• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The "Right" Times to Kill

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shadow13

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
349
Oops. I didn't realize their were other responses on the last page.


If God told me to kill someone, I probably would. Yes it would be murder. Would it be immoral? Not necessarily. You gotta remember, God called it off. It was just a test.
Okay, so you are saying that would be a right time to kill?
It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't stand up to evidence for Eve being the first woman.
There really isn't anything used as evidence to support that besides The Bible, which contradicts itself a lot.

A lot of that is based on technicalities. A suicide bomber is about to blow himself up in front of a huge crowd, you included (this is all hypothetical, so let's say you're 100% sure it's a suicide bomber). You have a gun. Would you shoot him? (preferably in the head, so he can't pull the switch. and don't try the "this would never happen" excuse, because there are a lot of suicide bombers in Israel every month, and there's also a lot of Israeli soldiers, so I'm sure this has come up before) I would. It's self defense as well as the saving of many lives.

How about a story from a few years ago in the newspaper. It was titled, "Kill Mary to save Jodie?" (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997967,00.html). Two babies were just born. But they're Siamese twins, one had a functioning body, but the other didn't have a functioning heart or lung. She was depending on the other one to live. but together they could only live 6 months. if they were separated, however, one would live a normal life and the other would die. The parents, devout Christians, refused to have them separated, saying something like, "we know G-d will make a decision, and we're fine with whatever he chooses". However, the doctor pushed for the separation, and eventually won in court.

For reasons like that, maybe you guys should drop religious backup. I mean, I guess it's all subjective, but religion and the Bible are not evidence at all. Terrorists use the Koran to back up what they believe about American and Jew killing (although it must be said that they completely twist the words and put it so out of context that it doesn't even slightly resemble the point it was trying to make. kinda like what Christians do). Picking and choosing which verse to cite is unfair and stupid. there's a small section in the bible about how you should "Stone disobedient children" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-bibleshocking.shtml (even more humorous is it's one page after the overused quote, "If a man also lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" - Leviticus 20:13)). Even Evangelicals agree this does not make it right. Although prostitution is illegal in 49 states, from the link directly above, "Prostitution is punished by burning the woman alive according to Leviticus 21:9". yah...'nuff said.
I would shoot the suicide bomber to save lives. If it was needed I would kill one of the twins to save the other.
How you were using Bible quotes to show how there are some crazy things they would wish to do to somebody for prostitution or whatnot is a good way to debate with somebody who only references religion.
 

zrky

Smash Lol'd
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
3,265
Location
Nashville
A lot of that is based on technicalities. A suicide bomber is about to blow himself up in front of a huge crowd, you included (this is all hypothetical, so let's say you're 100% sure it's a suicide bomber). You have a gun. Would you shoot him? (preferably in the head, so he can't pull the switch. and don't try the "this would never happen" excuse, because there are a lot of suicide bombers in Israel every month, and there's also a lot of Israeli soldiers, so I'm sure this has come up before) I would. It's self defense as well as the saving of many lives.
I'll be honest in saying that if the bomber has a button for detonation I would shoot the hand with the device. If they have to reach for the detonation device, shoot both hands, this way no one gets killed. I also would probably-as a first instinct- shoot the neck or torso, which would eventually kill the person, but he was going to suicide so it was more like aiding his suicide without having to kill others, so I wouldn't really loose too much sleep over it.

How about a story from a few years ago in the newspaper. It was titled, "Kill Mary to save Jodie?" (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997967,00.html). Two babies were just born. But they're Siamese twins, one had a functioning body, but the other didn't have a functioning heart or lung. She was depending on the other one to live. but together they could only live 6 months. if they were separated, however, one would live a normal life and the other would die. The parents, devout Christians, refused to have them separated, saying something like, "we know G-d will make a decision, and we're fine with whatever he chooses". However, the doctor pushed for the separation, and eventually won in court.
The one that didn't have a functioning heart and lung technically wasn't alive, and was only being parasitic. It's a sad story but it was for the best that one be saved and the other just left be. In this case it wasn't really killing, but it probably would have been if the parents had left them conjoined and let them die in 6 months.
 

Hooblah2u2

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Earth
there's a small section in the bible about how you should "Stone disobedient children"
Well, disobedient should be stoned. Any kind of sin at all is punishable by death. Really, we all should be dead since everyone has sinned. Thankfully God is merciful.

You are the one whom believes in relative morals. Just think, in 3,000 years it could be horribly wrong to just ground you disobedient kid.

Okay, so you are saying that would be a right time to kill?
Not any more. Jesus.

There really isn't anything used as evidence to support that besides The Bible, which contradicts itself a lot.
Well look at the evidence for Eve being the first woman based on the Bible, and then look at Lilith's "evidence". It's easy to tell which one really came first.

The one that didn't have a functioning heart and lung technically wasn't alive, and was only being parasitic. It's a sad story but it was for the best that one be saved and the other just left be. In this case it wasn't really killing, but it probably would have been if the parents had left them conjoined and let them die in 6 months.
I can honestly say I'm not sure what I would do here. You are right it wasn't really alive, but I'm sure God loved both of them. I would sure pray a lot if I was in that position, that's all I can say.
 

handsockpuppet

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,438
I'll be honest in saying that if the bomber has a button for detonation I would shoot the hand with the device. If they have to reach for the detonation device, shoot both hands, this way no one gets killed. I also would probably-as a first instinct- shoot the neck or torso, which would eventually kill the person, but he was going to suicide so it was more like aiding his suicide without having to kill others, so I wouldn't really loose too much sleep over it.



The one that didn't have a functioning heart and lung technically wasn't alive, and was only being parasitic. It's a sad story but it was for the best that one be saved and the other just left be. In this case it wasn't really killing, but it probably would have been if the parents had left them conjoined and let them die in 6 months.
I see your point about shooting the hands, but people who are just about to kill themselves can be tricky. sometimes they keep their hand on it for a while. if you shoot them in the hands, they could jerk and the switch would be pulled. I don't think I'd take any chances. I'd probably be doing them a favor, they want to kill themselves, and the head is much faster then the neck or torso (though they probably deserve to die more painfully).

Well, disobedient should be stoned. Any kind of sin at all is punishable by death. Really, we all should be dead since everyone has sinned. Thankfully God is merciful.

You are the one whom believes in relative morals. Just think, in 3,000 years it could be horribly wrong to just ground you disobedient kid.


Not any more. Jesus.


Well look at the evidence for Eve being the first woman based on the Bible, and then look at Lilith's "evidence". It's easy to tell which one really came first.


