 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)Roger Wilco ...and 272 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hide |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How's it goin' with the book, dude (pavo)? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, I've just lost quite a bit of respect for you because until that post we were having a nice civilised debate on morality and suddenly you turned it into a personal attack on me (rather than my argument) and started being insulting. As to: "the "normal" arguments about death penalties doesn't have anything to do with anyone being possibly innocent! It's because the eye for an eye and revenge stuff is totally untolerable in todays society as well as the fact that taking a life NEVER is reasonably justifiable in any way. " Erm, no; the most commonly cited (not to mentional logical)argument against the death penalty is that there have been cases where someone has been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, put to death and then, several years later new evidence comes to light, or there is a change in forensic science and it transpires that the person was innocent and that there is no way to "bring them back", whereas someone imprisoned for life could at least be released and well compensated for the cock-up. The "it's never right to take a human life"/"we should give everyone a second chance" arguments are a lot more of a grey area and open to debate, even if you personally believe vehemently in them. As Ezkerraldean says, the problem is that in the spur of the moment, you would have real difficulty accurately assessing whether or not they were going to kill you and in any event, even if it's only, say a 5% chance, why should you have to take that risk? Redrum: Look at it this way; I'd be prepared to hide bodies to protect my liberty when I believed I had acted morally and could be charged (to my mind unjustly) with murder. I don't think would over an argument on an internet messageboard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've never found that image particulary upsetting. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's a personal attack on you because moral is a highly personal thing, and I found your morals despicable to say the least. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, the verdict's in then, you're a heartless bastard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
cool, Slavov Zizeg rules, he's a freak |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But do you really think it's that easy to go around hiddin' bodies and killing people? I ask for the "easy" part, not moral, technical or nothing... I mean, that's sick. You talk about people (and yes, thieves are people) like some bag of potatoes! I believe it's harder to kill someone than what you seem to think. And remember that it's an EXECUTION we're talkin' bout here... Just look in their eyes and press the trigger? Hard at least... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
J E S U S C H R I S T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm glad you agree morality is a personal thing. At least you're not like the cretins who try to lay out morality as some sort of universal blanket that applies to everyone, whereby their beliefs are moral and other's aren't. I do, however, think you're taking it a bit 'personally', particularly if you were serious about throwing up. If you fly off the hand over something like this, it just makes people less inclined to be honest in future. And lets remember; it's not like the POV I've put across is a particularly unusual one, a large proportion of the population (not to mention the law in the UK and particularly America) would agree with me that we should always (within reason) favour the homeowner as they are the innocent victim of the crime, not the other way round. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Life is a Universal value. Property is not. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Easy to kill someone in cold blood where you've actually sat down away from the crime scene and calmly thought about it? No, no way is that easy. To kill someone when you're charged on adrenaline and still thinking in "defence" mode (only talking about 30 seconds after you grabbed the gun, remember), wouldn't be easy either, but it'd be markedly easier than "proper" cold blood. I think people are failing to see a distinction here and not really exercising a degree of empathy with our hypothetical victim. Yes, we all know from a logical point of view that you're killing them in a way that isn't really self defense, but you have to remember it's not really "revenge" to the same degree as once the survivour has escaped chasing them down and killing them. I think it's difficult to say with any certainty exactly how you'd respond until it happened. What if your kids were in the house? What if you knew your wife was in the bathroom and could walk in on them at any time? Would you still stay "asleep"? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. I did throw up a bit in my mouth, but that's for other reasons... and in this case, the homeowner is the victim, at first, yes, but in the second part of it, the burglars are the victims. It isn't so that whoever was the first offender is always the offender. Compare to a fight. If someone starts a fight with you and you end up the winner, but keep kicking him when he's lying down, you are the offender and he is the victim. also: defense is passive, not active. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
