Is it ok to kill children?
- Thread starter guerilla
- Start date
What about when your child comes home from school with a black eye from the bully at school. Will you teach him violence is ok in these situations?
This is such a boring thread.
Of course it's not OK to kill anyone, let alone children, unless they are attempting to kill you.
Why are we even having this discussion?
Where's Suddenly Ass?
Of course it's not OK to kill anyone, let alone children, unless they are attempting to kill you.
Why are we even having this discussion?
Where's Suddenly Ass?
I would rather sell myself into sex slavery than send my child to a public school/battlefield/brainwashing center/junior prison.
Of course I am cool with self-defense. It's the initiation of violence that I'm not down with.
If I hear a rumor that some guy said he would like to punch me in the face and then I burn his house down while he and his family are asleep inside, that is not self defense.
It appears to me that for some folks, the definition of self-defense has been greatly stretched to accommodate mass murder of innocents.
An eye for an eye?
As long as you vouch for violent self defense, you are leaving the moral use of violence up to a conditional debate.
I do vouch for violent self defense when the action against me is violent. That's why I said "unless they are attempting to kill you". This goes for children too. They can be used as human bombs or bait for example, or they might just be disturbed.
If someone has a gun to your head are you supposed to negotiate with them if you have the means to kill them?
You have the unconditional right to self defense, to save your life, and if that means you have to kill someone then so be it.
I like how you have entered the grumpy old man phase of your posting career.
Because people are killing children who are not trying to kill them, ostensibly because they think it is ok.
that 'like' was an accident. ostensibly. LMFAO.
"because they think it is ok"? that's your logical stance, that they think its ok? that they're doing it because "ostensibly" (read: "apparently" for those of you not desperately trying to show how smart you are) they think it's ok, as opposed to because they did it accidentally or the children were incidental targets meant for people using them as human shields?
Sure, I think we could probably come up with dangerous scenarios all day long and go back and forth on what would be an acceptable response, as far as self-defense goes.
But with a centralized system of violence like the government, you have a group of people who murder people all around the world supposedly to protect you and your property, while simultaneously having the exclusive right to violate you and your property. It's completely illogical.
Not to mention the fact that they have no voluntary support to do their plundering. If the war had to be funded by individuals voluntarily writing checks to fund it, there would be no war in the middle east.
I think it's fairly safe to say that if the US government did not exist, not many people here would be banding together to use their resources to attack and kill people on the other side of the world they have never met or had any contact with. Would you disagree?
I'm drunk and playing Mechwarrior and am trying to post between drops. I didn't realize I'd actually posted but this is my edited post:
I do vouch for violent self defense when the action against me is violent. That's why I said "unless they are attempting to kill you". This goes for children too. They can be used as human bombs or bait when brainwashed.
If someone has a gun to your head, are you supposed to negotiate with them if you have the means to kill them?
We have the unconditional right to self preservation, and if that means we have to kill someone to stay alive then so be it.
I will be back after the next drop to comment on the comments, even though this thread is shit.
BRB.
I do vouch for violent self defense when the action against me is violent. That's why I said "unless they are attempting to kill you". This goes for children too. They can be used as human bombs or bait when brainwashed.
If someone has a gun to your head, are you supposed to negotiate with them if you have the means to kill them?
We have the unconditional right to self preservation, and if that means we have to kill someone to stay alive then so be it.
I will be back after the next drop to comment on the comments, even though this thread is shit.
BRB.
"Is it ok" is in the eye of the beholder. It's a question that has no right or wrong answer.
I dont for a second doubt that "morals" are the result of evolution, a necessity for the advancement of our species, nothing more, nothing less.
It's inate in us all, interpreted in different ways, and basterdised over the years by religion, but in essence, it's not a question that has an answer.
I dont for a second doubt that "morals" are the result of evolution, a necessity for the advancement of our species, nothing more, nothing less.
It's inate in us all, interpreted in different ways, and basterdised over the years by religion, but in essence, it's not a question that has an answer.
It's not an eye for an eye. An eye for an eye is somebody kills your brother so now it's okay for you to kill their brother. An eye for an eye is somebody breaks your leg so now you can break their leg. Self defense is not an eye for an eye. Self defense is self defense. Eye for an eye is retaliation.
What do you recommend that would be better than violent self defense in the case of a violent aggressor?