I can honestly say I'm not sure what I would do here. You are right it wasn't really alive, but I'm sure God loved both of them. I would sure pray a lot if I was in that position, that's all I can say.
So G-d being merciful is who you should thank that you don't here too many reports of parents stoning their children? Wow. Where was this mercy 3,000 years ago, when there probably was some child-stoning? and I never said morals were relative, I said they were subjective. from person to person. while there might be a tiny bit of influence of culture, if you have the heart to stone your child, even 3,000 years ago, what does that say about you?

and you can't just disclose the points you made (I won't even bring up your use of Jesus in vain). so if you think that G-d told you to kill someone, you'd kill him. Because he's G-d. I'm not even going to get into the fact that people think G-d is speaking to them all the time. But what about a Muslim? If he/she hears Muhammad speaking to him/her, do the same rules apply? To bring up my past subject, suicide bombers are told that if they kill many Jews they will have a reserved place in heaven. Some before doing so claim they heard Muhammad or Allah speak to them. does this make it suddenly moral? perhaps subjectively, but is there such thing as a true moral? The Bible has its own moral code. It may encompass a large following, but is still not universal. even if something was a universal moral code, that doesn't make it true. So now I think my answer to the question in the first post is no.

Now on to Mary and Jodie. sure G-d loved them both, but what about if 6 months had passed? it would have been Mary's fault that Jodie died. Thou shall not kill, especially a 6 month year old baby who never did anything wrong (and note kill, not murder, so accidents included. in the original Hebrew text, it had the Hebrew word that meant murder. but purposely or not, in the English Bible "old testament" it says kill). And praying a lot, that's real useful. pray for six months, that's a good idea. but this is how I see it, your moral taken into mind.

if you pray for them to live full lives, and somehow miraculously they do, they would not like their lives, one being terminal and the other having a sister strain blood and oxygen making her terminal as well. but if you seperate them, you aren't technically killing Jodie. you're just removing her from something she used for blood and oxygen, like removing a a dying patient form life support. So if I would want to pray, I would separate them still, and pray that Jodie's lungs and Heart magically start working and her brain fully develops. therefore the doctor's are happy and although I may not be happy that (most likely) one of my daughters is dead, it's better than having two dead daughters.
 

Shadow13

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
349
Well, disobedient should be stoned. Any kind of sin at all is punishable by death. Really, we all should be dead since everyone has sinned. Thankfully God is merciful.
So you are saying that we deserve to be stoned, but God is being too merciful to do it. God is so merciful that he created Hell, cursed mankind with original sin for the fault of two people, unleashed many plagues upon Egypt,.........
Not any more. Jesus.
What am I supposed to make of that?
Well look at the evidence for Eve being the first woman based on the Bible, and then look at Lilith's "evidence". It's easy to tell which one really came first.
Lilith was in Hebrew text, which was supposed to be an interpretation of Genesis.
I can honestly say I'm not sure what I would do here. You are right it wasn't really alive, but I'm sure God loved both of them. I would sure pray a lot if I was in that position, that's all I can say.
Okay, so you would instead do nothing and hope they get better by help from God, instead of killing the one that can't live on her own to save one?
 

Hooblah2u2

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Earth
I never said morals were relative, I said they were subjective. from person to person
That's what relative means.

if you have the heart to stone your child, even 3,000 years ago, what does that say about you?
Well notice the verse says "should" instead of "will". Really we all "should" go to Hell this very moment, but that doesn't mean we do. In other words, things "should" happen, but God's grace is overpowering. What I'm trying to say is, the Israelites may not have stoned their children after all, but who knows?

and you can't just disclose the points you made (I won't even bring up your use of Jesus in vain). so if you think that G-d told you to kill someone, you'd kill him. Because he's G-d.
Well I wouldn't now. I know I don't have to, and I know God would never have me do such a thing, since He sent Jesus.

But what about a Muslim? If he/she hears Muhammad speaking to him/her, do the same rules apply?
I admire their faith, but the suicide bombers are the radical self-serving Muslims. Just like the "Christians" from the crusades. They were serving their own pleasures and not God's. Most Muslims would agree killing = bad.

So you are saying that we deserve to be stoned, but God is being too merciful to do it. God is so merciful that he created Hell, cursed mankind with original sin for the fault of two people, unleashed many plagues upon Egypt,.........
God is so merciful that He is giving us the rest of our lives to turn back, instead of striking us down now, which is what should happen.

What am I supposed to make of that?
There is no longer any reason to kill, because Jesus came.

Lilith was in Hebrew text, which was supposed to be an interpretation of Genesis.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Lillith.html

Okay, so you would instead do nothing and hope they get better by help from God, instead of killing the one that can't live on her own to save one?
I'm not saying what I would do, because I don't know at this point. Just pray lots and lots.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
That's what relative means.


Well notice the verse says "should" instead of "will". Really we all "should" go to Hell this very moment, but that doesn't mean we do. In other words, things "should" happen, but God's grace is overpowering. What I'm trying to say is, the Israelites may not have stoned their children after all, but who knows?


Well I wouldn't now. I know I don't have to, and I know God would never have me do such a thing, since He sent Jesus.


I admire their faith, but the suicide bombers are the radical self-serving Muslims. Just like the "Christians" from the crusades. They were serving their own pleasures and not God's. Most Muslims would agree killing = bad.


God is so merciful that He is giving us the rest of our lives to turn back, instead of striking us down now, which is what should happen.


There is no longer any reason to kill, because Jesus came.


http://www.gotquestions.org/Lillith.html


I'm not saying what I would do, because I don't know at this point. Just pray lots and lots.
So you are saying that we should all be killed? Just because two people sinned?
 

handsockpuppet

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,438
Iunno, I can't help but wonder to what extent does the repenting go. According to the Bible, since I'm Jewish and I had a Bris (circumcision) I'm going to hell. sure I can convert (hell no), but I can't magically grow foreskin. But hey, Jesus was Jewish and had a Bris too, and he also had long hair (which is "a shame upon ye"). Sure Jesus basically said a lot of the old testament was wrong, but going to hell for being Jewish and having a Bris was in the new testament. there really isn't even a hell in the Torah, just a waiting room and maybe falling out of Adonai's favor. Hell was only said by later new testament prophets, in the Torah it just said you will surely die. but guess what, everybody dies.

And about Lilith, I think http://faculty.washington.edu/scstroup/Lilith.html sums it up pretty well. "Lilith, aside from a stray reference comparing her to a "screechowl" (the translation is debatable), does not appear in the Bible itself. It is in Rabbinic midrash (presumably relying on earlier legends) that we find the full delineation of Lilith."