see, that man went wrong from the moment he grabbed the gun, not from when he shot the burglars. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd say that just as there are places where property is valued less (and even not at all), there are times and places where life is valued a lot less too, like in wars. I think part of the reason I don't find that image half as disturbing as I would if it was just some kid on the street shooting another one in the head for fun is that it was part of a war. Our current Western fixation with health and safety culture, human rights and removal of the death penalty/overriding desire to prevent death at all seems to stem from the fact that as we have, as a society, lost God, we're suddenly terrified of death and human life becomes some sort of "all there is" holy grail. I'd also argue that some human lives are of more value than others. Not a popular view, I know. I think the victim's life (which they may genuinely believe is at stake) is worth more than the burglars'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I'd also argue that some human lives are of more value than others." Well, that explains a lot of what you say. You're against human rights. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
BTW, some girls are bigger than others... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Compare to a fight. If someone starts a fight with you and you end up the winner, but keep kicking him when he's lying down, you are the offender and he is the victim." I was actually discussing this with some friends the other day. The conclusion we came to was that there should definately be some leeway granted to the inital victim to acocunt for the fact they were attacked first. For example, someone attacks you, you floor them, you stamp on their head repeatedly until their head is in bits on the floor. That's clearly wrong. At the other end of the spectrum, someone attacks you, you floor them, you run off. Most people would agree that's fine. The problem comes from the degree of uncertainty (and this applies to the original moral dilema faced by the victim, too) this poses. What if the person gets up off the floor, gives chase and catches you and then continues beating you up. Why should you have to accept anything more than a negligibly small chance this could happen? To this end, what if you give them a few kicks to break a couple of ribs to help ensure they won't give chase? I just don't grasp/accept this moral concept that as soon as you've staved off the immediate, original danger the slate is wiped clean and your moral obligations to the attacker are the same as if they had never attacked you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's called PREEMTIVE STRIKE. I think some president from some country I can't remember the name would agree 110% with you. But for sure not me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
are you basing all your moral judgements on uncertainty? so "active defense" (like in attacking first because you don't know if your opponent may attack you) is ok? I guess I need to attack everyone I can't be sure of then.. meaning about 99% of the worlds population... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think I'll have to attack all people who think active defense is ok first as they may have had the same idea. They may not have, but then again, it's all so uncertain. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, I'm not and I've actually done some work for the organisation your avatar represents. I'm not against "proper" human rights violations like massively unjust legal systems, executions where there is no evidence, etc. What I'm not in favour of is a blanket ruling on the human rights that is the European Human Rights acts. There are many facets of it which I believe to be unjust. I've studied (and got a distinction in) law, including the human rights act at a Masters-degree level. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My mom told me that all human beings deserve to live, and to live in freedom. But she never gave me a Master Degree International Champion Number One Diploma. A petty, I suppose... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so it's not an unjust legal system when you can attack someone just because you're uncertain of what they may do? "§43: If uncertainty is a factor, shoot to kill." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wahey! Way to lose all credibility in a debate; take your opponent's moderate example and cite some miles-away extreme example as a reason why the opponent's example is wrong. Your ludicrous example of attacking everyone in case they attack you has nothing to do with helping to ensure someone who has already attacked you won't do it again. I mean, fuck, it's not even like in the example I gave, them giving chase is a real outside chance, or even remotely unlikely. I'd hazard a guess that it's probably a 1 in 3 chance, probably more if they actively came looking for you in the first place. Have you ever been in a proper fight? If you floored the person, did they just stay there? I actually have knocked someone down (I was attacked first before you attempt humour), ran off and they got up and gave chase, till one of their friends restrained them. So, it obviously happens. In similar situations in future, will I have given a "winding" kick to the ribs to help ensure I could get away safely? You bet. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Gotta go home, now it's up to you Mastah! (more to come tomorrow Mr. Ceri...) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
2 issues; 1. Prior guilt. I don't mean a previous, seperate crime, I mean minutes/seconds earlier. They've already shown an intent/predilection for attacking you. It's not like it's an "out of the blue", no way to predict, one. 2. Chance of the uncertainty. Difficult to put a percentage on these things I know, particularly in the heat of the moment, but what is the chance the person will do what you fear? Thankfully, current law in most places reflects these. It's no defence to say, "Well I attacked the man because he attacked me 10 years ago, so I thought he might do it again" (prior guilt). Likewise, it's no defense to say, "Well after flooring him, I killed him because I thought he might have been about to radio an attack copter to come and kill me in retaliation" (Chance of the uncertainty). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Have fun, don't go killing any intruders to your house with your machete. :s ;-) Only messing. Fun talking to you, see you later. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was taking it to an extreme, yes, but that's not the same as saying that extreme is too far away from your view.. your fear of other people seems completely unjustified, and I'm not just talking of how it looks in this thread. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't fear other people unduly. I quite regularly leave things unlocked; I realise not everyone is a thief/burglar. The notion that everyone "right wing" is some sort of coward is a rather childish oversimplification of things. I don't believe, probably any more than you do, that burglaries/muggings are commonplace/frequent in most places. I certainly don't lose sleep over it or worry unduly about it; after all it's not only unlikely, but largley outside my control. Where our views do differ, however, is that I believe that when these things do occur, the victim should have more rights than the perpetrator. Also, please could you explain how the paranoid fantasy of attacking 99% of the world's population as "pre-emptive self defense" isn't so far removed as to be irrelevant, from the (unarguable) reasonable possibility that someone floored, but not KO'd in a fight may get up and carry on? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah damn I can't keep up this shit. I do mean what I say (this is not just some argument for the argument thing like I sometimes do), but I see I'm taking it a bit personal. That's probably because I'm really into ethics and I've been studying philosophy for a while now (it's four semesters plus one year plus another year and random readings/writings before and in-between) and written quite a few papers on the subject, and I just really care about it no matter if it's a right-wing nutter on a messageboard (he said with his tongue in his cheek). I'm going to make dinner, but you really need to revise some of your ethics. I would also like to know if they'd hold up in a real life situation... maybe you should also read some or do a class on ethics and then particularly ethics where choice is important.. read some existentialists and maybe aristotle. You should get some more perspective I think.. and so should your friend if he agreed that leeway should be given to the one who was attacked. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh more. more rights, but within context. what would be within context of the situation described up above would not involve shooting anyone. It would be calling the police once you have the opportunity or they've left; vigilantes are illegal for a reason (they're dangerous to themselves and everyone else). and as to your last point they both base themselves on the "oh shit what if..?" thought and it doesn't take much for someone to take that to the next step. America have done it many times. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now: dinner |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It wasn't just one friend who agreed, it was actually more like 5/6 friends and they weren't all "right wing nutters". It was a pretty wide spectrum of people from varying classes, countries and political outlooks, yet all agreed that the victim should have more rights than the perpetrator. The only disagreement was over how much of a difference there should be. This ranged from the extreme, "as soon as they start a fight, you can kill them if you want." to an only very slightly more rights than the perpetrator, "they should be charged with any assault etc. on the perpetrator, but sentencing should be slightly lighter to reflect the attack". My views fall somewhere between these two. You've got to remember this is a fairly left wing messageboard and even if my views come across as extreme right wing, I am, in the grand scheme of things (IE in the real world, where there's a generally wider scope of opinions than here) pretty "middle of the road" politically. I've even been accused of being a "lefty" by some people; it's all relative, isn't it? I also think, whilst I have read some (although not formally) philosophy and ethics, I prefer to keep it as an intellectual abstract concept and apply a more "down to earth" and realistic approach in my day to day life (as most people do). Not everyone is interested (even if they are able to) in intellectualising choice/freewill, most people, myself included see it as, "This person did wrong, they should be punished." Okay, lets call it a day for now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
just a note in between the bubbling stuff in pans in kitchens I meant you should read some stuff just to get a perspective, not to agree or stuff like that. it's just that most more extensive ethical treatises or papers have taken the consequences and full implications of most theories and thought it through thoroughly (they have the time since it's their job).. more thoroughly than any person who isn't working with it ever could have, and while you don't see the implications of your view, someone else have and you need to see it. Intellectualising stuff isn't a bad thing in any way though the word often seems to be used as such... also, down-to-earth-ethics can lead to lots and lots of trouble; anything you haven't thought through thoroughly (or "THTHTH" for short) has more of a potential for ending in disaster than what you HAVE thought through. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, Pete, the character on MacGuyver just backed my view oh.. sizzling sounds! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ho ho, this is going off on a tangent, but never mind. I agree that basic "common sense" often gets things wrong; part of the reason a lot of people think the law is so irrational is actually that they don't have the time (perhaps intellect?) to grasp the finer points and realise why things are done the way they are. Likewise, as you say it leads to things like vigilantism, overly heavy-handed punishment for minor crimes, punishment on innocents, etc. On the other hand I don't think just because someone studies something as subjective as ethics/morality (rather than, say, Law, Physics or Engineering) full time that they automatically "know better". Look how liberal academic sociologists in the 70s fucked the black community over (thinking they were doing them a favour). Likewise, I nearly snorted my cornflakes over my lap with laughter when a Professor of Ethics on a TV show presented his "argument" for birthing of babies solely to be used as donors for siblings with diseases. Guest: "It's fine for a couple to have a child just to save their other child's life. In fact it's the most moral reason to create a life." Host: "On what grounds do you say that?" Guest: "I'm a professor of ethics and it's moral." Host *Has WTF?! expression and moves on to another guest* It all smacks a bit much of Tony Blair's attitude, "well, I'm prime minister, so I know best and your arguments don't count." Do you agree you can't just treat something as personal as ethics/morality, politics, or religion in this way? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, they don't necessarily know better, but they sure as hell have thought it through more thoroughly, and that's why I always read stuff that supports both sides; then I get the good and bad of both; they usually criticise each other. what's good for people who don't have the time for that is reading a third party book on it as they usually include short versions of all problems and advantages to each side... also, most people don't seem to have a concept of when they are responsible for their actions; one action with a bad outcome is "excused" by the person and the same action with a good outcome is something the person expects praise for.. no matter if it was volountary or involountary, people don't seem to be taking responsibility any more.. that's also one of the things I reacted to most strongly, that you were going to lie about having shot the burglars to avoid punishment; if you take action, be prepared to take all consequences you could've expected that action to have. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm all for taking responsibility (if I cock up in work, I'm the first to put my hand in the aie and say it was me), I just think that it's harsh that if I'd killed the burglar (hypothetically) 5 years ago, I'd probably be fine, whereas today there'd be a chance I could go to jail for it. I think it's a bad law (the new one) and hence will try to do anything in my power to get out of being punished for it. I suppose I'm more of an individualist and don't subscribe to the idea that it's wrong to disobey laws in a democracy, just because that's what most people want. I don't agree with "the masses" on many matters (you're the same as me in that respect, it would appears) and don't really want anything to do with their rulings. I'm not some wild anarachist who thinks he is accountable to no one; I'd actually say I'm generally a pretty law abiding and certainly "upright" citizen who usually does "the right thing" and helps people. I tend to draw my own lines/boundries, it's just that usually these fall within the law, so it's not normally a problem. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm in agreement with vp etc that when you shot the first guy and the second guy for the first time, that everything was ok. It would then be a one on one attack between you and a man that has lost the use of his legs. Personally, I'd threaten him with the gun to his head, make him put his hands up and call the police. There is no chance in hell that I would kill him, while he posed absolutely no threat to me, with his hands up in the air and the inability to move as a result of the pain he was suffering from. It's not even an issue whether you should kill him or not, in case he did something in the future to a grandma or something, because he would be arrested and put in prison. After that time, it is the government's responsability. We cannot take the law into our own hands. That is not our perogative. If everybody did that, it would be unecessary to have a law system at all, and we would come across all sorts of problems because