkind, and very cruel. That is saying that every police officer, by swearing to keep other people safe, even if it means killing a bad guy, is evil. It is saying that every soldier who has ever existed is a heartless person who would slaughter a field of babies. This is obviously not true, and saying so is both cruel to those who do these jobs, as well as their family and children. It goes beyond cruel to being heartless to those whose family member has died protecting innocent people. There is a reason that Killing does not automatically mean murder. Very few murders have had some horrible thing happen to someone who was once an angelic cherub that turned them into homicidal manics. There was a murder just a couple days ago in Louisiana where a man bludgeoned his own son to death, cut his head off, and the placed the head on the sidewalk for the mother to find. Why? " He was tired of taking care of him." This was not a man who had been tortured, or who had been systematically abused into becoming a child hating machine. This was a man from a nice middle class life who decided that taking care of a disabled seven year old was just too much trouble, so he beat him to death and then decapitated him with a meat cleaver. Real life isn't like it is in storybooks. Sometimes there are just bad people and there is just no rhyme or reason for why they're bad. Some people are lucky enough that they don't have to deal with the bad people. Some of us aren't so lucky. Telling people who have had to deal with the bad that the person we should really feel sorry about is the one who victimized us, because of "what a horrible past they must have had to do this to you" is cruel.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 15:21:05 GMT -5
Dju, in response, 1. I would do a memory charm and Voldemort and 2. I would grab Xandra and run away. I. CANNOT. Take. A. Life. Because it will tear me apart. It may not do that to you, but it will do it to. Also, I feel like...*sob* this is going to be very hard...but you're not the people I used to know anymore. As the Doctor has often said, you're not any better than a killer if you them. I think you're better. I want you to be better. I want you to be you again. I want you to be the people I knew, not this. It's like the ties I have to you are being painfully severed, one by one. I'm seriously on the verge of tears as I type this. I don't want to be disconnected anymore. Come back, everyone! Be good and sweet and funny like you were. It's almost as if you've turned into the people we're arguing about. I don't mean to be mean, but it's just what I feel. Come back! Please! *sobs more* And I don't care if jumping off the raft myself is not an option. It's either that or nothing for me. Sae, take a deep breath and slow down for a bit. Number 1. We're the exact same people we were before. It's just that you're getting to know us better, and the fact that we're real 3 dimensional people, not fictional people jammed into some character archetype. Perhaps for your examples as to what makes a "good" person, choose a real person instead of a fictional character. Yes, The Doctor says that Killing is Wrong but he's fictional, has the ability to go and fundamentally change a person without their permission (how is that any more moral?), and is always given a problem that can be solved in less than 50 minutes via use of near divine abilities that lesser mortals do not have. (Even then, as a character, he's hypocritical, seeing as he's killed a lot of people -- including the genocide of his own species). Having killed someone does not automatically make you a soulless homicidal maniac. Thinking and saying otherwise is very unkind, and very cruel. That is saying that every police officer, by swearing to keep other people safe, even if it means killing a bad guy, is evil. It is saying that every soldier who has ever existed is a heartless person who would slaughter a field of babies. This is obviously not true, and saying so is both cruel to those who do these jobs, as well as their family and children. It goes beyond cruel to being heartless to those whose family member has died protecting innocent people. There is a reason that Killing does not automatically mean murder. Very few murders have had some horrible thing happen to someone who was once an angelic cherub that turned them into homicidal manics. There was a murder just a couple days ago in Louisiana where a man bludgeoned his own son to death, cut his head off, and the placed the head on the sidewalk for the mother to find. Why? " He was tired of taking care of him." This was not a man who had been tortured, or who had been systematically abused into becoming a child hating machine. This was a man from a nice middle class life who decided that taking care of a disabled seven year old was just too much trouble, so he beat him to death and then decapitated him with a meat cleaver. Real life isn't like it is in storybooks. Sometimes there are just bad people and there is just no rhyme or reason for why they're bad. Some people are lucky enough that they don't have to deal with the bad people. Some of us aren't so lucky. Telling people who have had to deal with the bad that the person we should really feel sorry about is the one who victimized us, because of "what a horrible past they must have had to do this to you" is cruel. Nimmy, I know all that by now (do read my previous post, I apologized, and I'll say once again that I'm sorry). And about tortured people...I guess I was thinking of how I write Xandra (who's fiction, and only killed one person - and according to me, she was possessed when she did, so bad example, Saeryena! *sparkteh'd). So sorry, again. And don't worry, I'm not so desperate anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Breakingchains on Aug 17, 2011 16:01:38 GMT -5
All right, Sae, that's just fine with me, and thanks for understanding our positions. At this point, I'd say it's probably best to move on from this phase of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Moni on Aug 17, 2011 16:45:43 GMT -5
1. Why can't you just put your hand over the baby's mouth and muffle the sound until the soldiers pass? Or maybe give it to someone who knows how to handle a baby better than you can?
