102 replies to this topic

[The Satellite]

Sometimes the old-fashioned way is the best way. Not that I'm condoning the reemergence of the electric chair. That's, like, bringing back the guillotine.

Anyways, careful there. This is about to descend into whether or not capital punishment should be used or is ethical. That's for our Debate Room. As far as the current topic at hand, I must admit it is a rather curious and psychological question, although I'm pretty sure I could never kill anyone unless it was in self-defense. Haven't the heart; there are very few I'd wish dead. Okay, I take that back; don't let me ever come face-to-face with anyone who's ever killed a child, because it'd take all my self-control to hold back from trying to tear into them. And it might depend on if someone ever wronged me or a family member in an extreme way but I've never really felt murderous rages before. Except in the case of hearing about someone who's killed a child.

[Sheik]

Sometimes the old-fashioned way is the best way. Not that I'm condoning the reemergence of the electric chair. That's, like, bringing back the guillotine.
Anyways, careful there. This is about to descend into whether or not capital punishment should be used or is ethical. That's for our Debate Room.

I felt like making a topic on that matter in the Debate Forum when I read it. I'm still debating wether I should or not.

As far as the current topic at hand, I must admit it is a rather curious and psychological question, although I'm pretty sure I could never kill anyone unless it was in self-defense. Haven't the heart; there are very few I'd wish dead. Okay, I take that back; don't let me ever come face-to-face with anyone who's ever killed a child, because it'd take all my self-control to hold back from trying to tear into them. And it might depend on if someone ever wronged me or a family member in an extreme way but I've never really felt murderous rages before. Except in the case of hearing about someone who's killed a child.

What is the difference between killing a child and killing an adult? And would you also tear it into a child that killed another child? On the second question I guess you'll argue with criminal responsibility. I fail to see the difference in value/worth of the live of a child and the live of an adult, though. A human live is a human live by my book, regardless who's living it.

Edited by Sheik91, 30 July 2011 - 03:20 PM.

[The Satellite]

For me, it's simple. I love children, I think they're beautiful and wonderful. And to hear about one of them having their life taken away from them, it just destroys part of me inside. Also, I think I should clarify; I mostly mean younger children. I don't consider teenagers children for instance, I consider them, well, teenagers. I'm not actually sure why I differentiate; I wouldn't call it psychological because it's not an aftereffect of anything that's happened in my life (though I have lost young relatives, but to natural causes). It's just, to me, I dunno, I know all life is precious, but, well, maybe it's the helpless nature of the victim. I get similarly very upset hearing about when someone kills a member of the elderly; not as extreme, but pretty close.

Call it what you like, that's just how I've always felt on it.

[Sheik]

And totally legitimately, too, of course. I just wanted to hint at the fact, that logically speaking there's no real difference. Emotionally, we tend to hold the young especially dear. Another thing that could be explaind with regard to evolutionary factors rather well.

Edited by Sheik91, 30 July 2011 - 03:34 PM.

[The Satellite]

And would you also tear it into a child that killed another child?

I totally didn't answer this.

I don't think I would. In fact, I've heard of more than one such story where I was just appalled. Something would have to be done to the kid, but I couldn't find myself having violent tendencies towards the "young murderer." Now if the murderer was teenage... Well I hate teenagers anyway, so I wouldn't have any restrictions in such a case.

Okay I shouldn't joke like that, but I probably couldn't bring myself to violence in that case either. Really, I wouldn't know how to answer your question properly.

[Sheik]

Okay I shouldn't joke like that, but I probably couldn't bring myself to violence in that case either. Really, I wouldn't know how to answer your question properly.

Yes. Me neither, by the way. But that's my entire point, sort of. We don't know how we will act like. Because if it was a real life situation, we would act in the context of the situation and won't think about it in all lenght. Thus I think it's a good thing to befriend with the idea that we are hypothetically capable of anything, even murder and other things we despise.
Edit: Really, read up on Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment and on the Milgram-Experiment. That's stuff to think about.

Edited by Sheik91, 30 July 2011 - 03:46 PM.

[Cukeman]

No. Even if there were no law it would be wrong.
Heck a lot of things are wrong that are permitted by law.

[Cukeman]

I might want to beat some badly, but not kill them

[Ventus]

No i wouldn't i don't have the heart to hurt anyone or anything
but i would if it was self defense
and also i can't denie running People over in gta 4 it's just to much fun
LOL

[Tree]

Absolutely not. I don't think just because some one made you mad, means that you should kill them. Sure, when you are really mad at someone, you might say, "God I'm going to kill him", but you should never really mean it.

Now someone who ruined your life, killed a loved one, and threatened or tried to kill you/family/friend. then it's different. You've got to defend yourself somehow,

But yeah, there are some really annoying people in life. But I don't think anyone should die unless they are a mass murderer.
People like Osama and Hittler. Those are the only type of people I'd kill.

P.S. killing someone in any way at all except in defense is absolutely wrong in every way.
(but killing someone period is still wrong)

Edited by Keiichi123, 30 July 2011 - 04:59 PM.

[Sheik]

But I don't think anyone should die unless they are a mass murderer.
People like Osama and Hittler. Those are the only type of people I'd kill.

You are aware that neither Osama nor Hitler did actively murder with their own hands, right? That they were representives (and part of the leading forces) of something bigger, right? That they never were, at any given time, in full control of the actions that took place "in their name"? That they were (are) the face of a ideology but never never the driving force itself?
Osama wasn't a mass murderer. The guy that brought that plane down was the murderer. Hitler wasn't a mass murderer. The men that "worked" at the KZs were. Of course Osama and Hitler are still part of a causal chain that led to mass murderer. But being part of a causal chain makes you nothing more but a part of a causal chain. And being a representive makes you nothing more but a representive.

Edited by Sheik91, 30 July 2011 - 05:06 PM.

[Cukeman]

For my part, consenting to be a part of that regime, especially as a figurehead is just as bad.

[Sheik]

Well yeah, that's an easy answer. Considering the analogies that could be drawn by that statement, I wonder wether it's fair/just to think so.