112 replies to this topic

[antigrammer]

I'm going to go back to plea bargaining for a bit, just because I found the idea interesting.

I'm a pretty logical person. I don't mean that I'm necessarily smarter than anyone else, just that I want all my opinions to be easy to deduce from reasonable premises. I don't want to believe something just because it sounds right. I think that's part of what makes me dislike plea bargaining. A just society is one that consistently punishes crimes; the consequences should always be clear. Otherwise, if the government and courts wished, they might conceivably give much heavier punishments than the crimes deserved- like ten years in prison for petty theft. Plea bargaining seems to me to lead to that kind of thinking, where the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

However, the police and courts need information, and criminals won't necessarily give it up for free. I don't believe in torture (although I laugh at whoever thinks waterboarding is torture) so plea bargaining seems to be the only way to get that. What I'm concerned about here is that the criminal will get off easy in exchange, while the victim will still have to deal with the criminals incroachment on their lives. How would you feel if- just as an example- a man who stole your identity, ruined your reputation, and destroyed your livelihood got off with maybe just a few years in prison? I think the victim should definitely have a say in the matter.

In the end, I'm not really sure what I think, although I lean in favor of plea bargaining.

[Oni-Link]

It All Depends on what they Did.Like From Murder to Stealing to molesting

[Elric]

New topic!

Murder.

Is it right to kill even if it's a mistake, or in self defense?

Is it right to kill anything?

[AMAC]

I don't think that murder can ever be justified. In my opinion, intentionally taking another human's life is wrong. The only exception to this, is as war, when soldiers are fighting and protecting their country. I wouldn't count a soldier killing an enemy as murder, as they've killed to protect others, not to intentionally take another person's life.

As for killing other species, I think that that's acceptable, if the animal in question has decent living conditions while it's alive, is killed painlessly and that its death has a purpose, such as being killed for meat.

[Bill Cipher]

I don't think that murder can ever be justified. In my opinion, intentionally taking another human's life is wrong. The only exception to this, is as war, when soldiers are fighting and protecting their country. I wouldn't count a soldier killing an enemy as murder, as they've killed to protect others, not to intentionally take another person's life.

As for killing other species, I think that that's acceptable, if the animal in question has decent living conditions while it's alive, is killed painlessly and that its death has a purpose, such as being killed for meat.

This, with one notable exception.
Murder can be justified in my eyes if It is best for a larger group. Would you murder Hilter before his rise to power?

[GwJumpman]

I have to disagree with AMAC.

Killing is alright if it's justified. Self defense for instance. I do not support killing from war to be a good excuse however. War is just states using "might is right" to prove their point. The lives lost are pointless.

That being said, if someone came at me with intent to kill, rest assured, I'm going to kill him first. Either that or run. If someone was going to kill someone I care about, I'd render him unable to do so, even if that means killing him. It all depends on your point of view morally.

For animals, it depends. The rules are obviously going to be more leniant with animals, because I'm a human. I will instinctively care more for humans than other animals simply because I'm a member of the species. That being said, if I were to be a righteous, fair person, I'd copypasta the top half of my post down here and replace people with animals, but that's no the case. I'd feel less remorse killing an animals for hunting purposes. Of course, I do think that if you kill an animal, you should be respectful and use the body. Eat the meat, do whatever. Hell, if you don't want it, leave it there for scavengers to get their fill.

Everything that dies helps other being live. (Except humans since we're so kind to other animals and either burn ourselves or stuff each other in a box so others can't get to us) If a deer dies, a lucky group of Foxes will have more valuable time to live.

Edited by GwJumpman, 22 June 2011 - 08:15 PM.

[Elric]

I disagree with two parts of your statement.

If someone has the intention of killing you it does not make it right to kill. Everyone should have a fair chance of living, even if they are heading in the wrong direction in life. The point that I am trying to make is that people have the ability to change, and killing them takes away that ability. You can injure them, knock them out but it is not necessary to actually kill them. You can call the police if someone is planning to kill someone you are close to. The police can handle it for you if you just call and explain what is happening.
If someone in a parking lot tries to mug you and threatens to kill you, are you going to just kill him right away? You can use self defense against someone without killing him.

Now, about what you said about war and it being pointless and the such. Let's use the war with the U.S as a example. Our war on terrorism is not to show off Power. Part of it is because they started it first by killing thousands of innocent people and threatened to do it again (9/11). So, usually war has some sort of purpose.


As for animals, I agree with AMAC. If killing a animal is best for them, I say go for it.

Edited by superdarkyoshi, 23 June 2011 - 07:35 AM.

[ThePumpkinKing]

Murder, I am against it, but that won't stop it from happening. A lot of murders happen when someone has something against another person. Or Drunk. Or phyco killers. But it is so diabolical it can drive someone mental. DONT DO IT KIDS!