of contrasting moral views. Whether they have broken into your house or not, they are still human beings with the same rights, as human beings as you. It is absolutely disgusting to contemplate killing and hiding their bodies, because you don't want to be punished for something you don't think that you have done wrong. That puts both of you in the same position. The burgalars would also obviously think that their acts were justified, otherwise they wouldn't have done them. This shows that just because you think that your own actions are right does not mean that they are. Why should they be punished by death for something that they think is acceptable and you think is wrong, and you should get away with something that you think is acceptable and they think is wrong? At the end of the day. You would have killed someone. You are aware of the risks attatched to murdering someone. As it has been said that burgalars should be aware of the risks, you should equally have taken the punishment for murder into consideration before pulling the trigger. Otherwise,u are being very hypoc |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ritical |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ps.. I'm lying. I wouldn't have done any of that. I'd have pretended to have stayed asleep throughout. :D |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what I want to know is: What Would dog_belch Do? cause thats what i'd do too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if i thought an intruder in my house was going to endanger my life, and i had the means to stop him/her, then i would. thats all there is to it in my mind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In this scenario, the only reason that your life would be endangered would be if you picked up the gun. If you lay still, your life would be in no risk. It would also be unecessary in this situation to kill this man, as I pointed out. If your life really was in danger and he was threatening you with a weapon, as opposed to lying helpless on the floor, begging you for mercy, it would be a different question entirely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yep. I really question how many of the people who say they would never kill someone in their house have really thought about it. I think there are plenty of situations where someone otherwise comparatively non-violent, could kill an intruder and then, if they felt the law would find them guilty of murder, would be scared and dump the body. Perhaps the fact I've thought about it makes it worse, but I still think a lot more people than would like to admit it could, in the spur of the moment, behave in that way. I also would like to know what "sort" of murder people would class the killing of the second man as; is it manslaughter (I think the Americans call this third degree murder)? Would you say the fact that you have been safe for perhaps 20 seconds makes it suddenly "cold blood", to the same extent as a contract killing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if he was already lying on the floor, then i wouldnt kill him. if he was obviously bleeding severely etc. i would call for ambulance and police. but if i came face to face with an intruder in my own house, standing there in my corridor, and i happened to have a gun, and i was scared, then i would shoot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wouldnt intend to kill the person, just stop them until help arrived. if i ended up killing them, i have no idea how i would react. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's the problem. It's easy for people kill an intruder "accidentally", when all they meant was to imobilise them. Even a screwdriver stabbed into someone's thigh, which you would hope would just stop them chasing you can hit an artery and they may die as a result. No way should you be charged with murder for that. Unless there are independant witnesses (not people who live in the house and not mates of the criminal), which there seldom would be in these sort of cases, it's difficult to prove. Even if the person has 2+ injuries, it's entirely possible you did one (the lesser) and they kept coming. Short of finding a body riddled with a whole clip's worth of bullets, it'd be exceptionally difficult to prove that someone was doing anything other than imobilising them. That's what I don't like about the current cloudy state of (UK) law on the matter; It's unclear and generally the homeowner ends up on trial, but is found innocent, in all but the most extreme examples. I think it would be better for all concerned (burglar's excepted) if we adopted the American's law on this matter. Instead we actually have what is, in spirit/practice, if not letter, the same law as the Americans, but every time a homeowner kills/injures an intruder, they have to go to court, suffer lots of additional stress, cost to taxpayer, etc. and invariably the person ends up going free. SValx, "Whether they have broken into your house or not, they are still human beings with the same rights, as human beings as you." That's a matter of opinion, politics and which country you're in, you can't just state it as fact. It's not like maths; these are human laws/ideals, they aren't fixed universal laws of nature. It's a bit like people saying, "Capitalism is wrong" or "Communism is wrong"; they're just opinions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what if instead of saying "Please...don't..." , he said "Please... I post on xltronic...", how would that change things? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