So it was actually in the Midrash (and explanation of the Torah made by rabbis of the Talmudic era, including the genius of Rabbi Rashi). So what does it say about Lilith in there?

"Some of the rabbis found in this image something similar to what Aristophanes proposed in the Symposium: a dual bodied being later divided into two who must thereafter seek each other out. But others tried to take into account the later creation of Eve detailed further on in the text. If woman was created from Adam, after his initial creation, than what happened to the female created at first? The answer,
according to the Midrash, was that she was Lilith; created with Adam, she refused to comply with Adam's demand that she submit herself to him, and in the end fled from him by using the Ineffable Name. Adam then complained to God about his loneliness, and the creation of Eve followed, together with the "Fall" and the Expulsion from Eden. Adam, blaming this on Eve, separated from her, and for a time reunited with Lilith, before finally returning to Eve. (The details of this first soap opera are reported with various embellishments.)"

But there was a possible reference to her in the Torah. While your the cite Hoobluh posted said that the name Lilith was a mistranslation, how could it be a mistranslation if the Rabbis of the Talmudic era who completely understood Hebrew and the Torah clearly stated that Lilith was Adam's first wife (and in many ways his other half)?

"From the Torah (this is the only mention of 'lilith' in the Torah; is this a reference to the mythological female 'Lilith?')

Wildcats shall meet with hyenas,
goat-demons shall call to each other;
there too Lilith shall repose,
and find a place to rest.
There shall the owl nest
and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow (Isaiah 34:14) "
 

Riddle

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,656
Location
Rochester, NY
Good Debating guys! I'll try not to be too much in the way, but I'm going to give some formatting/debating advice.

Handsockpuppet:

1) If you quote the person you are replying to your post generally makes more sense to an outside reader and lets the person your replying know better what you are saying to refute his claims.

2) Make thinks in quotes taken from direct sources a bit more distinct. Italicize regular sources and bold/ittalicize biblical, torah, etc. quotes.


Hooblah:

1) Geneerally if you just respond to a post all together (if its all related) it makes your case easier to read and reply to.

2) You base what seems like all of your arguments in every thread on the existence of God/Jesus. For your conclusion to be shown as true though, not only does your logic have to be sound but so do your premises.

i.e.) Lets say I argue that Left-handed people are better than right-handed people (Im right-handed lol) because Left-handers are rarer; If something is rare it is better than something common. Therefore, lefties are better than righties. While my logic is sound my premises are faulty (rarer =/= better) so my conclusion does not logically follow. Your much more complicated example is that you base everything off the existance of God, which is uncertain at best, and use the existence to create conclusions that are logically sound, but have a (possibly) faulty premise.

Until you can prove the existence of God using His existence as a premise will result in invalid conclusions (though not necessarily wrong). However, you may still use other things based in fact including but not limited to, the beliefs of christians and policies preached by the bible that can also be found other places.
 

Hooblah2u2

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Earth
So you are saying that we should all be killed? Just because two people sinned
Everyone has sinned.

but going to hell for being Jewish and having a Bris was in the new testament.
Where does it say that? We are saved by God's grace, not by physical things.

And about Lilith, I think http://faculty.washington.edu/scstroup/Lilith.html sums it up pretty well.
They give one verse from the Torah, that's not evidence at all.

Note: there is only 1 translation that includes the word "lilith".
http://bible.cc/isaiah/34-14.htm

1) Geneerally if you just respond to a post all together (if its all related) it makes your case easier to read and reply to.
Could you explain this for me? I don't understand exactly what you are asking me to do differently.

Thanks for the constructive criticism Riddle. I don't really expect you to understand and agree with everything I say. I understand God is revealed to everyone at different times. I did like how you said "will result in invalid conclusions (though not necessarily wrong)".

It shows true class.
 

handsockpuppet

Smash Lord
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
1,438
Everyone has sinned.
okay. so because everybody has sinned, everybody should die. but we don't die because G-d is merciful. but what about Noah's Ark? is G-d suddenly more merciful now then before? or have we just sinned a little less? Or is G-d simply not doing it because he promised not to flood the Earth again. but G-d has broken promises before...


Where does it say that? We are saved by God's grace, not by physical things.
Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and everyone else who is not Christian will all go to hell "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18) (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-bibleshocking.shtml)

"Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Gal 5:2)" (http://bible.cc/galatians/5-2.htm (from the cite you just stated *seen right below this*. I picked one at random, but they all mean about the same thing))

They give one verse from the Torah, that's not evidence at all.

Note: there is only 1 translation that includes the word "lilith".
http://bible.cc/isaiah/34-14.htm
But you don't get it. it was in the Midrash, which was at first largely oral law, so you can't just disclose it because it only has 1 Torah mention. The Midrash has information about the Torah that you could never get by simply reading Torah. because, I don't know about you, but I don't think Torah or the bible or whatever is completely made by G-d. and look here http://jewishchristianlit.com//Topics/Lilith/, it was in the Midrash, the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls, the Baruch, ancient artifacts, and even the Talmud.

"And I, the Sage,
declare the grandeur of his radiance
in order to frighten and terrify
all the spirits of the ravaging angels
and the ******* spirits,
demons, Liliths, owls and [jackals...]
and those who strike unexpectedly
to lead astray the spirit of knowledge...."

"Baruch 10:7-8

But we, the living, woe to us,
because we have seen those afflictions of Zion
and that which has befallen Jerusalem.

I shall call the Sirens from the sea,
and you, Lilin, come from the desert,
and you, demons and dragons from the woods.
Awake and gird up your loins to mourn,
and raise lamentations with me,
and mourn with me."

"Rabbi Jeremia ben Eleazar said, "During those years (after their expulsion from the Garden), in which Adam, the first man, was separated from Eve, he became the father of ghouls and demons and lilin." Rabbi Meir said, "Adam, the first man, being very pious and finding that he had caused death to come into the world, sat fasting for 130 years, and separated himself from his wife for 130 years, and wore fig vines for 130 years. His fathering of evil spirits, referred to here, came as a result of wet dreams."

(Lilin=Lilith=Lillith=Lilit. just slightly different names) *note that they say Adam was the first man, but don't call Eve the first woman* please do check out all the links on that cite, they are quite interesting.

EDIT: This (http://www.storydynamics.com/Articles/Storytelling_Concepts/midrash.html) explains the Midrash's role a little better.

"Midrash is actually a way to change the frame (context) of the stories in the Bible. It does not have the authority granted to the Torah texts, of course, but it is encouraged as a way to explore the rich meanings of the Torah.