2. I would just use my sattelite cellphone to call a rescue team. (There's an app for that!)
With these kinds of arguments, any clever person can avoid a moral OMG situation.
All snarkiness aside, I'm rather unconvinced that the "killing is only good if it'll prevent any further harm" argument holds any water at all. Hurp durp.
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Aug 17, 2011 17:10:05 GMT -5
1. Why can't you just put your hand over the baby's mouth and muffle the sound until the soldiers pass? Or maybe give it to someone who knows how to handle a baby better than you can? 2. I would just use my sattelite cellphone to call a rescue team. (There's an app for that!) With these kinds of arguments, any clever person can avoid a moral OMG situation. It's impossible to cover a baby's mouth in such a way to actually stop the sound without their nose being blocked up as well. Many Jewish babies died during WWII by well-meaning people trying to cover their mouths to keep the Nazis from finding them while they were hiding. I don't know anyone who has a satellite phone. They're really expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Terra on Aug 17, 2011 17:33:45 GMT -5
1. Why can't you just put your hand over the baby's mouth and muffle the sound until the soldiers pass? Or maybe give it to someone who knows how to handle a baby better than you can? 2. I would just use my sattelite cellphone to call a rescue team. (There's an app for that!) With these kinds of arguments, any clever person can avoid a moral OMG situation. All snarkiness aside, I'm rather unconvinced that the "killing is only good if it'll prevent any further harm" argument holds any water at all. Hurp durp. I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that killing is never okay or that killing is okay in circumstances besides just preventing further harm? I'm inclined to think it's the former, based on the rest of your post, but I'm not sure. And morally ambiguous situations, or "moral OMG situations", as you call them, come up all. the. time. in real life. You see them all the time in national politics, for example. Should the U.S. intervene in Libya in an attempt to prevent civilian casualties or stay out of the situation? Of course, situations like that have are more complicated and have a lot of different factors to consider. I think the point of philosophical questions like the ones that Carrie brought up are to figure out your basic morals, which can be a starting point for more complicated real-life situations. (These questions basically boil down to whether you would rather kill one person to save many people, or avoid killing altogether, even if it means that more people will die.) True, there are usually more than two options in real-life situations, but at least having a baseline like this might help.
|
|
|
Post by Moni on Aug 17, 2011 18:05:19 GMT -5
1. Why can't you just put your hand over the baby's mouth and muffle the sound until the soldiers pass? Or maybe give it to someone who knows how to handle a baby better than you can? 2. I would just use my sattelite cellphone to call a rescue team. (There's an app for that!) With these kinds of arguments, any clever person can avoid a moral OMG situation. It's impossible to cover a baby's mouth in such a way to actually stop the sound without their nose being blocked up as well. Many Jewish babies died during WWII by well-meaning people trying to cover their mouths to keep the Nazis from finding them while they were hiding. I don't know anyone who has a satellite phone. They're really expensive. You're right. Hmm... someone would probably yell at me for it, then I'd just choose the next option. I have one! Zing! 1. Why can't you just put your hand over the baby's mouth and muffle the sound until the soldiers pass? Or maybe give it to someone who knows how to handle a baby better than you can? 2. I would just use my sattelite cellphone to call a rescue team. (There's an app for that!) With these kinds of arguments, any clever person can avoid a moral OMG situation. All snarkiness aside, I'm rather unconvinced that the "killing is only good if it'll prevent any further harm" argument holds any water at all. Hurp durp. I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that killing is never okay or that killing is okay in circumstances besides just preventing further harm? I'm inclined to think it's the former, based on the rest of your post, but I'm not sure. And morally ambiguous situations, or "moral OMG situations", as you call them, come up all. the. time. in real life. You see them all the time in national politics, for example. Should the U.S. intervene in Libya in an attempt to prevent civilian casualties or stay out of the situation? Of course, situations like that have are more complicated and have a lot of different factors to consider. I think the point of philosophical questions like the ones that Carrie brought up are to figure out