To kill or not to kill?

casualwolf12 said:Well, what do I know? I suppose I would aim for something swift and painless. One shouldn't inflict unnecessary suffering, after all. If I were to conclude that an individual truly constitutes a malignant thread in the fabric of our society, I would simply seek to 'remove' them as humanely as possible.

Heh, looks like we all screwed up back then!! 👎

Man, you really need a drink before you start going on a killing spree 🤣

Eric Collins5 said:Look, what I'm trying to get at is that you're talking about a situation where someone is actively threatening a life. In a moment of pure survival, when everything is on the line... I honestly believe you could pull the trigger without even hesitating. 🤷

Hmm... so, I was just reading "Crime and Punishment," where the guy kills two people. Sure, he hesitated for a second beforehand, but once he did it, it was done. But then, once reality actually hit him and he realized what he'd actually done, he completely lost his mind...
I guess it's impossible to truly predict how you'd react until you're actually in the middle of it...

Quentin Tarantino

I’ve been thinking about that whole concept lately—that pull between desire and affection... it’s a heavy thing to unpack. It’s not just some simple attraction; it’s more like that messy intersection where passion meets a deep, quiet devotion. You know, when the heat of the moment starts to blend into something much more permanent and grounded... it changes the whole dynamic, doesn't it? kaže: I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing, mostly... Please answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Don't try to dodge the question; I need you to be serious... If we were ever put in a position where we could take one person's life without facing any legal consequences or moral backlash... I can't help but wonder where our heads would actually go. It’s one of those dark, heavy thought experiments that you only really dwell on when the world feels particularly broken... So, let me ask you this... if you were actually put in that position, would you do it? Would you kill him? If you go ahead and say yes, people are just going to look at you like you're some kind of patient in need of serious psychiatric intervention... meanwhile, everyone else will be busy playing the part of the selfless, wide-eyed innocent... If you decide to say no, everyone is going to know you're lying. They won't call you out on it, though—unless they just don't care enough to bother—but it would be painfully obvious that they’d be lying right along with you if they dared to say no... My answer is yes...

No.

What on earth are you rambling about...😕🤷
What would even drive someone to take a life when there isn't some immediate, direct threat to my own people or anyone else close to me? I just don't see the logic... 😕
If someone were to kill purely for the sake of killing, there wouldn't even be a debate about it. There’d be no moral dilemma or gray area to navigate; it would be pretty obvious that they aren't psychologically sound and belong in a high-security psychiatric facility...

Anonymous said:Man, it looks like I totally missed that point. 🙂I don't get why a reason being "generally accepted" makes it okay to kill someone. Are you seriously suggesting that dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a justifiable excuse for all those deaths???

In my opinion, there’s a razor-thin line between the psychopaths who kill because they have some twisted motive and the soldiers, kamikazes, and whatever else you brought up...

Maybe the only real difference is just that the second group is "socially acceptable."

Well... true. I've been pretty low-key lately. Just lurking, watching, then suddenly jumping out from behind a bush shouting "BOO!"😍

I don't get why you think a reason is valid just because it's widely accepted. Are you saying dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because so many people agreed with it?

I don't see any justification for the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's a crime. Period.
But if society passes a death penalty law, it has to be based on some universally accepted community principle. Only then can we say the reasoning holds water. In a strictly human, universal sense, any individual or society that claims the right to kill a person or group—no matter what their excuse is—is just a killer, or a society built on killing. But in the real world, most people answer "yes" to this question.

I think there's a thin line between the psychopaths who kill for sick reasons and those soldiers or kamikazes you mentioned...

No. Anyone in a war can kill. A normal person kills out of fear; a madman kills for pleasure. You have to actually experience war to understand it.
God forbid we ever see war in this country again.
"Saving Private Ryan" by Spielberg is a great movie, or maybe Coppola's "Apocalypse Now."

Anonymous said:Hmm... so, I was just reading "Crime and Punishment," where the guy kills two people. Sure, he hesitated for a second beforehand, but once he did it, it was done. But then, once reality actually hit him and he realized what he'd actually done, he completely lost his mind...
I guess it's impossible to truly predict how you'd react until you're actually in the middle of it...

The book's circumstances were totally different, though. Raskolnikov (was he 😕, honestly, that book was such a slog for me) didn't go after the old woman because he felt threatened. No, he did it because he convinced himself he was performing some kind of "greater good."