A famous tradition of midrash concerns an apparent inconsistency in Genesis: first, God created humans "male and female." Then, a few verses later, we are told the story of it not being good that Adam was alone and God creating a helpmate. How could this be? Could this holy story be flawed?

Not really, says the midrashic tradition. When God first created humans, God created Adam and the first woman, Lilith. Lilith refused a subordinate role, however, and fled the garden to bear the children of demons. Only then did Adam ask for a helpmate."

The Torah is mostly just stories. the Midrash and the Talmud are the crucial elements that modern and ancient rabbinic scholars use since it's the interpretation of Torah and actually makes sense. To have the Torah but no Midrash and Talmud is almost as bad as to have the Midrash and Talmud but not Torah. The Midrash and Talmud address symbols to the stories in the Torah. To quote http://www.storydynamics.com/Articles/Storytelling_Concepts/midrash.html again:

"Now, there are two models of females in relationship to male power: Eve, the productive but long-suffering mother, and Lilith, the independent outcast."

wow, this has gotten quite off topic. Because there is no true moral, and it's all subjective (IMO), I would say that there's no "right" time to kill, although in the same way there's no "wrong" time to kill either. G-d may know the answer, but I doubt anybody reading this does, or ever will.
 

Shadow13

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
349
Well notice the verse says "should" instead of "will". Really we all "should" go to Hell this very moment, but that doesn't mean we do. In other words, things "should" happen, but God's grace is overpowering. What I'm trying to say is, the Israelites may not have stoned their children after all, but who knows?
"Who knows" is not a phrase that is good for debating, just an FYI.

Well I wouldn't now. I know I don't have to, and I know God would never have me do such a thing, since He sent Jesus.
If you are Christian, you believe that God is in three persons, which would mean different mindsets, and therefor, one being peaceful doesn't mean all three are.
I admire their faith, but the suicide bombers are the radical self-serving Muslims. Just like the "Christians" from the crusades. They were serving their own pleasures and not God's. Most Muslims would agree killing = bad.
Most Muslums or Christians that were radicals were for their faith. So that means they think this will get them closer to God. Do you really think that they are just using religion as an excuse to kill on a large scall? If you do, then you would basically be saying that they all have some desire for killing for no reason and need a scapegoat.
God is so merciful that He is giving us the rest of our lives to turn back, instead of striking us down now, which is what should happen.
So you are saying God is denying his own logic? So now he conflicts with Himself?
I said Lilith was in an interpretation of Genisis, but that interpretation didn't get into the Bible or the Torah.

Everyone has sinned.
Yes, but you believe that we sinned because of the punishment of original sin, which God gave all of humanity because two people didn't obey him. If two students were cheating on a test at school, would the whole class be punished?

Also, I know we are talking about a lot of things, but I think we should try to stay more on topic. This thread isn't about trying to prove/disprove God's mercy.
 

Hooblah2u2

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Earth
Thus we all must be punished eternally? That seems quite harsh .
Compared to who? God can't be associated with sin.

but G-d has broken promises before...
Like what?

"Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. (Gal 5:2)" (http://bible.cc/galatians/5-2.htm (from the cite you just stated *seen right below this*. I picked one at random, but they all mean about the same thing))
Paul is telling us that if you base your entire faith on the law, and leave out Jesus, then you will not enter heaven.

Galatians 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

I'm not really interested about debating Lilith, but this verse supplies a little insight.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. - 1 Timothy 2:13

G-d may know the answer, but I doubt anybody reading this does, or ever will.
Thou shalt not kill. - Exodus 20:13
And you call yourself a Jew.

"Who knows" is not a phrase that is good for debating, just an FYI.
Excuse me. I was trying to lower myself.

you believe that God is in three persons
There is one God, in three forms.

If you do, then you would basically be saying that they all have some desire for killing for no reason and need a scapegoat.
That's exactly what I'm saying. People do stupid things and find a scapegoat all the time. Our government does it on a large scale (assuming you live in the US) and blame it on things like global warming or scams like that. Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Religion can be used as an excuse to rationalize selfish desires.

So you are saying God is denying his own logic? So now he conflicts with Himself?
No, I'm saying He is merciful.

If two students were cheating on a test at school, would the whole class be punished?
It actually ends up that way many times.
 

Shadow13

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
349
Compared to who? God can't be associated with sin.
God created the sinners, he also intentionally created something to tempt Adam and Eve into sin. He is supposed to be all-knowing, so why would he need that to test them? Also on the concept of him supposedly being all-knowing, why did he need to ask Adam where he was? Why did he need to test Abraham?

Paul is telling us that if you base your entire faith on the law, and leave out Jesus, then you will not enter heaven.

Galatians 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
So, basically you just responded to handsockpuppet to show a contradiction in The Bible.

Excuse me. I was trying to lower myself.
With poor debating?

There is one God, in three forms.
Yes, 1 God in 3 persons, which backs up what I said.

That's exactly what I'm saying. People do stupid things and find a scapegoat all the time. Our government does it on a large scale (assuming you live in the US) and blame it on things like global warming or scams like that. Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Religion can be used as an excuse to rationalize selfish desires.
So you think that that many people of those faiths just happen to all want to kill people? During the Crusades the Pope told Catholics to fight for indulgences, which they thought would save them.


No, I'm saying He is merciful.
This goes back to the concept of how merciful can God be if he created humanity knowing that he would send so many of us to hell?

It actually ends up that way many times.
1. Not in any class I have been in.
2. Even if that is what happened, would it be fair?
 

Hydra.

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
1,927
Location
Kansas City, MO
NNID
Aqua.Sword
Of course to "God" it is not right to kill PEOPLE, God says in the Bible that it is okay to kill animals, but Humans are infact animals... What makes animals less important then humans? Out of sight out of mind! Thousands die everyday so you can eat your burger. Because you grew up consuming meat you never questioned it, because your family thinks it's okay, your friends think it's okay, of course! Why wouldn't you think the same thing? Just because we can not understand their language we assume we are more important then they are. God says it's okay to eat animals, but yet he still says it's wrong to murder, Humans are animals, God is it okay to murder and eat them too? "Oh but animals don't have souls God said so" Prove to me there is a God and I might change my mind but animals have feelings and care about others just like we do, who's to say they don't have souls. What are souls? Does every human have one anyways? Or is that something we made up as well?

Why do we have to make war to find peace? There are other ways to resolve problems and I think leaders should do a better job doing so. Killing is one of many other ways they could resolve a problem, just because we can kill more then they can makes our country better then theirs and deserve what we are fighting for? I think not. What about their world? What about their country? What about their state? What about their city and their families? Where does the killing end? Does it end in anouther country, our country, your state, your home? If your sister pulls a knife on you do you kill her? If your dad's going to kill your mother do you kill him? Would your brother kill you? What about your boyfriend? Oh that's right, the only person that you've ever met that will refuse to kill you regardless of the circumstance, is YOU.

