Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hanslanda]

Yay!  wait...almost felons can have guns.  Unless you on probation or something.  Take it from the ex-military DUI guy himself. 

I'm on 'enhanced probation'. No guns. They made that pretty clear. Once I get off this though, I can own as many guns as I want.

[Trapezohedron]

I was hoping this thread was about existentialism.

[kaijyuu]

I was hoping this thread was about existentialism.

Can make one if you want, but dunno if there'd be much to talk about. Other than sharing what we're existential/nihilistic about.

PS: The world is just awesome. And sad. But awesome.

[Zrk2]

Yay!  wait...almost felons can have guns.  Unless you on probation or something.  Take it from the ex-military DUI guy himself. 

I'm on 'enhanced probation'. No guns. They made that pretty clear. Once I get off this though, I can own as many guns as I want.

If it's not a touchy subject may I ask why?

And, on topic, the only way to force someone to give over their stuff is by threatening violence, so one's life should be considered in danger if they are the subject of a robbery, and thus violence is a morally acceptable reaction to an attempted robbery.

[Eagle_eye]

It really depends on the situation. If someone is going to just knock you out, then no, it's obviously not acceptable to kill them. If they have a gun to your forehead, it's much more justified, though still not the best possible solution. You can't just say that murder is always an acceptable alternative to being robbed.

[Zrk2]

That's why we have the reasonable limits on self-defence. Personally I think they're a little tight, but then I think most regulation is a little tight.

[Hanslanda]

Yay!  wait...almost felons can have guns.  Unless you on probation or something.  Take it from the ex-military DUI guy himself. 

I'm on 'enhanced probation'. No guns. They made that pretty clear. Once I get off this though, I can own as many guns as I want.

If it's not a touchy subject may I ask why?

Indeed, it is not a touchy subject. I'm a drug addict, friend. I got caught with some pills of the highly illegal variety, and charged with two felonies. I was placed on a Drug Court program, which, if I complete it successfully, will erase my felonies.
To be honest, I wasn't addicted to a specific drug, just being high. I wasn't a methhead or a smack junkie or anything. Never used needles. Just don't like being sober.

[Zrk2]

Well thanks for assuaging my curiosity. I can't say I endorse it, but I can understand why.

[Hanslanda]

Well thanks for assuaging my curiosity. I can't say I endorse it, but I can understand why.

Sure thing. I can't say I endorse it either, as I don't think anyone should do drugs. It's unhealthy, stupid, and wasteful.
But I choose to do it regardless, so eh. Take from that what you will.

[DarkWolfXV]

Is it acceptable to use lethal force to prevent a damaging but nonlethal crime? For example, if you are armed with a death ray of some sort, that always kills, is it morally acceptable to use it on them to prevent the rape?

Yes, totally yes, if some pedophile priest wanted to rape a little child i would death ray the fuck out of him, rape can screw whole life.
Plus who knows what the guy wanted to do after rape? Kill the victim? Torture him/her? Its better to kill the rapist, a lot of rapists just dispose of victim by killing him/her.

Though, if someone is just stealing, i would rather not kill him, he might have really good reasons to steal, but as someone said rape has no excuses.

but a rapist is worth so little that preventing harm is a good enough reason to kill him

[Eagle_eye]

A rapist isn't inherently worth less. They're worth less because there's a vastly higher possibility that they will rape someone in the future. If you can prevent that with certainty, that is far preferable to killing them.

[Zrk2]

I would say that being immoral does in fact make your moral value less than that of a more moral person.

[lordcooper]

I would say that being immoral does in fact make your moral value less than that of a more moral person.

 

[kaijyuu]

If you're talking about your, erm... reputation... then I at least would argue that's not at all immoral and thus even with the "immoral person = less moral worth as a person" mindset you're pretty much safe

[GlyphGryph]

A rapist isn't inherently worth less. They're worth less because there's a vastly higher possibility that they will rape someone in the future. If you can prevent that with certainty, that is far preferable to killing them.

So they are worth less. It's just for a reason. (In this situation, of course, we know that he is gonna rape someone like REALLY SOON, i.e. you, and thus we can be pretty sure of the future-crime)

So let's broaden the question now to the original other-thread topic of whether or not humans can be worth different amounts, directly.

Is it moral to choose one person you value to live at the expense of two others you value less?