your basic morals, which can be a starting point for more complicated real-life situations. (These questions basically boil down to whether you would rather kill one person to save many people, or avoid killing altogether, even if it means that more people will die.) True, there are usually more than two options in real-life situations, but at least having a baseline like this might help. Why do you expect something deep from me? I'm stupid, as anyone who knows me will testify. But I will try to clarify my position in the simplest language possible. I only support killing people with a basis in actual 100%-you-know-he-did-it justice, aka judging them by their previous actions. (AKA. If you did something universally shunned like rape or murder and hurt people badly in the process, well, underworld for you, little weasel.) This'll almost always solve any further harm they'll do as well. I'd add some leeway for killing in self-defense situations as well. If someone's actively trying to kill you, I don't expect average Joe to sit there and do nothing. While injuring and reporting them would be ideal, well, in certain situations, you can't really mind that. So, in your example, bai bai Gaddafi. I've been looking up to his execution for years now. In the "evil dictator" scenario, the evil dictator dies. Now, regarding the "killing for damage control" thing. The problem with that logic is that, well, who decides what the damage is and who dies because of it? In other words, who determines what the "greater good" is? For example, a government might think that people speaking against it is doing damage, and there is a local newspaper speaking out against it. So, by that logic, that government can say killing people that work for that newspaper deserve to be killed, because then they'll cause less damage. For the greater good, of course! So it's part of the reason why that logic doesn't mesh with me. Meeeeeeh.
|
|
|
Post by Terra on Aug 17, 2011 18:45:32 GMT -5
Why do you expect something deep from me? I'm stupid, as anyone who knows me will testify. But I will try to clarify my position in the simplest language possible. I only support killing people with a basis in actual 100%-you-know-he-did-it justice, aka judging them by their previous actions. (AKA. If you did something universally shunned like rape or murder and hurt people badly in the process, well, underworld for you, little weasel.) This'll almost always solve any further harm they'll do as well. I'd add some leeway for killing in self-defense situations as well. If someone's actively trying to kill you, I don't expect average Joe to sit there and do nothing. While injuring and reporting them would be ideal, well, in certain situations, you can't really mind that. So, in your example, bai bai Gaddafi. I've been looking up to his execution for years now. In the "evil dictator" scenario, the evil dictator dies. Now, regarding the "killing for damage control" thing. The problem with that logic is that, well, who decides what the damage is and who dies because of it? In other words, who determines what the "greater good" is? For example, a government might think that people speaking against it is doing damage, and there is a local newspaper speaking out against it. So, by that logic, that government can say killing people that work for that newspaper deserve to be killed, because then they'll cause less damage. For the greater good, of course! So it's part of the reason why that logic doesn't mesh with me. Meeeeeeh. Haha, I doubt I'm any smarter than you. Yet here I am. You make some good points. I'm pretty sure I agree with you on almost everything you said. I don't think I'd want anyone to get killed if they hadn't actually done anything wrong (and it'd have to be a severe crime such as murder, like you say). It's kind of hard to argue that. The one thing that I'm confused by is the part where you talk about killing for the "greater good". For the most part, people were talking fairly specifically about killing people who had killed people in the past and were almost definitely going to do so in the future. Except in the philosophical situations brought up earlier - but even in those, it's made fairly clear that you have to do something or people will die. I think there's a difference between judging based on the likelihood of death and judging based on something more intangible, like whether something someone said could cause damage. (I hope this makes sense. XD;) But you're right, things do get a lot less clear when death isn't involved. Though in the example of the government killing journalists, whether they actually believe what they're saying or are just using it as a justification is questionable...and I think that's a slightly different issue. Also, about the satellite phone - what if you lose it? Or what if it runs out of battery? Or what if it gets splashed with water and the electronics get screwed up? One can't just rely on a phone.
|
|