There's nothing special about me because I die just like you. Billions came before me and billions will come after me, I am nothing but a number. And just like me you're a nobody too. You wonder why it is that I will not kill you, because even if I had sick and twisted desires, they would be irrelevent. I grow old and I die too. I am just anouther cow waiting to be killed. Just anouther chicken waiting for it's head to be popped off. Erasing someone from the world... is irrelevent.. they will die anyways.

Remember this about the world, cause and effect.
 

Shadow13

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
349
Of course to "God" it is not right to kill PEOPLE, God says in the Bible that it is okay to kill animals, but Humans are infact animals... What makes animals less important then humans? Out of sight out of mind! Thousands die everyday so you can eat your burger. Because you grew up consuming meat you never questioned it, because your family thinks it's okay, your friends think it's okay, of course! Why wouldn't you think the same thing? Just because we can not understand their language we assume we are more important then they are. God says it's okay to eat animals, but yet he still says it's wrong to murder, Humans are animals, God is it okay to murder and eat them too? "Oh but animals don't have souls God said so" Prove to me there is a God and I might change my mind but animals have feelings and care about others just like we do, who's to say they don't have souls. What are souls? Does every human have one anyways? Or is that something we made up as well?

We are above animals. We are smarter. We rule the world because of this. There are predators among animals, so if you consider us so much like them that killing them would be wrong, then you contradict yourself because animals eat other animals all of the time. Some even eat their own species when they need to.
Why do we have to make war to find peace? There are other ways to resolve problems and I think leaders should do a better job doing so. Killing is one of many other ways they could resolve a problem, just because we can kill more then they can makes our country better then theirs and deserve what we are fighting for? I think not. What about their world? What about their country? What about their state? What about their city and their families? Where does the killing end? Does it end in anouther country, our country, your state, your home? If your sister pulls a knife on you do you kill her? If your dad's going to kill your mother do you kill him? Would your brother kill you? What about your boyfriend? Oh that's right, the only person that you've ever met that will refuse to kill you regardless of the circumstance, is YOU.
We don't have to start wars to stop problems that are just disagreements. However, when a country is trying to kill another country, then you really can't say they shouldn't defend themselves. Would you rather just have the country that started attacking first kill all of the people of the other country? They chose to attack others knowing that they might lose. If they do, then they can't blame the other country just because they defended themselves. Is it really better to just let anybody that threatens to kill somebody have what they want?
Also, two more things, first, if you say we are so much like animals that we shouldn't kill them, then you saying that we shouldn't wage war is like saying animals shouldn't defend their territory. Secondly, what about suicide for the underlined part?
 

Hydra.

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
1,927
Location
Kansas City, MO
NNID
Aqua.Sword
We are above animals. We are smarter. We rule the world because of this. There are predators among animals, so if you consider us so much like them that killing them would be wrong, then you contradict yourself because animals eat other animals all of the time. Some even eat their own species when they need to.
Maybe we are smarter. We can not understand what they are thinking, some of their bodies are limited to what they could do anyways. Pigs are as smart or smarter then 3 year old children, who's to judge which is better? Is everything based on intellegence, why not existince? Is the smarter person a better person? Animals have to eat other animals for survival, they can't get their nutrience from other things like we can, so it's okay for them, yet we don't have an excuse.

We don't have to start wars to stop problems that are just disagreements. However, when a country is trying to kill another country, then you really can't say they shouldn't defend themselves. Would you rather just have the country that started attacking first kill all of the people of the other country? They chose to attack others knowing that they might lose. If they do, then they can't blame the other country just because they defended themselves. Is it really better to just let anybody that threatens to kill somebody have what they want?
Also, two more things, first, if you say we are so much like animals that we shouldn't kill them, then you saying that we shouldn't wage war is like saying animals shouldn't defend their territory. Secondly, what about suicide for the underlined part?
I think leaders need to find a better way besides war, then none of those questions even matter. Maybe there should be a choice, people who are willing to go to war can go but we shouldn't force people to fight if they don't believe that is okay. I never said we were so much like animals, we are animals, yet I asked who's to judge which species is better. I think even animals could resolve problems in diffrent ways. Suicide's purpose is to help that person, because they believe they have no other way to excape, it's just anouther way of helping youself, humans usually always think of what's best for them in the end.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
Maybe we are smarter. We can not understand what they are thinking, some of their bodies are limited to what they could do anyways. Pigs are as smart or smarter then 3 year old children, who's to judge which is better? Is everything based on intellegence, why not existince? Is the smarter person a better person? Animals have to eat other animals for survival, they can't get their nutrience from other things like we can, so it's okay for them, yet we don't have an excuse.



I think leaders need to find a better way besides war, then none of those questions even matter. Maybe there should be a choice, people who are willing to go to war can go but we shouldn't force people to fight if they don't believe that is okay. I never said we were so much like animals, we are animals, yet I asked who's to judge which species is better. I think even animals could resolve problems in diffrent ways. Suicide's purpose is to help that person, because they believe they have no other way to excape, it's just anouther way of helping youself, humans usually always think of what's best for them in the end.
What exactly is your arguement? It is a little unclear.

Throughout history, war and violence have been waged.
Humans, in their constant quest for dominance, have decided to destroy others or to take over other lands in order to deem themselves superior. Humans have always done this, even in the most minor of ways.

Selfishness has propelled us, as a species, to what we are now.
It is an act of dominance, of which is a mammalian instinct (Some birds and other animals as well).
Humans, however, have become so selfish that racism has developed; it is a branch of the instinct to become superior to not only other animals, but to other humans as well.

Also, it is in general human instinct to strike back when struck; that is why whenever a country starts something, whatever country they struck will fight back out of revenge, anger, or just to deem themselves superior once again.
 

Aposl

Smash Ace
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
834
Of course to "God" it is not right to kill PEOPLE, God says in the Bible that it is okay to kill animals,

Remember this about the world, cause and effect.
Actually in the Bible it says man has dominion over the animals and that the Righteous man regards the life of his beast. Please don't bring up the Bible unless you are 100 percent certain you know what you are saying my God says.
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
Oh, god, please no more apologetics...
Aposl, I ask nicely of you to refrain making statements like you did above, as nothing good comes out of them.
 

Hydra.

