Print

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

[PanH]

TL;DR:for the TL;DR: Kill for food, exterminate useless people who just eat food and get free stuff.

You know I could VERY easily bring a godwin point on that ?
My cousin has Down's syndrome. Should we kill her because she'll never be able to act remotely (or being useless, as you said) ?

[Criptfeind]

Whoops, can't believe I missed this one:

I suppose, does intelligence level excuse torture?

I don't really think so. I mean. Maybe technically yes, but once you go past a certain intelligence level you can't torture the thing. And the level where it would be okay is far below that.

[Hanslanda]

So Tom and Jerry walk into real life. . . and Tom toys with Jerry before mutilating and eating him.

I suppose, does intelligence level excuse torture?

... In a sense, I suppose the answer would be yes. It's more complicated than that, because that is an instinctual thing cats do to train their hunting skills, as opposed to something they do because they enjoy the suffering of another. But yes. To me at least. All opinion on my end for this.

[GreatJustice]

Killing a sentient being is justifiable if it's done in self defense, and while they're aggressing as well. So killing someone who is actively trying to rob/kill/maim you is okay, killing someone who isn't, and killing someone who WAS trying to rob/kill/maim you but is no longer actively attacking you isn't either.

[Hanslanda]

Basically it comes down to the vast amount of extenuating circumstances that apply to any situation.

[Loud Whispers]

Killing a sentient being is justifiable if it's done in self defense, and while they're aggressing as well. So killing someone who is actively trying to rob/kill/maim you is okay, killing someone who isn't, and killing someone who WAS trying to rob/kill/maim you but is no longer actively attacking you isn't either.

Well I'd say it's not if the intent is to kill; if the intent is to defend ones self and killing is accidental sure, otherwise no.

[Criptfeind]

Killing a sentient being is justifiable if it's done in self defense, and while they're aggressing as well. So killing someone who is actively trying to rob/kill/maim you is okay, killing someone who isn't, and killing someone who WAS trying to rob/kill/maim you but is no longer actively attacking you isn't either.

I'm not sure about this one, it depends on where you draw the line on trying. Does about to try count? How about planing to? How about having a overwhelming probability of going to plan to?

[Facekillz058]

TL;DR:for the TL;DR: Kill for food, exterminate useless people who just eat food and get free stuff.

You know I could VERY easily bring a godwin point on that ?
My cousin has Down's syndrome. Should we kill her because she'll never be able to act remotely (or being useless, as you said) ?

Well, that's different, that isn't her fault.
I understand I may have been offensive with my posting by not being as specific as I should have been, for that I apologize, but under my rule, people with disabilities would at least try to be helped, we would have so much more funding to research stuff like that.
No, I would not kill people who CAN'T help themselves, is what i'm saying. I would try to help them become regular people who CAN do stuff.
Again, I apologize for not being clearer.

[Hanslanda]

Basically, your point is: We should kill the people who CHOOSE not to produce, but not the people that CANNOT produce.

[Strife26]

Killing a sentient being is justifiable if it's done in self defense, and while they're aggressing as well. So killing someone who is actively trying to rob/kill/maim you is okay, killing someone who isn't, and killing someone who WAS trying to rob/kill/maim you but is no longer actively attacking you isn't either.

I'm not sure about this one, it depends on where you draw the line on trying. Does about to try count? How about planing to? How about having a overwhelming probability of going to plan to?

Helping someone who is going to do any of the above? I mean, there's so much grey area that it's all messed up. What about collateral damage?

Am I morally justified to take out the whole city block of innocents to make sure that that bomb workshop's dead? If I said in no uncertain terms that "everyone in this city should leave" a week ahead? Am I justified in serving food to the guy who is going to be doing the destroying of the city block?

Lots of grey area. Too much to give any real answer, I think.

[Facekillz058]

Basically, your point is: We should kill the people who CHOOSE not to produce, but not the people that CANNOT produce.

Yes, thank you.

[Strife26]

Basically, your point is: We should kill the people who CHOOSE not to produce, but not the people that CANNOT produce.

Yes, thank you.

That's a much better point, then. However, does your uncle have a right to support said deadbeats if he wants to? I mean, I'm justified in spending my money however I choose, within reason, right?

[Frumple]

Basically, your point is: We should kill the people who CHOOSE not to produce, but not the people that CANNOT produce.

Yes, thank you.

Sounds like a position that would be strongly supportive of reinstating child labor. Consequences, consequences... produce or die seems like a silly thing to attempt to actually institute.

[Criptfeind]

Well, that's different, that isn't her fault.

This still has the same issue, where do you draw on fault? What about a super depressed person? What about someone who had a accident because of stupid reasons and is unable to work? (such as being permanently hurt in a car accident they caused by them drinking?)

Not to mention physiology is not a solved thing, how can you really say it is someone fault that they don't do something? We deal with it the best we can in real life, but death is a very final very non reversible solution. Which is why we pretty much never do it for any avoidable reason now a days.

[Strife26]

Produce or starve, would probably be a bit more palatable, I think. I mean, it's more-or-less the same thing, but it's a philosophical distinction, at least.


Is refusing a starving guy food killing?