Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
When we use language that dehumanizes the enemy, we separate them from “us.” By saying that the “Carr Brothers are monsters!” you’re engaging in hyperbole. As a figure of speech, sure… but as a literal depiction of their being, it’s incorrect.

No, not any more an obfuscation as your answering our questions w/ questions, offerings of scenarios that hammer all around the nail, wagging the dog, and whining about semantics. Typically, a person is known by what they do. An athlete is called a “jock”, guys who like to work on cars are called “gear heads”. People who do monstrous acts are known as monsters.

Ppl who have Santa Clause figured out know the semantic difference of what the Carr brothers are. It is the Carr brothers who engaged in a vile form of hyperbole via the acts they performed on innocents.

They’re human beings that did awful things, and they need to be held accountable. By making our enemies less than human, it makes the acts of violence that we inflict upon them easier to reconcile.
NO, the word awful just can’t describe what these brutal brothers did. Aren’t you able to use the word brutal here? The Carr brothers are the ones who separated themselves when they crossed the lined of humanity and went into the realm of monstrous behavior.

This is appears that you are trying to mitigate the dark side of human life so that being a pacifist can be easier to manifest. Even going so far as to lessen the Carr brother’s heinous acts as being merely awful. Yes, I know you aren’t a fan of semantics. But, we live in a world dictated by communication AND miscommunication as our huge sources for social intercourse. If we fail to have a consensus-of-semantics, we will fail correspondingly in our actions to be sociable….which just might be one of the huge factors of violence.

I’ve already tossed ya a bone by saying that being a pacifist is much harder in the face of such darkness of a violent world.

The solution to this (literal) vicious cycle is through engagement, inclusion, and understanding.
I NEVER denied this. In fact, as a "bleeding-heart liberal (Jan sees me as a “hippy”), I strongly advocate these social mandates. A big part of the solution is a more rational distribution of wealth. A much greater chance of someone stealing a TV set when they already have one and could likely be killed trying to get one; or at best, serve time in jail and have a record that severely limits many opportunities…esp for a young man.

However, it is you that created a persona of me that presents me as a blood-thirsty guy who purposely goes out looking for ppl to kill. You have consistently done this. Do I really need to take time/make effort to go back and present all of them?

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

I also wonder where do you draw the line of agency? Is calling the cops to engage in physical violence on your behalf (say, arresting a home intruder) any different from engaging in it yourself? Would calling a hitman, as opposed to simply murdering someone, not qualify then by the same grounds?

Yes, I call this: violence by proxy.
Were a person the ultimate pacifist, they would apply “engagement, inclusion, and understanding” and let it go at that.

Then, to put their money where their mouth is on pacifism, they would actually physically move to a location where a lot of violence is occurring so they can apply this “engagement, inclusion, & understanding”. This is tantamount to what CROW was getting at: it is one thing to advocate a particular ideology for everyone to follow as they do; but, it is quite another thing to go the next mile and work towards that goal of achieving pacifism for society at large.

Pete, you begin to shed some light on this scenario of heighten personal activity when you say: “There is more fertile ground for outing me as a hypocrite by pointing out that my taxes pay for weapons that kill innocent people, and that I participate in a political system that puts people willing to make such sacrifices in positions where they act on those intentions. I am, by extension, complicit in the killing of innocent people. That said, my first priority is to account for my personal actions and make change when I am presented with an opportunity to do so in a way that aligns most closely to my ideal world.

In my experience w/ religion, this is called witnessing (5.b)
So, please tell me…why have you consistently maligned my ideology on how to handle immediately impending violence directed at me when you know precious little about me?

While not being what most would view as being religious, I certainly do have tenets that seek to avoid violence by a host of efforts: engagement, inclusion, and understanding. I also “witness” in my immediate community and worldwide as much as is humanly possible within the constraints of my personal economics & by voting for candidates/ideology and supporting causes that best align w/ my tenets.

I have avoided a great many extreme physical confrontations because I don’t believe in violence. However, this does not mean that I don’t believe violence exists….(ooops, semantics…lol). It does and when it presents itself directly in my face, I certainly am not going to be the one who is the victim. I employ all the pacific skills at my disposal to prevent the scenario from escalating into violence; or, to quell the dangerous level of it. Sparing via words can be great fun….I’m always looking to grow my vocabulary, lol.

An interesting event in Ferguson (recent police killing incident) quite well demonstrates that a particular segment of society, even when very agitated by a killing (violence) they see as being “wrong”, is readily capable of accepting this.

As has been pointed out by BigUgly, I’m not at all trying to foist any ideology on you…eps. mine. Each to his own drummer. What I have been seeking from you is the situational extent by which you can safely maintain your ideology of pacifism. While I find it quite extreme, and even odious, your “ability” to not exact the level of violence necessary to prevent great harm/death of your very own son (<axiom for discussion) is yours to hold and “suffer” & enjoy the consequences.

I hope you understand that no one truly meant that you would “just stand by” and not try pacific means to prevent this action by “the maniac”. However, you did mention “having fists”. Would a nearby ball bat be “okay”? I accepted long ways back that you wouldn’t intentionally kill the maniac as a means to thwart his efforts.

But, what level of other physical violence are you comfortable with? This is the part that I’ve yet to understand re your pacifism. Am I to understand that pacifism is applied only to a killing effort? I am good w/ the concept of avoiding violence by installing burglar bars on the windows of your house. It is those levels between that & killing that I’m a little unclear about.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Karma, you are habitually characterizing all of your “enemies” as cartoon baddies.