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
1,927
Location
Kansas City, MO
NNID
Aqua.Sword
Actually in the Bible it says man has dominion over the animals and that the Righteous man regards the life of his beast. Please don't bring up the Bible unless you are 100 percent certain you know what you are saying my God says.
First off, I DO in fact know what I am saying. I was raised a christian all my life and go to church almost every Sun and Wed.


Of course to "God" it is not right to kill PEOPLE, God says in the Bible that it is okay to kill animals, but Humans are infact animals... What makes animals less important then humans?

The bible does say "But you must never eat any meat that still has the lifeblood in it" -Genesis 9:5 and "Then God Said ,"Let us make humans beings in our image, to be like ourselves. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground." - Genesis 1:26

But even with the first verse I listed (Genesis 9:5) people first kill the animals then they eat them. Which is still murder. God even supports this, as seen here-

"The slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting: but the substance of a diligent man is precious." Proverbs 12:27

NLT version here-

"Lazy people don't even cook the game they catch, but the diligent make use of everything they find."

It does also state that he did place animals here for us to eat, As seen here...

Genesis 9:3
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

NLT Version
Genesis 9:2-4
"All the animals of the earth, all the birds of the sky, all the small animals that scurry along the ground, and all the fish in the sea will look on you with fear and terror. I have placed them in your power. I have given them to you for food, just as I have given you grain and vegetables."


Here is a website that lists verses and tells about humans dominion over animals and how God favors Humans more then animals-
http://www.gospelway.com/topics/man/animals-inferiority.php

Here is a website that tells about what the bible says about hunting-
http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=249


Actually in the Bible it says man has dominion over the animals and that the Righteous man regards the life of his beast. Please don't bring up the Bible unless you are 100 percent certain you know what you are saying my God says.

Maybe you should be 100% certain you know what your talking about when you bring up the bible.


Oh, god, please no more apologetics...
Aposl, I ask nicely of you to refrain making statements like you did above, as nothing good comes out of them.
It's all good I can back myself up.
 

Shadow13

Smash Journeyman
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
349
I think leaders need to find a better way besides war, then none of those questions even matter. Maybe there should be a choice, people who are willing to go to war can go but we shouldn't force people to fight if they don't believe that is okay. I never said we were so much like animals, we are animals, yet I asked who's to judge which species is better. I think even animals could resolve problems in diffrent ways. Suicide's purpose is to help that person, because they believe they have no other way to excape, it's just anouther way of helping youself, humans usually always think of what's best for them in the end.
It would be better if we didn't go to war over so much stuff, and it would be better if animals didn't kill each other so much. The thing is, that won't happen, and that is one reason why I think that there are right times to kill. If that is what we need to do to stop a country from wiping out a whole lot of people, that is what we have to do. It might end up with people still being dead, but in large wars lots of people are going to die either way.

Take this for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
Basically my point is, it isn't likely that all people on Earth will become peaceful enough so that war wouldn't happen again. It is probably more likely for a person to get struck by lightning after winning the lottery. It isn't impossible, but I really doubt it will happen for at least hundreds of years, if it happens at all.
It's all good I can back myself up.
That isn't so much thegreatkazoo's point, if you look at what Hooblah2u2 posted, posting so much involving relgion ended up making them go way off topic.
 

Hydra.

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
1,927
Location
Kansas City, MO
NNID
Aqua.Sword
It would be better if we didn't go to war over so much stuff, and it would be better if animals didn't kill each other so much. The thing is, that won't happen, and that is one reason why I think that there are right times to kill. If that is what we need to do to stop a country from wiping out a whole lot of people, that is what we have to do. It might end up with people still being dead, but in large wars lots of people are going to die either way.

Take this for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
Basically my point is, it isn't likely that all people on Earth will become peaceful enough so that war wouldn't happen again. It is probably more likely for a person to get struck by lightning after winning the lottery. It isn't impossible, but I really doubt it will happen for at least hundreds of years, if it happens at all.


That isn't so much thegreatkazoo's point, if you look at what Hooblah2u2 posted, posting so much involving relgion ended up making them go way off topic.
I under stand what thegreatkazoo meant and I agree.

If people don't think it could ever happen, if people don't believe, of course it won't happen. But I understand your point, I still think there are other ways they can deal with problems, and killing in the end is still irrelevent.

I think you all get my point, everyone has their own oppinions, and this topic is a topic that would be really hard to change someones views on.
 

-ACE-

Gotem City Vigilante
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
11,535
Location
The back country, GA
Morality is relative and arbitrary. It would be virtually impossible to construct any sort of universal moral code to be fully accepted by humanity, due to the many differences in cultures and societies within our world.

As we all know, a large number of people exist who believe that morality can be understood only within the context of one's religious views. This is not the case. Religion does not define morality. Society, Philosophy, and individual conscience also play a profound role in the construction of its meaning and how it is applied to everyday life.

With that said, it is difficult for me to denote a particular point in time as a 'right' time to kill (my individual conscience influences my outlook on Morality, and since I realize this, I know I cannot attempt to assert that I fully understand it's meaning, although many others would). However, I do know when I most likely would kill, or feel that killing was the only option.

Self defense. If I am innocent and faced with a decision that ultimately comes down to either me losing my own life, or an attacker losing his (depending on the circumstances - I realize that every situation is unique, which is part of the reason why Morality will never be universal), I will try my best to take him down. If at all possible, I will take him down without the use of lethal force, but I feel that I have the right to protect my own life, and if the attacker dies, so be it. I have always felt this way, and there is nothing anyone could do to convince me otherwise.

The Protection of my Family. If an attacker has placed any of the members of my immediate family in jeopardy (father, mother, brother, or sister - presumed to be innocent), I will do whatever I can to stop the attacker. As I said before, if at all possible I will try to nullify the situation without the use of lethal force, but I would have no hard feelings about putting the individual away.

War. As a soldier, I would follow orders completely. If I was instructed to kill, I would do so and hardly think twice about it. This doesn't mean that I have a desire to go to war or kill, at all. Chances are I would be opposed to the cause of the war and hesitant to enlist (depending on the circumstances), but if I were to enlist and fight on the front line in a war I thought was for the good of my country (or more importantly, the world), I would do my best to try to eliminate the enemy (assuming those were my orders).

**Here are two hypothetical scenarios that may help in the understanding of my opinions on this subject.

Scenario 1. I am a store clerk, and an armed man storms in and robs me at gunpoint. After I've given him all the money, he goes to shoot me and I duck under the counter just in time. Two shots miss, and he doesn't leave. He knows that I have seen his face and I feel that he truly wants to kill me, and will not stop until I am dead. I have a loaded pistol behind the counter. I am going to shoot him, and if he dies, so be it.