[Deboog]

I have an odd view of murder. 1st of all, I do not count manslaughter, or accidental murder, as murder. If you accidentally cause a landslide, you should always pay the same penalty no matter how many people die. The issue is that you stupidly caused a landslide. You should be punished only for what you did, not the outcome. If you start a landslide above a large city, and but by chance it stops before it gets to the city, you should still go to prison for 5 years, because you could have killed 100s of people. If you start a landslide in a desolate area, and it happens to kill 2 hikers, you should only go to prison for 3 months. You didn't have the information to asses that there was a risk of shouting to your friend.

As far as self defense goes, I think that murder in self defense should almost always pay around a 6 month jail time. The only time it wouldn't is if murder was a better option in terms of defense then running, or restraining the assailant. This, and the assailant would have to be trying to murder, or severely damage the victim. It doesn't matter if you are in shock. You should always try your hardest to preserve people's lives.

I don't believe in war. I think that murder in War should be legal, but the government should try to keep war more defensive i.e. set up defenses for incoming aircraft and boats as apposed to going to Iraq to hunt people down. Also, soldiers should always try to disable an enemy as apposed to kill them. Shoot them in the leg, or stomach, instead of the chest or head.

Oh, and murder is okay if it obviously helps more people stay alive.

Edited by Deboog, 23 June 2011 - 10:09 AM.

[GwJumpman]

I disagree with two parts of your statement.

If someone has the intention of killing you it does not make it right to kill. Everyone should have a fair chance of living, even if they are heading in the wrong direction in life. The point that I am trying to make is that people have the ability to change, and killing them takes away that ability. You can injure them, knock them out but it is not necessary to actually kill them. You can call the police if someone is planning to kill someone you are close to. The police can handle it for you if you just call and explain what is happening.
If someone in a parking lot tries to mug you and threatens to kill you, are you going to just kill him right away? You can use self defense against someone without killing him.

Now, about what you said about war and it being pointless and the such. Let's use the war with the U.S as a example. Our war on terrorism is not to show off Power. Part of it is because they started it first by killing thousands of innocent people and threatened to do it again (9/11). So, usually war has some sort of purpose.


As for animals, I agree with AMAC. If killing a animal is best for them, I say go for it.

Ok, so if someone goes after you with a knife, you're not going to kill him before he kills you? Sorry, I'm not that kind. If someone has the audacity to take away the only chance I have at an existence (I don't believe in an afterlife), then they sure as hell don't deserve one in my book. I'm not kind enough to give my life so some asshat can have one. Sure, I can use self-defense without killing, but there are times when it's a risk not worth taking.

Also, the 'war on terrorism' is stupid. We could've cleaned up Bin Laden ages ago, but they didn't for political purposes.

[Elric]

If you agree that you should only kill someone only when necessary and can use self defense without killing, I agree with that statement. However, since you did not counter my argument about someone planning to kill someone that is close to you (which you can just look at the argument you quoted) I am going to assume you just agree with me. Because, after all, silence is compliance.

Now, for your statement about how the war on terrorism. It did have a purpose. A solid purpose. If you can give me solid proof (a reliable source) that we could have gotten bin laden before hand, I'll take that into consideration. But the U.S doesn't kill to just show off power.

[Ephesus]

From what I heard, murder is killing someone after due thought. I don't believe involuntary manslaughter counts, nor self-defense.
And nor does war, in my opinion.


Killing someone by mistake or in self-defense isn't "right" per se, but I don't think it's "wrong" either. I try my best to go by the "it's the intention that counts" principle, so... Killing by mistake is -duh- a mistake, while killing for self-defense is survival.
But I'm against such irreversible action, the reason I'm against death penalty as well. You can always kill someone later, unless they're some mastermind who's likely to escape and keep hurting others.
Then again, those who kill others are obviously either disturbed, or (sometimes) struggling to survive themselves. In the former case, if they're in pain (be it mental or physical) from some sort of trauma and taking it out on others... if there's no hope of healing, murdering them might actually be some sort of euthanasia.

As for animals and (something people tend to forget because they don't move) plants...
- In nature, I'll go with Jumpman's post: one dead organism is a feast for other organisms. Notice that I say "organism", since there are living beings of all scales that consume organic matter.
There are, of course, exceptions. Knocking down trees in huge numbers, for example; you're basically destroying various kinds of animals' homes, and disturbing Nature's balance on various other levels (the chemistry of the soil, for example).
- For animals being bred, I'll agree with AMAC: it'd be nice to have a reason for killing. It can be because the animal is too old, weak, in pain; it can be for meat, it can be to limit the spread of a disease.

[Storm]

From what I heard, murder is killing someone after due thought. I don't believe involuntary manslaughter counts, nor self-defense.
And nor does war, in my opinion.

"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." - Voltaire

[GwJumpman]

Killing in war IS murder, we just don't care since it's not one of our own that dies.

Also, I didn't know I responded to a quote asking my opinion on if someone was planning to kill someone close to me. Well in that case, I'm going to have a biased opinion since I know the person and I won't act the same as if I didn't know the person. Yeah, I'd call the cops. If it REALLY got that dangerous, would I step in? Hell no, I'm not Harry Potter or anything; I can't paralyze them then skip away gleefully. Hell, the only weapon I own is a replica Master Sword.


And about bin Laden, you said if war is so bad how would we have taken care if bin Laden? I told you I don't support War killing since it usually is just "Might makes right." If you put some thought in that argument, you would extend that not just to America, but to everyone else. If we didn't have war, we wouldn't have to deal with bin Laden to begin with, so our army wouldn't be an issue either.

But I digress, the only way we could have no wars was if the entire world was unified under a single power. But....uh....No.

Edited by GwJumpman, 30 June 2011 - 08:40 AM.

[Elric]

But you just said killing is justified if it is protecting something you love. Your contradicting yourself. I will keep in mind that this does not include just the u.s but part of the reason we are in the war is because of self defense, which you supported killing in self defense earlier. The enemy the u.s is fighting has shown to kill thousands of people. So, if you disagree with me and say that it is in not self defense I will point out the events of 9/11. I support war if it is for self defense. Another thing too, war will always be inevitable.But the u.s has never been in a war that was pointless besides the cold war which wasn't really a war.

I agree with you that if war does not have a purpose is considered senseless murder.

Now, since you agreed with me on calling the police, that argument is done with.

Edited by superdarkyoshi, 30 June 2011 - 09:10 AM.

[GwJumpman]

The reason I'm contradicting myself is because I don't know what I would do exactly. I might defend the person, I might hold back; it depends on the situation. Here's my main prevailing point:

If my life is truly in danger from another human, my goal will be to protect myself even if it means killing the other person before they're able to kill me.

[Elric]

Ok, new topic.

Abortion. Do you think it's right? Should you use a abortion if you can't handle the responsibility of a child?

[AMAC]

I don't think that abortion is an option that everyone should be able to choose. I wouldn't go as far as to call abortion murder, but I think that destroying a potential life is wrong, and isn't a route that anyone should go down, unless it is really necessary.

One of the situations in which I think abortion is appropriate, is if the child will have a poor quality of life. If the mother of the child will not be able to look after the child, such as if she was a very young mother, or if the child was at risk of inheriting a genetic disease, I think the mother should have the option to terminate the pregnancy, to save the baby from suffering.

The other situation in which I think abortion is acceptable, is if giving birth is likely to result in death or a miscarriage. For example, there was one woman who recently had sextuplets, but risked her life and the lives of her children in giving birth. In the end, two of the six children died shortly after being born. In situations like this, I think that the mother should have the option of abortion, as it would be unfair to force someone to risk their life giving birth.

AT the moment, in the UK, a person must have two doctors agreeing that an abortion is necessary before they can go ahead. However, although I'm no expert on the subject, it still seems like getting an abortion in this country is pretty simple and can be used as an easy way out. I think that abortion should only be allowed, if the child would have a low life quality, or if there was a large risk in giving birth.

[GwJumpman]

Abortion is fine. First of all, the woman should ALWAYS have a choice as to whether or not she should have the child; it's her body that it's coming out of after all.

I don't think that abortion is an option that everyone should be able to choose. I wouldn't go as far as to call abortion murder, but I think that destroying a potential life is wrong, and isn't a route that anyone should go down, unless it is really necessary.

As for wasting a potential life... Every time a guy masturbates, you lose millions of potential lives. Now, I'm pretty sure masturbation is only looked down upon when it comes to religion, which is where the biggest voice against abortion comes from.

One of the situations in which I think abortion is appropriate, is if the child will have a poor quality of life. If the mother of the child will not be able to look after the child, such as if she was a very young mother, or if the child was at risk of inheriting a genetic disease, I think the mother should have the option to terminate the pregnancy, to save the baby from suffering.

Agreed.

The other situation in which I think abortion is acceptable, is if giving birth is likely to result in death or a miscarriage. For example, there was one woman who recently had sextuplets, but risked her life and the lives of her children in giving birth. In the end, two of the six children died shortly after being born. In situations like this, I think that the mother should have the option of abortion, as it would be unfair to force someone to risk their life giving birth.

Sad story was sad.

AT the moment, in the UK, a person must have two doctors agreeing that an abortion is necessary before they can go ahead. However, although I'm no expert on the subject, it still seems like getting an abortion in this country is pretty simple and can be used as an easy way out. I think that abortion should only be allowed, if the child would have a low life quality, or if there was a large risk in giving birth.

As for it only being allowed if the child would be given a poor life: If the mother is considering aborting her child, I'm already pretty sure there's going to be at least a small decrease in the quality of life, but that's irrelevant.


The point I'm making is the woman always deserves to have the option to decide.

[Elric]

So, I think it is not the most inhumane thing in the world, I don't really agree with it either. I realize that abortion is the most humane way of controlling our population. Now, let's try not to bring up any religious arguments. I don't really have a opinion on abortion really, but I think we need them for those idiots in the world.