And YOU are emphatically & obfuscating the discussion by continuing to bail out of it when you answer questions w/ questions and just reaffirming what a question asked is.

YOU did nothing there anywhere near offering BigUgly a victory.

This is a technique that lots of people use to justify [and protect]…..
. Do you see the Carr brothers as _cartoon characters? Did you even manage to read about them? Or, did you just ignore this dark side of which you maintain you are able to resist?
I engaged in reductio ad absurdum, karma, to illustrate how your line of logic would cast suspicion on your very own testimonial. Your behavior, as described in this thread, could potentially characterize you as the very threat that you seem intent on preventing. That was the point. It was not a major idea worth building out much further.
I understand the point.
I support it.
This is because there is not a bit of suspicion involved.
I AM a threat to and do intend prevent those who would visit grievous harm to me, those I love, and most any situation I deem much more worthy of existing than I/us.
What situation, karma, requires you to act in a violent way?
I would (and have) explained it to you. However, by putting your head in the sand; I assume you will continue to opt to ignore it.

I see a WEAK pacifist as one who is very willing to refuse to engage situations they know precious little about. It takes a very strong absolutism to do nothing when confronted w/ having your child killed before your very eyes.

This point is a lot like: Bravery isn’t the lack of fear; it is the ability to be the master of it.

You may want to seek professional help.
Even when your own life is threatened, you are not required to act.
Well, yes and no.
One is required to act if they want to continue to live…or those he loves, or those he deems worthy of living.
What does it mean that you say “requires” applies to the prudent realm?
It means that a prudent person is going to fully understand that no or a weak resistance to a deadly force is going to snuff you out of the survival-of-the-fittest game.

If one doesn’t believe their life and its continuance via progeny is worth the supreme act of kill-or-be-killed; then yes, that likely gives rise to the notion that that kind of thinking probably lost out to the more prudent position of survival.

I don’t understand that idea.
And, I doubt you ever will

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

I’m not trying to destroy pete’s outlook on life.

Nor am I….absolutely not.
What I would like is form to answer us and, in doing do so, give us more insight as to his position on the matter.

It wasn’t my point that pacifism in any form or shape is dumb.
Dumb being highly subjective and widely open to perception held by the various individuals. For me, it is very _____ to allow your child to be killed because of pacifism.
If BigUgly and I want to call/interpret the far end of that spectrum as being radical…

I meant “radical” not as in “there is the mild pacifism and the radical pacifism”, but that pacifism in general is absolutist (rather than “absolute”): doing something at all costs is absolutist – see Machiavelli – and such is also not partaking in any kind of violence, ever, at all costs.
I well understand the difference and it’s application here.

However, I’m merely pointing out, as the link offers, there are obviously different applications/levels where a pacifist can apply their ideology. Yes, those levels aren’t absolutist in the pure sense. But, since most ppl wouldn’t likely be interested in what Kant or Ghandi think and opt to identify w/ a broad interpretation of pacifist, I don’t get all that anal about trying to enlighten a person about the various nuances of their identification w/ the philosophy involved.

What percentage of those ppl who identify as being a pacifist would understand this?:

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.

I find that most ppl do a lot of “easy” application (in varying degrees in differing situations) of situational ethics in guiding their life morals.

If you want to put it philosophically, I’m interested in seeing a dialogue between Kant and Gandhi in practice.

Yup, count me in.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

From the link: Pacifism covers a spectrum of views,…
If BigUgly and I want to call/interpret the far end of that spectrum as being radical….
It might be compared to radical feminism; OR, is there just feminism?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by biguglyorc:

I don’t think you understand how axioms work…

I’m at the point w/ Pete that I’m thinking there is a whole lot that he’s not understanding in this discussion.

Some of this can be the cross-purpose due possible failure to focus on one concept of pacifism
“Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others. Historians of pacifism Peter Brock and Thomas Paul Socknat define pacifism “in the sense generally accepted in English-speaking areas” as “an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare”.5 Philosopher Jenny Teichman defines the main form of pacifism as “anti-warism”, the rejection of all forms of warfare.6 Teichman’s beliefs have been summarized by Brian Orend as “…A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong.” In a sense the philosophy is based on the idea that the ends do not justify the means.7"

“Pacifism may be based on moral principles (a deontological view) or pragmatism (a consequentialist view). Principled pacifism holds that at some point along the spectrum from war to interpersonal physical violence, such violence becomes morally wrong. Pragmatic pacifism holds that the costs of war and interpersonal violence are so substantial that better ways of resolving disputes must be found. Pacifists in general usually reject theories of Just War. Some, however, believe that if the foe is willing to hurt others, then it is justified to respond with force, even to the extent of the atomic bomb. Such people can be called semi-pacifists.”

I am saddened that someone who considers himself to be an extreme, radical pacifist stoops to indulge in using my form of pacifism to hyperbolize that I enjoy killing and look very hard to find ways to do so. At best, one might say this behavior is a form of: I won’t fight you; but I will behave in a manner that is clearly trying to pick one. I certainly wouldn’t send such an antagonistic pacifist to engage in peace talks to either end or prevent a war.

It appears that Pete’s methodology is to baffle ppl w/ bullshit if he can’t dazzle them w/ brilliance. BigUgly seems to agree w/ this when he says: " that’s why there are so many “stupid” questions in this thread. Reductio ad absurdum, and all that: any radical solution in the end crumbles under its own weight. Pacifism, although probably noble and probably utilitarian, is also radical and at that doesn’t really tell you what to do in some situations that require you to act – often in a violent way.