In that specific scenario, he wasn't acting in self-defense at all... he was the aggressor.

Eric Collins5 said:The book's circumstances were totally different, though. Raskolnikov (was he 😕, honestly, that book was such a slog for me) didn't go after the old woman because he felt threatened. No, he did it because he convinced himself he was performing some kind of "greater good."

In that specific scenario, he wasn't acting in self-defense at all... he was the aggressor.

Well, it’s not exactly about doing a good deed. That's just how it's framed at the start of the novel; the deeper meaning isn't really explained until the very end 😁. He killed her because he wanted to test himself—to see if he actually had what it takes to kill without hesitation. Basically, he was going through this massive intellectual crisis...

Yeah, true, but I was just using that as an example to show you that you can never truly know how you'll act until you're actually in the thick of it.

* I seem to remember Raskolnikov saying toward the end of the book that he went into the murder acting like a "brilliant mind," and that's exactly what screwed him over... he said he'd never do something like that again.

Mark Torres14 said:Well... true. I've been pretty low-key lately. Just lurking, watching, then suddenly jumping out from behind a bush shouting "BOO!"😍

I don't get why you think a reason is valid just because it's widely accepted. Are you saying dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because so many people agreed with it?

I don't see any justification for the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's a crime. Period.
But if society passes a death penalty law, it has to be based on some universally accepted community principle. Only then can we say the reasoning holds water. In a strictly human, universal sense, any individual or society that claims the right to kill a person or group—no matter what their excuse is—is just a killer, or a society built on killing. But in the real world, most people answer "yes" to this question.

I think there's a thin line between the psychopaths who kill for sick reasons and those soldiers or kamikazes you mentioned...

No. Anyone in a war can kill. A normal person kills out of fear; a madman kills for pleasure. You have to actually experience war to understand it.
God forbid we ever see war in this country again.
"Saving Private Ryan" by Spielberg is a great movie, or maybe Coppola's "Apocalypse Now."

Yeah, I guess I went a little overboard with my conclusion there... you've got a point.

Anonymous said:Heh, looks like we all screwed up back then!! 👎

Man, you really need a drink before you start going on a killing spree 🤣

That seems to be the entire point of this thread, if I am not mistaken...
Everyone possesses their own specific set of moral principles and a subjective sense of good versus evil. Consequently, anyone who fails to fit within our particular moral parameters becomes a prime candidate for "elimination." One individual might want to put a bullet in the head of a rapist; another might target a serial killer; a third might lose their patience with an elderly woman shoving her way onto a crowded Greyhound bus... but fortunately—or perhaps unfortunately—it is quite rare for someone to move from mere thought to actual action.

Oh, absolutely. I had that impulse about ten years ago—but honestly, I just don't have anyone to target right now.🤷 There isn't anyone I harbor enough hatred for at this moment. Though, in a purely hypothetical scenario, if someone like that crossed my path today? The answer is a resounding yes.🙂

Someone brought up the idea of a moral code—the notion that we’d all just eliminate anyone who fails to meet it. It makes me wonder, though: shouldn't we be taking out those absolute bottom-feeders—the pedophiles, the murderers, the rapists? If I had the chance, I'd pull the trigger without a second thought.☕

No. Because you wouldn't just take out a single person. :-(
Furthermore, you possess a moral compass. Whether you choose to believe it or not, a person doesn't refrain from killing another simply to avoid a prison sentence; they do it because they have an internal sense of morality that dictates such an act is fundamentally wrong.

I believe murders generally fall into two categories: those committed in a moment of passion or those planned in advance. Personally, I find it hard to believe that pure hatred is the primary driver behind a killing. If you truly despise someone, why bother taking their life when you could simply silence them through other means? Hatred usually manifests as a sadistic impulse, which suggests that someone fueled by deep resentment might instead opt for a slow, methodical destruction over the course of twenty or thirty years.
Both crimes of passion and premeditated murders seem to occur during a state of diminished consciousness. In the first instance, the mind is essentially clouded; in the second, the perpetrator has completely dehumanized their victim, viewing them as an object rather than a human being. This explains why those who kill in the heat of the moment—including combat situations or instances of self-defense—often suffer from PTSD once they regain full clarity. Conversely, those who commit premeditated acts often fall under the umbrella of psychopathic disorders and frequently feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
My view is that a person operating with full consciousness and recognizing the humanity of another cannot bring themselves to kill. Even if it were someone like Hitler, they should face legal justice, even if that means the electric chair. It’s a fascinating psychological threshold; much like a blind spot in one's vision, there is a certain "scent" to a murder that occurs when that fundamental connection to another person is severed.

.. hatred is really just a symptom of feeling powerless .. a way of coping with a reality you can't stand .. and the end goal isn't even to hurt someone or kill them .. it’s just this desperate wish that they simply didn't exist ..
(.. it's how those extremists in Nazi Germany operated .. they viewed people as vermin .. convinced themselves the world would be better off without them .. .. honestly, I think even your parents saw Jewish people through that same lens — as nothing more than usurers .. as beings existing on the fringes of humanity .. .. just silent, cold luxury, like an Audi A8 cruising by ..)

redtinker36 said:.. hatred is really just a symptom of feeling powerless .. a way of coping with a reality you can't stand .. and the end goal isn't even to hurt someone or kill them .. it’s just this desperate wish that they simply didn't exist ..
(.. it's how those extremists in Nazi Germany operated .. they viewed people as vermin .. convinced themselves the world would be better off without them .. .. honestly, I think even your parents saw Jewish people through that same lens — as nothing more than usurers .. as beings existing on the fringes of humanity .. .. just silent, cold luxury, like an Audi A8 cruising by ..)

Are you talking about turning a blind eye? Because that’s exactly my point when I say that actual killing can't happen while someone remains fully conscious of their actions.
Hatred is a different beast entirely; you need that person to actually be alive in order to hate them, and you hold onto that hate because you need it to define who "you" are.
What does a person become once they let go of hatred? Vain? You only feel vanity when you think someone else is taking something that belongs to "you." But in reality, what's "yours" is just as much "theirs."

silentnomad23 said:I believe murders generally fall into two categories: those committed in a moment of passion or those planned in advance. Personally, I find it hard to believe that pure hatred is the primary driver behind a killing. If you truly despise someone, why bother taking their life when you could simply silence them through other means? Hatred usually manifests as a sadistic impulse, which suggests that someone fueled by deep resentment might instead opt for a slow, methodical destruction over the course of twenty or thirty years.
Both crimes of passion and premeditated murders seem to occur during a state of diminished consciousness. In the first instance, the mind is essentially clouded; in the second, the perpetrator has completely dehumanized their victim, viewing them as an object rather than a human being. This explains why those who kill in the heat of the moment—including combat situations or instances of self-defense—often suffer from PTSD once they regain full clarity. Conversely, those who commit premeditated acts often fall under the umbrella of psychopathic disorders and frequently feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
My view is that a person operating with full consciousness and recognizing the humanity of another cannot bring themselves to kill. Even if it were someone like Hitler, they should face legal justice, even if that means the electric chair. It’s a fascinating psychological threshold; much like a blind spot in one's vision, there is a certain "scent" to a murder that occurs when that fundamental connection to another person is severed.

Yeah, fair enough. For me, "killing" implies torture.🤣 Honestly, I'd be doing them a favor if they just died naturally. ☕

My answer is no... the very idea of killing stirs up negative feelings in me, and I'm honestly not sure I’d ever want to take someone's life or anything like that.
God created us all in His own image. He made us to be a community, which I believe is something we ought to respect. We shouldn't do harm to others, because eventually, that comes back around to haunt us. It's just like that wise old saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 🙏 🙏 🙏 That man was Jesus. And since we are His followers, we try our best to follow in His footsteps.

Faith, brother. Barbara here, by the way. Is anyone down for some Five Guys? :S They are seriously the best.... anyway, I'm getting off track 🙄... God bless you, Faith 😁 😉

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

It is quite obvious that I must respond with YES, simply to avoid the indignity of being caught in a lie, especially since no one here has the courage to call me out on it anyway. Now, I suppose I should select a target just to make this little charade more convincing. Perhaps Lady Gaga? She’s actually rather pleasant. I shall give it some more thought...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d12EI3xNiqE

Sure, why not? Who wouldn't want to see a top terrorist leader taken off the board? Or some predator who targets children dead? If I ever found myself in a situation where I had to defend my life, my family, or anyone else facing an immediate threat, I’d do whatever was necessary...