Scenario 2. A man I have never seen before kicks down my front door, holding a pistol and attempts to sexually assault my sister (by this I mean ****, and for the record, I don't have a sister) while holding the gun to her head. If he doesn't know that I am in the house, and I am able to get to my shotgun without him noticing, I am planting his *** in the grave.

In my opinion, it's difficult for one to say what his or her actions would really be in a life-threatening situation, during the peak of one's 'fight or flight' response, so I cannot be 100% certain that these are the actions I would take in these scenarios. However, I feel this is what I would most likely do, and I know that I would not feel like a bad person after having defended my own life or the life of my sister in either of these situations.

My opinions on a few scenarios mentioned earlier:

The example given earlier about the Holocaust is a no-brainer. Allowing roughly 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. to be murdered/tortured versus killing a million Nazi's under the command of someone as evil as Adolf Hitler? Please.

The example of the train and the fork in the tracks has no easy answer to me, but I'd have to go with saving 5 people versus saving one.

The example with the innocent patient of rare blood type coincidentally entering the hospital when 5 terminal patients with the same blood type all need organs this one man possesses is a no-brainer to me also. DO NOT KILL THAT MAN. If I was sitting on the operating table and needed a new liver, there is no way I'd want an innocent man to die so I could continue to live the rest of my life. I don't have a concrete explanation for this one (aside from me just not being that selfish), I just know I couldn't do it.

Again, I can't really say with full confidence that any of these scenarios present a 'right' time to kill, I just think I know what I would most likely end up doing.

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
http://mfs.uchicago.edu/religion/religion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
Again, I can't really say with full confidence that any of these scenarios present a 'right' time to kill, I just think I know what I would most likely end up doing.

Again, it all comes down to one's human instinct when thrown into situations such as being held at gunpoint and having a gun yourself.
Having a family member in danger yet having the assaulting person unknowing of your presence in the house, it would also be human instinct to protect ones so close.
Overall, beliefs and personal goals have no relevance when such sudden situations occur.

Technically, speaking for animal instinct, there is a 'right' time to kill.
Morally speaking, there is no right time to kill, except in the eyes of an extremist or an insane person.
Yet again, animal instinct overpowers a person's morality at a certain point.
 

-ACE-

Gotem City Vigilante
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
11,535
Location
The back country, GA

Again, it all comes down to one's human instinct when thrown into situations such as being held at gunpoint and having a gun yourself.
Agreed.


Overall, beliefs and personal goals have no relevance when such sudden situations occur.
Beliefs and personal goals have no relevance? How is this so?

I wouldn't be surprised if Hooblah attempted to 'pull a Jesus' in a situation like this (like scenario 1). Would that not be because of his beliefs? If you have a personal goal to protect your family at all costs, would that goal not be relevant in scenario 2?


Technically, speaking for animal instinct, there is a 'right' time to kill.
With regard to what context is it 'right'? In a sense of fitness (and by fitness, I mean fitness in the biological sense; a measurement of an organism's capability to pass on its genes to fertile offspring), I completely agree.


Yet again, animal instinct overpowers a person's morality at a certain point.
True, but imo the degree of severity (for lack of a better phrase) at which this 'point' is reached must differ from person to person. I feel that a very confident and serious person (say, a US Marine or war veteran) will be able to control his instincts more often than others (a younger or generally passive person, perhaps) in certain situations.

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fitness
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
Beliefs and personal goals have no relevance? How is this so?

I wouldn't be surprised if Hooblah attempted to 'pull a Jesus' in a situation like this (like scenario 1). Would that not be because of his beliefs? If you have a personal goal to protect your family at all costs, would that goal not be relevant in scenario 2?
In a situation such as having a gun pointed to your head, and you had a gun pointed to their head, one would not have time to think; animal instinct to survive would take over, even a Religious person would pull the trigger. You would not have time to reason about Jesus or et cetera with this person about to kill you.
By personal goals, I meant ones such as "Don't kill people" or "Don't hurt someone", simple ones that require one to not injure, physically or emotionally, a person.
Of course if one of your personal goals is to protect family, that isn't so much of a personal goal, it is more of an instinct because it is required via familiarity and being so close to them.



With regard to what context is it 'right'? In a sense of fitness (and by fitness, I mean fitness in the biological sense; a measurement of an organism's capability to pass on its genes to fertile offspring), I completely agree.
I must be more specific: what you said was what I meant, about how an organism has a sense to pass on genetic information. In order to do so, the survival instinct occurs as well.



True, but imo the degree of severity (for lack of a better phrase) at which this 'point' is reached must differ from person to person. I feel that a very confident and serious person (say, a US Marine or war veteran) will be able to control his instincts more often than others (a younger or generally passive person, perhaps) in certain situations.
Yes, it does really depend on the severity of the situation.
Instinct would take over when:

A gun to the head, but a gun to their head as well - Instinct would take over

Someone threatening with a handheld weapon - Instinct may not take over, depends on how much the person is focused on hurting you, and what exactly the weapon is.

It also does depend on the person, but in many people would this instinct take over. Unless the person is absolutely dedicated to their beliefs.
 

-ACE-

Gotem City Vigilante
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
11,535
Location
The back country, GA

In a situation such as having a gun pointed to your head, and you had a gun pointed to their head, one would not have time to think; animal instinct to survive would take over, even a Religious person would pull the trigger. You would not have time to reason about Jesus or et cetera with this person about to kill you.
You can't say that for sure. Most likely, one's 'fight or flight' response would kick in, resulting in several different possibilities. They could pull the trigger, they might be paralyzed in fear due to the danger of the situation, or they might not have it in them to pull the trigger in time (the slightest bit of hesitation could result in you getting shot before you can act on your decision). Many other possibilities also exist.


By personal goals, I meant ones such as "Don't kill people" or "Don't hurt someone", simple ones that require one to not injure, physically or emotionally, a person.
Again, depending on the person, I believe that even goals such as these could influence the end result of such a situation.


Of course if one of your personal goals is to protect family, that isn't so much of a personal goal, it is more of an instinct because it is required via familiarity and being so close to them.
Yes, but not everyone has this goal. Some people completely detest their families, and I believe feelings of this nature (as well as others regarding the members of one's family) could have an impact on the outcome of a situation like this.



Instinct would take over when:

A gun to the head, but a gun to their head as well - Instinct would take over

Someone threatening with a handheld weapon - Instinct may not take over, depends on how much the person is focused on hurting you, and what exactly the weapon is.