Let me clarify something that I see to be situational. The “require” part above applies to the prudent realm. The radicals (and this is not necessarily a negative term….perspective) don’t see the requirement to act at all. They opt to do nothing other than to hope that a “peaceful” method of resolution can be found.

BigUgly, I truly admire the lengths and the context you are using in your effort to pin down Pete in order to obtain a dialogue that is recognizable as being an answer to your very simple point. A point that he could use to clarify his position other than repetition of the extreme/radical view of: I won’t kill any human under ANY circumstance.

I understand that you are trying to get him to connect that lofty idealism to the realism of a very serious situation. I made the same point when I said: reality has a way of making a person be honest. All I got from Pete was segued absurdity. I guess he was unable to grasp that it is one thing to believe in an ideology; it is quite a huge difference to live it when it is being tested.

BigUgly, your scenario of a person’s child being in dire threat of being severely damaged/killed, and how this bit of reality is going to cause that person to actualize their ideology. Pete’s hedging—via all of his [reductio ad] absurd forays of childlike bullshit questions & answers—makes me wonder WHY he is unable to give a straight & clear credence to that situation by putting himself IN it for the sake of the axiom. Why does he screw around w/ debating the definitions of murder and killing? Ending a human’s life is the same regardless of some word.

How hard can it be to put a reality to the mantra? Simply say: I’ll JUST, (as in ONLY.. nothing else) stand there, listening to the pleading of my child for me to do something (other than try to peacefully change the bad guy’s mind) and then the utter horror of listing to his screams as he is being tortured and/or killed. Would the parent be willing to engage the bad guy in a physical effort to deter the attack? Or, is this STILL against the domain of pacifism?

And, as The CROW put it: Notice how whenever someone asks if u would kill someone to save the lives of many, they never include themselves as a possible person to be killed. I wonder why? Its as if they are ok with the killing others but dont want to die themselves. what hypocrites.
So, will the parent be able to lay their own life on the line for that of their child….whatever the scenario: one of youse is gonna die, the parent taking all of the shots—leaving none for the child, etc.

I am a trained killer by virtue that I have used that training to kill. I was in a vile war. I was young and full of idealism…I fought for my country. Some years later, the changes in my viewpoints were justified, in part, when McNamara admitted we were wrong to have killed so many young men (on both sides) in a shitty war that we actually didn’t “win”….but, some guys got very rich from.

But, I certainly am not the ONLY “trained killer” around. All of the military, the police, those who take classes & do practicing to obtain a carry license are likewise “trained”. Some of them have used that training in the reality of it by doing a killing. One doesn’t usually buy a cake to just set it on the shelf and look at it.

BigUgly, I’m going to try a different tact w/ Pete. I’ll take the personal aspect of this actions impacting the welfare of his child. I’m going to see what he would do were he to have a button before him that would instantly vaporize the ppl who have done this
“The rebels have committed nefarious crimes against humanity. The RUF uses a brutal tactic as a tool to terrorize the civilian population into submission and break-apart families and communities. People are abducted, men are captured to work in the mines, boys are recruited into gangs, and women and girls act as domestic sex slave to the fighters. The war from 1991-1999 has claimed over 75,000 lives, caused 500,000 Sierra Leoneans to become refugees. (Johnson) Nearly 80% of the Sierra Leone’s population of 5 million people have been displaced. ( Campbell) According to research done by “Physicians for Human Rights”, nearly every village in Sierra Leone under the rule of RUF has been profoundly impacted by the tumult. "

“Rape of women and girls was widespread and vicious during the conflict in the 1990s, and is reportedly continuing to this day. Out of twenty women interviewed, twelve were raped. The rebels had beaten them to cause disorientation and to break their resistance. (Bell) Those lucky enough to escape from the rebels or who was release from some reason, suffer from various consequences. Sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AID are rampant in this commonality. Trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and alienation from their communities, scar the lives of these victims. A high percentage of the survivors are pregnant or are single mothers of “rebel babies”, a constant reminder of their horrible suffering. (Johnson) They face bleak futures without the medical attentions and humanitarian assistance that they need.”

Mutilation of men, women and children is a fun game for the rebels. Teams are dedicated to capture and mutate citizens. Sierra Leone President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah in 1996 pleaded for his countrymen to “join hands” for peace. As a response the RUF dismembered their victims by cutting off their hands and dumped the parts on the steps of the presidential palace. (Campbell XV) Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) was created there, a camp for amputees and war wounded. (Meredith 116)”

I know I wouldn’t hesitate at all. My mindset is clear. I would wipe this scum from the face of the Earth the same as I would scrape dog shit from my shoe…and feel none the same between the two. These vile ppl have forfeited their humanity and are the same as a cancer.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

what part of the Carr brothers dontchya understand?

Since I have never met them, there is a great deal about them that I don’t understand. Such as why you would kill them in a heartbeat if you had the chance.

Perhaps if you actually read the link about them, you might actually have some insight by which to be making these “judgments”.
But, let me help ya out:
“The Carr brothers, 22-year-old Reginald and 20-year-old Jonathan, already had lengthy criminal records when they began their spree.4 On December 8, 2000, having recently arrived in Wichita, they committed armed robbery against 23-year-old assistant baseball coach, Andrew Schreiber. Three days later, they shot and mortally wounded 55-year-old cellist and librarian, Ann Walenta, as she tried to escape from them in her car; she died three days later.”

“Their crime spree culminated on December 14, when they invaded a home and subjected five young men and women to robbery, sexual abuse, and murder. The brothers broke into a house chosen nearly at random where Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, Aaron Sander, Jason Befort and his girlfriend, a young woman identified as ‘H.G.’, all in their twenties, were spending the night. They initially scoured the house for valuables. In a much-remarked point of tragedy, H.G. learned of Befort’s intent to propose marriage when the Carrs, by chance, discovered the engagement ring hidden in a can of popcorn. After the search, the Carrs forced their hostages to strip naked, bound and detained them, and subjected them to various forms of sexual humiliation, including rape and oral sex.4 They also forced the men to engage in sexual acts with the women, and the women with each other. They then drove the victims to ATMs to empty their bank accounts, before finally taking them to a snowy deserted soccer complex on the outskirts of town and shooting them execution-style in the backs of their heads, leaving them for dead. The Carr brothers then drove Befort’s truck over the bodies.”

“They returned to the house to ransack it for more valuables, and in the process killed Nikki, H.G.’s muzzled dog. H.G. survived because her metal barrette deflected the bullet, and ran naked for more than a mile in freezing weather to report the attack and seek medical attention.”

NOW, if it were possible that my killing these two brothers would have prevented THAT shit——no brainer.
Like I said: scum of the Earth.

But, tell me…what kind of person is it that, had they the means to prevent that heinous massacre by killing those two brothers during it, wouldn’t life a finger to do so? I don’t necessarily see not doing anything as being a “coward”. There are many valid reasons why they might not be able to react the way I would. But yet, the result of their inability to exact a particular obvious action is still the same regardless of what might “excuse” their reticence. The threshold for that inability has best be “justifiable” for me to be “comfortable” w/ that person.

In a world of kill-or-be-killed (such as in war), perhaps the “pacifists” could/should save the enemy a bullet or two

Pacifists don’t tend to sign up for a war. They don’t tend to fight in a war. So yes they’ll ‘save the enemy a bullet or two’ because they’re not there.

Good grief, the pacifists in the European countries that Hitler visited didn’t sign up to fight either. Yet, they were IN the war just the same because they ARE there.

And, being IN the military but not in “actual combat” is still like aiding & abetting. Just by “joining in” for the effort tacitly implicates them in the result.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Here it is again. It’s very simple.
I will not kill anyone for any reason whatsoever.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

LOL…war is just premature euthanasia.

Yes, I am a TRAINED killer.
But, with this training and the resulting experience, the “automatic” part doesn’t mean that the “act” is trivialized. What trivializes it is the scum that is being eliminated. These are some really bad ppl I’m talking about—-what part of the Carr brothers dontchya understand?

In a world of kill-or-be-killed (such as in war), perhaps the “pacifists” could/should save the enemy a bullet or two (eventually shackles?) and simply off them selves instead of just getting in the way of ppl who actually view life seriously in that they want theirs to continue? Wishing and hoping that all of God’s chillin can live in peace just IS NOT living in the rational world.

I don’t have a problem w/ someone wanting to be a “pacifist”….no more than I do w/ someone being a theist. Where the problem comes is when either of those two start making judgments on me…likely in an attempt to in some weird backlash way try to justify their own. Often, pacifists (much like theists) believe they have the “moral high-ground”. Since that concept is subjective, they probably ought to keep that in mind.

And, it’s not “based on his own personal morals taking a life is the very last option he’d consider.
It’s ONLY in the instance of euthanasia that he’ll consider that option.

Even then he seems to weenie out by saying he isn’t technically qualified to do the job. I wonder if he could throw the switch/pull the plug if that is all he had to do…be RESPONSIBLE for that simply—yet morally exacting—task.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

For me, euthanasia is totally outside the basic parameters of this discussion. Killing an already dying person (who requests) or one in unresolvable extreme pain really isn’t all that much of a moral decision….at least for me. It is simply the humane thing to do.

My area of discussion is about killing ppl who are capable of successfully continuing their life should it not be taken.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:America is the land of the free because it is also the home of the brave.

I think you’re an idiot, and you certainly don’t care.

Is this the talk of a pacifist?
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

he’s already admitted that there are some circumstances where he would consider his taking a life to be justified, though still completely deplorable.

Gee…I must have missed that (even upon doing some rereading).

I guess I’ve gotten confused by his saying:

It’s super simple (and I’m surprised that it is even worth talking about): I will not kill anyone for any reason.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

One word: DENIAL

America is the land of the free because it is also the home of the brave.

Pete, my hardcore opinion: It is because of ppl like me that ppl like you are able to be pacifists instead of slaves or dead…depending on your value to ppl that are far worse than I/us. I would think such a worldly persona as you would have figured this out by now.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

It’s super simple (and I’m surprised that it is even worth talking about): I will not kill anyone for any reason.

Then it is super simplely possible that you would die for a reason that is ridiculously pathetic.

The insane guy might be the one who kills your kid.
But, the blood is on your hands because you wouldn’t life a finger to save him/er.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

What leads you to believe that I haven’t been in that position?

Answering my question w/ a question is an answer in itself….eh?
Let me try it this way, then… let’s see how sure you are of my willingness to kill.
I haven’t the foggiest of a clue how my answering your questions is going to ascertain something that I’m not at all sure of….nor care to be.

Before I begin this little pop-quiz, I want to make it clear that some of the questions suck; they’re too vague; too subjective; too situational. So, that will be how I will answer those. And, I’ll establish the parameters of “bad” to be somewhere between the Carr brothers (do I need to say that is the upper?) and the guy who wears white after Labor Day. Well Labor Day guy isn’t “bad” … just naughty. The lower end of bad is just too damn situational and involves a lot of perspective.

• Would you kill a bad person to save the lives of 100 innocent people?

Put those Carr brothers in my sights that night…damn sure I would.

• Would you kill one bad person to save a single innocent life?
Carr brothers….absolutely.
And, were I to be able to see into the future, I would have dropped them before the fact. They were human scum.
• Would you kill one young bad person to save a single innocent elderly person?
You got something against old ppl?
I suppose you’re going for the fact that this old person is close to death anyway.
Stupid supposition.
The answer is the same.
• Would you kill one good person to save the lives of 100 bad people?
Being a “pacifist” must warp a brain.
 Would you kill someone you didn’t know if you were paid to or it was your job?
I’ve been a soldier.
What do you think?
• Would you kill one person that was stealing your television?
Legally, one can’t do this.
Under the right circumstances…I’d help them load up the thing and give them the remote, if I could find it.
• Would you kill someone to protect national interests?
• Would you kill someone that threatened you or your loved ones?
Degree and situation.
Depends upon the threat ….a pie in the face…NO.
Depends upon the reality of the threat….how likely they are to carry out a vile one.
If I TRULY BELIEVE they are genuinely sincere….what do you think I’m going to do?
• Would you kill someone you felt threatened by?
See above.
• Would you kill someone that was hurting your child in a non-lethal way?
Depends on what you mean by hurting in a non-lethal way
The question is just too vague to be able to sensibly answer.
• Would you kill yourself to save 100 innocent lives?
Who are these innocents and why must I save them?
And….again; soldier.
I’ve put MY life on the line to save a lot of ppl.
Until you’ve been in life-&-death situations where camaraderie are essential, you haven’t a clue about what personal sacrifice is about.
Essentially, karmakoolkid, you’ve called me a liar.
NO…I didn’t.
However, if YOU wish to see it that way…okie dokie.
But, from the vagueness in your questions above, I will say that I think you haven’t really thought out very deeply this whole “pacifist” thing. Life is a lot more complicated that those few parameters you present.
You may find it hard to get through your tight little world view,….
Says the guy who makes every effort imaginable to avoid that one constant in our world…. serious conflict.
…. but I am actually a living, practicing pacifist.

Yeah, and ya just might end up being a DEAD & not-any-too-good-at-practicing-any-longer pacifist.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

We certainly can’t argue the options thing.
Nor should we want to not do so.

I’d like to think we all have encountered this in our own lives.
Things quite often don’t go as we planned, would prefer to go, have a good plan B and C,D,etc.
A host of factors are always possible.

This is why I emphasize caution in making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
Just because Wilson is supposed to do something certainly doesn’t mean he did it.
At times, even intense training fails.

And, just because a plethora of possibilities exist, I think delving into the more highly speculative areas to be counterproductive…at least until a lot more data is available. That burrito Wilson just ate might not have agreed w/ him. Brown might have just had a fight w/ his GF and was really pissed. That might be why he robbed some cigars This might be….that might be. Best to stay within the realm of likelihoods.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Some latest news Several videos.
Perhaps watch all of them.

The Ferguson police officer who shot and killed an unarmed teenager suffered “a serious facial injury” in the altercation before firing the fatal shots, according to a source close to the officer who spoke to ABC News today.

_Supporters of Wilson, however, point to a videotape taken by a Ferguson resident showing Brown’s body lying in the street. In the background of the video a man’s voice can be heard saying, “Police got out and ran after him. The next thing I know he’s coming back towards the officer. The police had his gun drawn on him.” _

This is the account of the shooting from Brown’s companion:
Dorian Johnson’s account
This is what Johnson, a friend of Brown’s who was with him when he died, said happened: He and Brown were walking in the middle of the street when Wilson intercepted them and told them to get on the sidewalk. When Wilson tried to get out of his car, the door hit Johnson and Brown and ricocheted into Wilson — upsetting the officer. Wilson grabbed Brown by the neck, and Brown tried to get away. Wilson pulled out his gun and shot Brown. At that point, Brown and Johnson began to run away and the officer fired again. When Brown realized he was hit, he turned around and raised his hands in the air. Wilson approached Brown and fired several more shots.

I find some huge credibility gaps in this…a police officer shooting, in broad daylight (is there a NARROW daylight), an unarmed man w/ raised hands.

Then there is this from a “witness”:
_Piaget Crenshaw, 19, said she was waiting for a ride to work when she saw a police officer attempting to place Brown in the squad car.
She then said she saw the teen, hands in the air, attempt to flee. Several shots hit Brown as he ran, Crenshaw said. She complied with a request that she give photos of the scene to authorities.{

And interesting confliction of stories.
And, it must have been magic bullets to fly past Brown, do a U-turn and then strike him in the front.
I’m assuming these photos to be post-shooting.
I’m assuming Brown punched Wilson THOUGH the window as he sat in his patrol car talking to Brown.

That there is a casing in the car doesn’t necessarily mean the shot was fired IN the car. Officers are trained to use the open door of the car as a shield (should the suspect be armed). Not knowing if Wilson moved from this position, it might be assumed that the firing of the gun at the open door is how the casing got inside.

For Wilson to have taken a shot from inside the car goes against all trained/legal protocol….unless Brown was actually that close at the time of the shooting. Considering the body was (reportedly) 35 feet from the car, this seems unlikely, also. It will be interesting to know the positions of the other casings. For Wilson to have moved from behind the door and approach Brown as Brown advanced would be contrary to trained procedure.

Wilson would not have “tried to put Brown in the car” without having him hooked up in handcuffs…this just isn’t done if procedure is followed. He likely wouldn’t even had tried to put him in his car. He would have handcuffed him, have him lean over the hood/trunk, and then waited for back up to arrive. Brown would probably have been transported in either a car w/ a barrier or a paddy wagon.

We probably should entertain the possibility that Brown’s demeanor was affected by a likelihood that he had an elevated level of adrenaline due to his thinking the stop was being made because of the “robbery”. This effect on the body wouldn’t dissipate immediately upon learning the stop was only for jaywalking.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Regardless, even though this would appear to be a huge usurpation of the innocent many because of the misdeeds of the few, there is likely a good reason behind it and the innocent should understand it and be highly cooperative. I think most sensible ppl would WANT to stay indoors/at home rather than be out and about.

What? Have to object to that. First, there’s a big difference being doing what you want, and doing what you’re told.

Yes there is.
And, I’m betting that your parents were the first to point this out to you.
I’m also betting that there were many times that you found the later to be worth responding aptly to as requested.

What problem do you have understanding, that in extremely volatile, uncommon situations, those who are assigned the task of maintaining order HAVE TO use extreme measures in order to secure as many CIVIL RIGHTS for as many ppl as possible? Requiring ppl to modify their civil rights for the greater good isn’t all that unreasonable.

If people want to stay indoors, by all means, let them, but telling everyone else to is a serious problem.
I didn’t know ppl needed to be “allowed” to do what is sensible.
But, I do know that public servants telling ppl to stay off the streets (in the public…ppl don’t “own” the public) between midnight & 5 am isn’t all that serious of a problem when a much more serious problem of major proportion is going on all around the suburb.
I’ll take civil liberties over shop windows any day.
Unless it is YOUR shop windows and goods being stolen…which just might mean you are out of business?

I would think ya know damn well by this time what MY stance on civil liberties is.
AND, I’d like to think that I’ve also made it crystal clear that liberties/freedom HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES that go along w/ them.

I find being cooperative w/ authorities—as opposed to being a part of the problem; because I find a need ATM to be exercising my civil liberties—to be one of those “unfortunate” tasks that can been viewed as being limiting by ppl who aren’t able to fully grasp intense situations that they haven’t had the opportunity to be charged w/ containing.

I abhor those who bloviate loudly about “civil rights” and ignorantly/arrogantly manage to “forget” the responsibilities that go hand-N-hand with them. This “confusion” is much like that over “freedom of speech” & 2nd Amend. “rights” to own the biggest mother-fucking gun possible.

It’s as much about cowing the people to regain unilateral control as any protection of property.

It absolutely is…I agree about protecting ppl being much more important than property.
But, I wouldn’t call it “cowing” the ppl.
Laws are not made that citizens would do wrong, they are made to protect them from it.

Ensuring that ppl be cooperative for the greater good is a rational, reasonable measure.

If there is wrong-doing on the part of the officer, then LATER is the time to protest it. We don’t live in a police state where unprofessional actions are ignored.

Like after they shoot the kid, er grown ass man, (look at me parroting emotionally manipulate, questionable diction, boo)….

and that shit is supposed to mean….WHAT?
My point there is that some of the media is running a “cherub pic” of Brown that is not at all indicative of who LIKELY really is.
… but before dark, still, right?
This part I haven’t a clue how it fits into the equation.
Increase police presence, canvas for volunteers, pay attention and respond.
Ones that might even work in some situations.
But, “canvasing” takes time.
Where is this “increased police presence” supposed to come from….esp. in the amount needed in that situation?
I’m not sure what “attention/respond” is supposed to do in a cluster-fuck of rioting.
But pushing the whole population behind a line under tacit assumption of guilt isn’t acceptable.

There was no “pushing”.
Whoa there, Sparky. The curfew IS NOT enacted because of some tacit assumption of guilt. A curfew DOES HAVE penalties should one decide to VIOLATE it. I guess one might assume that at that point, they are then “guilty”.
I also disagree that you suggest the clerk was not initially threatened by him, he seemed to me clearly terrified, literally servile.
A clearly terrified person would be cowering behind the counter until Brown was long gone.
The clerk went around the counter and held open the door for Brown…placing himself directly & CLOSELY right in front of him. I’m assuming he wanted Brown out of the store….likely telling him to not come back. I just don’t see any clear being terrified of Brown until he was violently shoved. Even then, the clerk made a grab for what was in Brown’s hand (the “stolen” item?).

In this case it appears they did neither. They killed someone that was not posing an existential threat to anyone.

Well he was fourty feet from the squad car and unarmed.

You know this….HOW?
I see this “knowing all about it” to be a huge part of the core issue in shit storms like this….PRESUMPTION of “knowing”. All one need do to “justify” personal rejection of the CIVIL RIGHTS of others is to first “establish” that they indeed have ALL OF the facts firmly in hand. After that, most anything they do is almost a divine right.

Considering the altercation started at the squad car, by all accounts, I can only posit that he was fleeing.
or just walking away?
Dose someone “flee” by going backwards?
Brown was shot facing the officer.
The officer had every right to stop Brown from “fleeing” a felony.
An officer can’t just nilly-willy shoot someone resisting arrest.
However, should during that arrest the situation warrant deadly force…so be it.
Which is corroborated by eyewitness testimony.
The companion kid?
I think we know just how good of a witless witness he is.
Also wonder where the shot fired inside the car ended up, would provide some context to that shot.
This part is news to me. Should it be connected w/ the report that Brown had his hands on that gun, this would only serve to heighten the case against him.
All things said, being huge, having recently completed a violent robbery, and now being pressed by the police, I wouldn’t find it terribly surprising if he had assaulted the officer.
But, it is what comes after that where the whole world goes to hell in a hand basket.
Did Brown escalate or did he subjugate?
Obviously, in the officer’s mind…the former occurred.
That said, the officer did pursue and continue to shoot him as he fled,…
YOU know this….HOW?
…so that seems to show some pretty aggressive tendencies as well.
Making an arrest is often somewhat “aggressive”.
Dashboard cams should be mandatory. When are we All going to start watching the watchmen? It’s not expensive, it’s not difficult.

On this, you & I are 100% together.
I’m pushing really hard for our city & county to do just this….esp. along w/ on-person cameras, too. None of this is very expensive at all.
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by issendorf:
In this case it appears they did neither. They killed someone that was not posing an existential threat to anyone.

Brown was 6’ 4" and weighed nearly 300 pounds. I don’t know about you, but if I see someone that large coming towards me with what appears to be malice (how else was the officer supposed to perceive that?), I consider that a serious existential threat.

Utterly agree with that, issen.
And, for those who are wanting to take a namby-bamby position on this incident … I say they need to put themselves in that situation. I’d also say that a majority of those bleeding heart liberals would literally shit their pants were a hulk of mean-meat to come at them looking like they were going to rip you a new asshole.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and relate the incident as I’ve heard it (from a very distant interest….until the smoke clears and we get some relevant info).

Brown and his companion were walking down the street…in the middle of it.
I’m assuming that would put them IN traffic.
The officer pulled up and told/(asked?) them to get on the sidewalk (for their own safety) and for that of the public.

I know I want my law enforcement to have questions/concerns about someone walking IN the street. This is aberrant behavior and needs to be ascertained as being within the rights of the person to successfully conduct their own affairs within the parameters of ensuring the welfare of the public at large.

Around here, we call such a “stop” a form of a welfare check. The officer likely wasn’t as much concerned about the ODD form of jay-walking (just CROSSING the street illegally, let alone walking down the middle of it) as he was for the welfare of Brown because of his rather “unusual” behavior.

It is further related to me that Brown was belligerent and pushed the officer up against his car and had his hand on the (drawn?) gun. Brown then proceeded to walk away.

BUT, after ASSULTING & BATTERING a police officer, the cop UNDERSTANDIBLY ordered the retreating Brown to HALT (and likely to initiate the procedure for being arrested).

It is at this time that Brown came at the officer in an elevated threating manner….reportedly saying: You ain’t gonna shoot me!

I don’t know the distance between the two MEN*, but it sure likely wasn’t more than 40 feet and probably was under 30….which isn’t at all far, OR LONG time wise, of a distance to cover in an attack. If a person is approaching me, KNOWINGLY IN THE FACE OF MY GUN, they will be dropped at 20 feet…perhaps a bit less depending upon the situation and the gun I have.

Even though the officer DID NOT know of the robbery incident (not yet determined as true….just being “reported” as such), at the time; I’d say that Brown certainly had the capacity to be dangerous.

*Brown is, in my consideration, a MAN.
Yes, he is a young man.
But, that is his failing.
He obviously wasn’t able to match his maturity w/ his great adult size.
Perhaps his parents should have been more successful in helping him see the potential danger of the two combined?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

We pay the police to serve and protect.
In this case it appears they did neither. They killed someone that was not posing an existential threat to anyone.

You know this, HOW?

And, they didn’t kill anyone.
HE, as in a single officer, shot and killed Brown … that is an undisputed fact.

I’m really glad that you know how to put in an appears since you really don’t know much of anything about the truth of the matter. It seems that only the officer and, MAYBE, the kid w/ Brown knows it. The kid companion has already been shown to be a liar; or at best, simply not able to accurately “recall” the incident.

Hopefully, someone who saw the incident will come forth and corroborate the officer’s report. But, if you did see it—considering all the shit that has resulted—would YOU be willing to withstand the onslaught of “opinions” that would find your front door were you to come forward? I don’t see any “witnesses” coming forward any time soon.

But tell me, why is it, like Zachary_G (above several posts), that you have such a dim view of the police force …. in general/in specific? Why couldn’t it have happen exactly as the officer said it did? It was in the middle of the day, in the middle of the street. Kinda hard to “cover up” a misdeed in that scenario.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Karmakoolkid: I will not kill another human being for any reason.

Just checking.
But, ya know, I’m betting that if it actually came down to you NEEDING to KILL a very bad person in order to save your own skin or that of a loved one(s)., you might find a need to “compromise” that belief.

It’s all nice and easy to spout platitudes from an easy chair;
it’s another thing when your bare ass is on the line.
Reality has a way of making us “honest”.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Something I haven’t yet heard is:
1) What has that store clerk said of the incident w/ Brown at his store (an hour? before he was killed)?
2) Why didn’t the officer use his Tazer…or did he even have one…and if he didn’t, what not?
3) It appears Brown’s companion’s story about Brown being shot in the back is a lie (autopsy findings).
But, how much credence is being given the officer’s account of how Brown shoved him against his patrol car and had Brown’s hand on his gun?

Any speculation by anyone what the fallout will be IF & when it is ruled a justified shooting? How much shame is going to be felt & acknowledged by those who rioted because of the incident. Obviously, I’m not giving full responsibility to the incident alone; there is a lot of justification for solid speculation that there was a racial powder keg in place to begin with.

But, will there ever be a time where ppl don’t go off on rampages—which they have very little information/FACTS to go on—that are far more destructive, materially & physically & image wise, than the initial incident itself?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

You cannot prevent death by causing death. That’s all I need to know to answer this question.

What if I KILL a raging lion that is in the process of mauling me to DEATH?
What if we also apply your “philosophy” to a vile person wanting to KILL you?
Are you just going to stand there w/ a gun in your hand and refuse to KILL them?
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

First: stay with me here and stop moving MY goalposts.
As I’ve pointed out, my position is that he ISN’T innocent by virtue of the fact that he will indeed go on to become “not-so-innocent”.

Can you not see this in your quote of me: “I think the implied assumption [of the OP] is that this child IS the destined future one…no longer [being] an “innocent”."

If you don’t want to play ball in my field, OK.
But, stop applying your rules to it.

Second: There is no need to bring out the claws just because I’ve taken a position—one I’m assuming the OP intended—that you don’t like/agree with. What you say below is as uncalled for as it is vile.

“You wish to take a human life when you know you don’t have to in order to achieve your goals.
I think that says more about you, then it does about him. Don’t you?”

Of course, I don’t.
But, it strongly appears that your dislike for me personally “helps” you to see things in things in extremism at times.
Ya know, like how you also had “questions” about me being a pedophile.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Nah, I think Zachery made it clear how he views police in the U.S. in general:
I don’t believe I’ve posted much regarding the police in the USA specifically here, but as you may suspect, I dislike them. They are abusive, they do step over the line constantly, they do not protect people nearly as much as they hurt them, etc etc…

It appears now that, upon being “called out” as highly bigoted (I want to know why….personal experiences?) against law enforcement, he is hedging his position.

However, from what he says about Blacks, I see nothing in this rant other than racism. So, why shouldn’t we expect the same mindset from him re law enforcement?

“What bugs me about this entire case though is the simple fact that it’s happening again.
Every once in awhile a white guy shoots a black guy and the black community flips out over nothing. Even if it was unjust no other group does this, and they certain don’t result to violence when it happens, but a small protest outside a courthouse.
No other group loots stores like this.
No other group shoots people on the streets and plans attacks like they do regarding the protests.
No other group does any of these awful things, but everyone is too afraid to speak of it because black people, the black community, are apparently still “oppressed.”

NO other “groups” do this?
These groups spew a great amount of hatred. A lot of it AT BLACKS. Are ya STILL going to say there is only “apparent oppression” against Blacks? And, that is just the tip of the ice burg when it comes to racism in America. I can’t help but wonder why you are so clueless on this?
And vika, you do realize that reports to IAD & Professional Standards don’t have to come from the police force? The citizens themselves can make the reports…and often do…and are justified in doing so. Dirty cops are there; and therefore, need to be rooted out by those most likely to suffer from it.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shooting/Riots in Ferguson, USA.

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I agree, obviously all policemen are violent sociopaths that all think and act exactly the same!!! Using stereotypes to dehumanize a group is only bad when THEY do it!!!!!!!!!

Yup, that sure appears to be what Zachery_G is saying.

If we are wrong, Zachery, please show us where.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is it right to kill one person to save the lives of many?

I think the implied assumption is that this child IS the destined future one…no longer an “innocent”.

Now, were the name Hitler to be changed to John Doe and we didn’t know HIS future, just that he was going to do a nebulous “something bad” (vile murder of at least one innocent) in the future, this would pose a much more interesting dilemma.

An excerpt from the movie “Swordfish”:

Stanley: How can you justify all this?

Gabriel: You’re not looking at the big picture Stan. Here’s a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world’s diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?

Stanley: No.

Gabriel: You disappoint me, it’s the greatest good.

Stanley: Well how about 10 innocents?

Gabriel: Now you’re gettin’ it, how about a hundred – how about a THOUSAND? Not to save the world but to preserve our way of life.

Stanley: No man has the right to make that decision; you’re no different from any other terrorist.

Gabriel: No, you’re wrong Stanley. Thousands die every day for no reason at all, where’s your bleeding heart for them? You give your twenty dollars to Greenpeace every year thinking you’re changing the world? What countries will harbor terrorists when they realize the consequences of what I’ll do? Did you know that I can buy nuclear warheads in Minsk for forty million each? Hell, I’d buy half a dozen and even get a discount!
The point there is just how many “sacrifices” would it take to balance the curing of ALL the world’s diseases.
Don’t we, in truth, sacrifice a lot of kids (soldiers) when we have a war?
For what?
To protect & secure a way of LIFE?
How many lives is that worth?
How long (time) until the next sacrifice is necessary to appease the Gods of War?

Perhaps we should toss in ethnic cleansing as an example of ensuring a way of life?