It also does depend on the person, but in many people would this instinct take over. Unless the person is absolutely dedicated to their beliefs.
I agree for the most part, especially the last 2 sentences you included. There are so many factors that could influence the outcomes such dilemmas that it is too difficult for me to say that any result will definitely happen.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
You can't say that for sure. Most likely, one's 'fight or flight' response would kick in, resulting in several different possibilities. They could pull the trigger, they might be paralyzed in fear due to the danger of the situation, or they might not have it in them to pull the trigger in time (the slightest bit of hesitation could result in you getting shot before you can act on your decision). Many other possibilities also exist.

The bolded section is what I would try to point out with a Religious person that in a situation that requires fast action of thought, one would not have time to think over the situation, much less attempt to reason with the enemy.

Fight or Flight suggests stay and fight (in this situation, kill the person), or flee (which would not be very easy, considering a gun is at your head), not fear. However, frozen out of fear is a factor, but what if you realize that this person has no fear of shooting you, would your fear overcome you and allow you to die?
[Walter Cannon]'s theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system, priming the animal for fighting or fleeing. This response was later recognized as the first stage of a general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms.
- Source from Wikipedia, considering that the link to the apparent site caused an error in my internet explorer.
 

-ACE-

Gotem City Vigilante
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
11,535
Location
The back country, GA

Fight or Flight suggests stay and fight (in this situation, kill the person), or flee (which would not be very easy, considering a gun is at your head), not fear.
I don't know if the interpretation of the 'fight or flight' response is always supposed to be so similar to the literal meaning.

fight-or-flight (adj):
relating to, being, or causing physiological changes in the body (as an increase in heart rate or dilation of bronchi) in response to stress

Although in such a situation your options are seemingly very limited (essentially those you mentioned), I believe that there could be several possible outcomes (overwhelming fear being one of these).



what if you realize that this person has no fear of shooting you, would your fear overcome you and allow you to die?
I know exactly what I would do in that situation, but I can't speak for everyone. I agree that instinct would most likely kick in at that point (if you were able to come to this realization in time given that you interpreted the situation properly), aiding the person being able to pull the trigger in time. However, fear is always a factor (quote by Joe Rogan? lol), as you mentioned, and I believe someone could also easily panic inside or hesitate too long as a result.

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fight or flight
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
So now it seems that we are likely agreeing upon the fact that there are many possible outcomes of the situation in which a person has a gun to your head, but you have a gun to their head as well.
Overall, there are two different ways of approaching the question "Is there a 'right' time to kill?"

The first approach would be to look at it morally, which, in many people's case, there is no 'right' time to kill, excluding the thoughts of an extremist looking to kill for his/her belief or a mentally insane person. People, in general, view it as wrong and sinful to kill another person. In radical versions of certain Religions, it is rightful as long as you die for your God or belief, a martyr. That is what drives terrorists to commit awful acts.

The second approach of viewing it through the eyes of instincts. Speaking for instincts, there is technically a 'right' time to kill: when a person is thrown into a sudden situation as the one we have stated multiple times before.

However, looking at it from instinct, the situation's outcome may vary from person to person. Each person on this earth has a different view, belief, and response to everything. People with slow responses may end up dead in a situation as such due to the fact that they might be frozen out of fear to shoot this person who may not have any fear of shooting you. A person's belief might also affect the outcome, because they might try to reason with the person (although, by doing so, you may not have enough time to even say anything before this enemy of yours shoots you).

Then again, what if the other person is fearful of shooting you, too? That's another question to be discussed.
 

-ACE-

Gotem City Vigilante
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
11,535
Location
The back country, GA

Then again, what if the other person is fearful of shooting you, too? That's another question to be discussed.
True, but I think we might have already dug a bit too deep into the given scenarios. Assuming that his actions are premeditated, he would have gone through a bit of thinking and mental preparation before committing the act. He knew when he grabbed the gun that day what he would most likely do with it. It's too hard to tell if he's going to really pull the trigger or not, you'd just have to shoot or perhaps subdue him with non-lethal force if conditions were near perfect.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
you'd just have to shoot or perhaps subdue him with non-lethal force if conditions were near perfect.
Which doesn't usually happen in said situations.
Maybe we are discussing too much about this situation only.


At Aqua.:
The reason that I thought your argument was unclear was because your grammar and spelling in it cause a bit of confusion; it also skipped from one statement to the other.

Don't you remember that PM that you sent me the day you posted that argument? Asking if I was being sarcastic or not?
I thought I cleared up why I thought it was a little unclear in that message.

Revenge and vengeance are basic tools of human instinct. Whether society chooses to accept or blind itself to this fact, it is an indisputable truth. Francis Bacon examines this truth in "Of Revenge", a view of society and literary characters that reflects the strive for vengeance. However, "Of Revenge" deeply underestimates the corruption of the human spirit and soul. It completely disregards the presence of the basic human instinct which thrives on the manipulation and destruction of others, for the sake of satisfaction. Though Bacon's inferences to the book of Job or Solomon are perfectly viable to a character that chooses to take revenge after they have been wronged, to believe that "no man does evil just for the sake of evil" annihilates any complete sense of credibility that Bacon's thoughts imply. The author's aspirations of the seeking of revenge solely as a means of retribution for oneself, and not to satisfy the evil within the human soul, is a beautiful and idealistic.
The human instinct to strike back when struck can be called revenge OR self defense, depending on the situation, as all of us know. This is the source, and a rather interesting one at that: http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Revenge-Human-Instinct/127862

Revenge may take a roll when war is waged; when a country is struck and they seek vengeance for the ones of their country that perished.
However, self-defence may take a roll when a person hits you; out of instinct you would hit back in self-defence.

Revenge take contemplating in order to be carried out; self-defence is carried out almost without the user thinking.
 

Hydra.

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
1,927
Location
Kansas City, MO
NNID
Aqua.Sword
I wouldn't really say it skipped around, I talked about one area of the argument and then moved onto the next.

Good Job for posting your source, it completed your argument. =D
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
I wouldn't really say it skipped around, I talked about one area of the argument and then moved onto the next.

Good Job for posting your source, it completed your argument. =D
I will edit my post and put up a different source...

Well after a long and somewhat confusing conversation with my father, I shall use "revenge" and "self-defence" to boast my argument.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
8,100
Location
Baklavaaaaa
Is your father helping you with your arguments?

^^This is not meant to be derogatory.
Actually, no, he helped a little bit in this argument however.

I asked him if revenge was a human instinct because he is a biology teacher.

Any other subjects here in the PG are not his forte at all.

He just helped clear up whether "revenge" or "self-defence" took action when physically hit by another person. Self-defence does, in the end.

I wouldn't ask him for full advice on everything anyway because... Isn't that cheating?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom