Recent posts by biguglyorc on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

Originally posted by vikaTae:
I’m against it as a parenting tool, as it’s really teaching the kid that the wrong type of behavior is okay. However, as a teaching tool there is still a place for it.

I’m a bit confused. Are you saying teachers should be – to a degree of course, but still – allowed to physically punish their pupils, but parents should not be allowed to physically punish their children, because it teaches them that “might makes right”?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Corporal Punishment

I’m not very interested in this topic itself, but I don’t think the following question will derail it much, so I’ll just ask it, if you don’t mind.

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Is it wrong to smack your kids in line?

Is it wrong to smack other people’s kids in line? Answer that and you have your answer for the first one.

But otherwise, Kasic’s right. there have been more than a few studies conducted which conclude smacking is no more effective than other forms of punishment, and more likely to lead to a negative outcome in the child’s behavior.

So you’re against it, alright. Do you mind me asking what exactly changed your mind over the last… four years and a half?
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Actually, I would vote for corporal punishment of students. I was never caned as a kid, so I never really experienced it, but I believe that teachers should have that tool in their arsenal. When the possibility was around, there was discipline in schools.

Now, without it, a kid can sucker-punch a teacher in the gut, and get away with it. That teacher lays a finger on the kid, and they’re out of a job. Something’s wrong there.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

My point is, by using corporal punishment, the response is almost immediate, and leaves a painful impression. It forms an association in the child’s mind, that if they behave improperly, its going to hurt. Yes, there is still the problem of abusive parents at home, but I do see a distinction between abuse, and the use of a quick sharp, trained physical punishment to correct early wayward behaviour.

Most suspensions could be done away with that way, and the child does not fall behind on their studies due to the punishment.

This is actually a serious question. Most psychologists have been discouraging from corporal punishment since the 1970’s, so it isn’t any recent scientific breakthrough. I hope it isn’t too personal for you to elaborate on.

 
Flag Post

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

@Jan
Except, pete does exactly, literally the same things he accuses karma of doing in the paragraph you quoted… And to be fair, karma’s open aggression is somehow easier to deal with than pete’s passive aggression, at least for me. It feels somehow more honest or less sleazy. But I digress…


Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

A mercenary choses to drop any ideological reasons or justifications and simply kills for the highest bidder no questions asked.

I’m not sure if I’m overinterpreting you here, but the way I see this sentence, you seem to indicate that mercenaries are kind of pure – they’re merely tools. Even if it’s not what you meant, isn’t it a take worth a shot in the context of the discussion?

It would be analogous to dispensation from all sins committed during Crusades. A morally sanctioned series of murders, and what not – because morality is directly connected to culture, culture to religions and religions to their heads – the pope in this instance.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

biguglyorc Read Karma’s story again. He didn’t kill. It was irrelevant. We are discussing when it is appropriate to kill.

So, if he could’ve attempted to kill but chose not to, he apparently thought it was inappropriate to kill at that time.

To reflect that story, I might tell you about a time when my friend and I were walking to 7-11 for some milk and I decide NOT to shoot him in the face.

Woah, kudos. Are you trying to say you actually own a gun and had considered shooting your friend in the face before? If that’s not the case, I’m not sure it’s any comparison.
He simply opted not to kill… as we all do on a day-to-day basis. Dude, I’m opting not to kill AS I WRITE THIS!

You are? You mean every single day of your life as a pacifist, you think of killing people and then you generously choose not to kill them?

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Kasic I guess I missed it. The noise-to-signal ratio in this joint is off the charts.

What was your example of a “last resort” situation?

Why don’t you just scroll up instead of implying the posts by everyone else who disagrees with you are meaningless?
 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

A mercenary is a professional soldier, incidentally. It’s not an insult. It’s just a simple word. I’m not sure why you’re interested in isolating it.

Pete, really… Just use a dictionary once in a while. Karma’s American, he fought in Vietnam against the communists, so he didn’t serve in a foreign army, which is the keyword in the definition of the word. Soldiers serve their respective nations/countries, mercenaries serve whoever pays more, or whoever they feel like serving.

Karma’s real-life example is irrelevant because we are discussing when it is appropriate to use lethal force to protect the lives of innocent people. Karma’s story was a situation where he did not use lethal force.

But he could have. He said he had a gun on him, but chose not to use it at all; more than that, he says he was afraid said gun would be discovered, which would put at risk him and everyone else in the bank.
It was irrelevant and didn’t reveal anything appropriate to the topic.
Really…? Are you trying to say your thrilling one-liner story about one of the rare times when you chose to use force in order to protect the innocent by grabbing your child so they wouldn’t get smashed by a car is any more relevant to anything?
What you CANNOT SEEM TO DO is to provide an example the illustrates a “last resort situation.” I challenge anyone here to do that.
I did. Your answer could be summarised as “in a last resort situation, I would still not use lethal force at the cost of my own child’s life.” Would you like me to insert a direct quotation of you here, in case “I’m putting words in your mouth”?
 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
It is a good and spirited discussion, I think.

Just to be clear, you mean the same discussion you had awfully derailed before you called it uninteresting, threw in a couple of insults, then threw a tantrum, proclaimed you were leaving the thread, at the same time supplying it with meaningless and completely unimpressive “facts” about your real life, then actually left the thread for a few days, then came back to it and proceeded to derail it more with insults towards karma, flattery to vika, or flame-baiting, while making no new points whatsoever, right?

The general topic of the thread has basically evolved into “morality vs necessity”, not your or vika’s real life, not karma’s behaviour, not who you like and who you don’t like; you wanna make points based on personal experiences, fine, but honestly, your examples seem more like a social network news feed, rather than actual arguments supporting anything.

Can’t you all just PM one another the parts of your posts that don’t refer to the topic at hand?

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by vikaTae:
The capability is all there, but the way of thinking that Hitler had was formed out of his innate brain design combined with the German language.

Could you give a link to a reliable article on that? It’s interesting.

Let him grow up learning a different language and it’ll change how his internal thoughts work.
If it works how I’m guessing it works, wouldn’t it mean you can’t really determine the end result of such substitution? How would you know you wouldn’t create a more efficient Hitler, were he to speak native Russian or Swedish?

And how much of such creation can be excused by a language? Don’t you mean culture in general, as it’s expressed by languages? German culture described in German is something slightly different to German culture described in English – there’s a plethora of small things that get lost in translation. The differences are subtle, but they’re there. If that’s the case, I don’t see how changing the language he thought in would be any different, or any easier at that, from putting him somewhere else.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
One just cannot make any serious SPECULATIVE applications of just how “beneficial” wars are

Every war is a tragedy, yes, but they’re all waged just for that one reason – to be beneficial to someone. The benefits can be societal, territorial, materialistic, and technological. Obviously, it would be better if all those changes could be made peacefully, but whether or not they could is largely speculative. What isn’t, is that wars influence how fast, or soon, said changes are made – they can accelerate or even start technological advancement, but also decelerate or even stop cultural evolution prior to the outbreak (like with the Mayans or the ancient Greeks before their dark times).

In the context of the discussion (if it’s right to kill one person to save the lives of many), wars are wrong – I’ll skip the part regarding their necessity. But if people didn’t want to kill each other, we’d likely be still in the Stone Age, as metallurgy wouldn’t really need to exist in a society without wars – shiny trinkets don’t require technological advancement. This isn’t that much of a speculation, but rather an educated guess, actually. There still are primeval tribes that haven’t been at war in centuries. When you’re not afraid someone will burn down your village, or when you don’t see other communities that have it easier than you, you don’t really think of significantly enhancing the way you live, do you? You just live long and prosper, or however it went. Maybe it is a better life – I’m quite sure those tribesmen would say that if they knew European history of wars – but it isn’t really technologically advanced, is it?

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
If you read the entire link, you would see that the shitty attitude for humanity wasn’t limited to racism.

Oh yeah, I’m aware of that. I just wanted to keep my reply shorter if the point can get across anyway, maybe unnecessarily.

And, I was somewhat confused by your: would have been now…..
If you meant it as a Modal Perfect construction, would NOW be conducted…
Right. My apologies, I noticed that after I woke up and didn’t want to change that or some other things, as a reply to that post had already been made.


To expand on this, such societal changes – especially those regarding exploitation of various minorities – are usually made after, or while, important societal events occur, and these are often violent: Crusades (killing infidels), the Thirty Years’ War (the Reformation of the Church that led to bloodshed of pretty much all Christian factions), American War of Independence (the rise of a new nation), the French Revolution (bourgeoisie coming to power), Springtime of Nations (when the word “nation” actually started to mean what it means today; the beginning of emancipation of women), October Revolution (the fall of the Tzar and the rise of communists), etc. All of those conflicts were about defining – or redefining – who their participants actually were and who they were not, and sanctioning the changes they made.

But that’s a bit or two off-topic, I guess.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by biguglyorc:
Chances are, if slavery had been still common – or just if the situation of racial minorities had been as severe as before the WWII – medical tests would’ve been now conducted on Blacks,

Are you so sure of that?

“1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.”

Doesn’t it support what I said?

 
Flag Post

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

While I agree that the less blood is spilled, the better, what you’re saying is rather debatable and unprovable at that, though, so hoping aside, let me reverse the question you asked: could you think of an example of an invention that was made outside of war industry and was not introduced to it, even though it could be? I’m not thinking of carpet bombings of militarised ovens, but something that could actually give an advantage but has never been used in combat for whatever reasons.

Originally posted by beauval:
I just feel that simple human curiosity would ensure that researchers would always find something new to study, even if it was conducted at a very sedate pace.
Chances are, if slavery had been still common – or just if the situation of racial minorities had been as severe as before the WWII – medical tests would’ve been now conducted on Blacks, after rats and rabbits, and before tested products would find their way to general public. Absolute equality is still a rather new thing, after all.

On a side-note, what do you think of creation of firearms in the context of your question? As they were invented just to efficiently kill people, do you think they would never be made just as tanks, or people would want to improve on the idea of bows and crossbows anyway in order to hunt animals more efficiently?

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by beauval:
Aside from things like tanks, which as far as I can tell are purely wartime machines, is there any technology which you think could not possibly have happened without conflict driving it forward?

There’s a lot of medical examples, simply because some kinds of injuries are very unlikely to happen beyond a battlefield, and if they do, they’re so rare most doctors don’t bother to heal them properly. But I guess it’s a stretch after all, since this sort of inventions belongs to wars – kind of like using a tank to plow.

What about the thing I mentioned earlier, though, about Mengele? War is almost like a holiday, with rules and moral codices different to those of a time of peace. Germans had their share of cruel experiments, the Japanese did too. Americans had a couple of “morally ambiguous” ideas they explored, and so did the Russians. The results of great many of them are used to this day, while all of them served technological advancement somehow, and all of them were created because the “morality of wartime” allowed it.

Also, there are those “societal inventions” – if it hadn’t been for WWII, Americans wouldn’t have been so obsessed with being compared to the Nazis (racism, chauvinism, antisemitism, etc.), so all those changes, along with today’s obsession with political correctness, wouldn’t have been made that easily. And when they would, I’m guessing it would’ve been after another war or two.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Direct Democracy

For all I know, it’s worked that way in Switzerland for several decades now, so it’s both possible and efficient.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What do we think of the Maine hermit?

Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Wild animals technically belong to a country while they’re within its borders

I’m pretty sure almost no one will give too much thought to some wildlife disappearing in the middle of god knows where.

Or will they?

Any form of hunting for wild animals without appropriate permits is considered poaching – it isn’t restricted to lions, tigers or rhinos. If you hunt down a boar in the woods, even if it’s just for the meat, not the tusks or other trophies, you’re a poacher in the eyes of the law.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What do we think of the Maine hermit?

Originally posted by beauval:

A hermit is supposed to be self-sufficient, and this man has clearly never bothered to learn how to hunt and gather.

The problem is, that also would be considered theft in legal terms. Wild animals technically belong to a country while they’re within its borders, and so do plants that grow from said territory’s soil. By extension, you could say being a hermit today is either illegal for reasons stated, or self-contradictory, as a hermit needs to possess their own land and various permits to grow plants or build a shelter.

I understand why that guy would want to become a hermit, but he is both a thief and a burglar. It’s a different matter entirely if he would live differently, if the law didn’t force people to live in communities.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
There is little to NO proof that either of those two, overpopulation & great tech advancements, wouldn’t have had similar (if not better) outcomes were there to have been no war. You are super-generalizing on cause/effect issues here.

I think hypothermia is worth a mention as a counterargument to what you’re saying here. It’s estimated to have killed hundreds of millions of people. Josef Mengele with his fellow Nazis studied it on concentration camp prisoners – obviously, after he had exposed them to freezing temperatures – and did a great job at describing in detail its symptoms, procedures to counter it and minimising the damage it causes to organisms.

Or another thing about Mengele – he was one of the founding fathers of genetics. His inhumane, cruel studies on human twins allowed quick diagnoses of errors in development of human foeti, saving the health and lives of many.

Humanity would’ve probably still been in the dark about that, as non-intrusive methods, if possible, of studying either would’ve taken entire decades otherwise.

It’s analogous to the first baby steps of medicine in modern Europe – the first orthopaedists were actually practicing executioners, as they, at the time, were experts in anatomy. Who else would know how to fix a broken arm, if not someone who knows how to break it?

 
Flag Post

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

Jan kind of summed it up for me.
I’d add that the problem isn’t that you have difficulties communicating your ideas – you’ve done alright in this regard, although truth be told, none of the ones you posted in this thread were complex. It’s that you refuse to think through other people’s questions or ideas, always suspecting something fishy. I’m sure your monologues or books are fine as wine, but you suck at listening – you require a lot of patience and have little of it for others.

Good luck saving lives.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Biguglyorc: “…but what if you’re forced to act?”

What if I’m forced to kill someone? That was clearly a rhetorical question.

It wasn’t the question I asked. If you really still can’t see the difference, I’ll point it out for you: action is not tantamount to killing anyone. Yes. You said you wouldn’t kill the guy. I said it was fine.

What if you’re FORCED to eat cauliflower yet you’ve vowed to never eat cauliflower? It doesn’t address the topic (why you vowed not to eat cauliflower)
Other than what vika said to this, I’ll also add that – on the assumption that you’re actually comparing these two topics – “why you’re a pacifist” was never a topic in this discussion. Despite your ardent stories and explications as to why you’re a pacifist and why pacifism in general is so awesome, nobody asked you why you’re one.

If you insist on describing that using cauliflowers, it would be “would you eat a cauliflower if you had nothing else to eat?”. But it still doesn’t imply imposing your idealism on others in a manner that’s potentially dangerous to them, so it’s a poor comparison.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I’m not going to answer questions and accusations like…

“You said that you would choose the life of your son’s would-be-murderer rather than your son’s.” —biguglyorc

This is neither a question, nor an accusation. It’s a paraphrase of what you said earlier: “I would do “nothing” and the crazy person would kill my child.”
If you’re asking why I phrased it like that, it’s because in this particular case, that’s exactly what it means: you were presented a choice whose consequences were known to you, and you chose.

Obviously I said no such thing, and the spirit of this room seems to be about flamboyant reinterpretations of statements to suit some motive.

The motive is that you’re expected to discuss things. Why everyone puts such emphasis on interpretation of your lines, is because they lack merit, while they keep exacerbating the situation of “the room”, as you call it, and people try to make some sense of them, despite you being disrespectful all the time (yes, being dodgy is disrespectful in terms of any discussion, and so were your insults) – even karma did (no, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t hostile towards you at the same time).

Why would biguglyorc distort my views?

You got a “yes or no” problem to solve. You answered as you did. I couldn’t possibly distort that much.

To clarify what I intended to say, in case he didn’t understand it, is this…


1. It is not a scenario presented with enough information to make any kind of rationale assessment.
2. Given the abstract nature of the conditions of the scenario, my abstract answer is that I would not kill my son’s would-be murderer.
3. I would not “prefer” that my son die over his would-be murderer (as karma suggested)
4. I would not choose the murderer’s life over my son’s (as biguglyorc suggested)


This is it: I would not kill someone for any reason.

Fine. I got it earlier. You would do “nothing” (because you would not kill someone for any reason), and the immediate consequence of your choice is that your son is killed (because you would do “nothing”). Got it. Again. Why you keep going back to that all the time?
In fact, this whole conversation is ridiculous.

Then don’t partake in it. That’s easier than pointless responses that cause more confusion than they explain.
 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I’m here to explore an idea, biguglyorc, whereas you’re apparently here to have an argument.

Is this really coming from the guy who said this:

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.


or this:
I can fabricate an answer for you, sure.

or this:
I draw the line, biguglyorc, at suffering foolish hypothetical situations.

and a bunch of other delightful comments don removed?

You cannot understand that why I’m uncomfortable with you being insistent for an answer to a question that I cannot answer accurately with the information given.
Could’ve said just that, instead of going around it. I even encouraged you to do so, here (except, I’ll give you that, by the time I submitted this, your response had already been made):
You want me to say, “I would do nothing and allow my kid to die.”

If I wanted you to say anything, it would be that you would neglect your idealism and save your son. But what I actually want is your honest answer, whatever it is.



When I do answer, per your repeated demands, you use it as an “aha, I told you so!” moment.
No. That’s what I said:
So the answer is “no.” I would do “nothing” and the crazy person would kill my child.

Thank you. That is really everything there was to it.

I cannot predict the future, nor can I confidently say what I would do in a life-threatening situation. Circumstances—both external (environmental) and internal (mental)—would be major factors.

And this serves as a valuable addition, too.
Fair answer, so much for my interrogation on this matter.



For example, you now earn the right that I said that I prefer to have someone kill my son than for me to kill someone.
No. That’s what I said:
You said that you would choose the life of your son’s to-be-murderer rather than your son’s. A controversial claim, alright, but it’s your “preference” of choice,


Then to insist that I “stand by” the statement is like the icing on your victory cake.
No. That’s what I said:
At least be kind enough to stand by it or correct it,


And now, because of that, my “voice is no longer worth anything.”

Yeah, you might wanna reread that part. Or don’t.

Sadly, I don’t think I care that much about your cakes, you can have ‘em. I opened my first post in this thread with this:
Since we’re playing with clearly hypothetical situations, I hope you don’t mind if I join in. You’re a pacifist, I get it, you abstain from violence when you can, I get that too, but what if you’re forced (that’s a keyword here) to act?

It’s a tone I tried to keep in my later posts – but I admit, not at all costs. Compare it to yours and see which one of us tried to “accomplish something here”.

Sorry, OP – I know this response doesn’t really have much to do with your thread, but I like keeping facts as facts, especially when they’re supposed to be about me.
 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Biguglyorc: That was the most deliberate and unnecessary abuse of non-contextual misquoting I think I’ve ever seen. Bravo! You are a maestro.

“Non-contextual misquoting”, because it points out how you contradict yourself most of the time and twist words or their meanings to your liking? Please, provide a context in which the first two of my quotations of your “World at peace in ten easy steps” don’t contradict what you had earlier said. You accuse karma or me of superfluous attachment to semantics, yet it’s you who brings the discussion down to that – even in this very post I’m replying to. You kept saying “hyperbole this”, “hyperbole that”, yet it’s you who abuses both the word and the procedure it describes, again, to twist the discussion around so you would feel – I’m guessing – that you’re heroically defending your points. I find it rather amusing, really, because it only proves that the only pacifist in this thread is passive-aggressive. But I get it, you’ve got to defuse the tension somehow, even if it’s just by aggression over the Internet.

(Do you have something substantive to add to the conversation?)

Nope. Do you? Because all you’ve done so far is constant repetition of exactly the same arguments you made four pages ago at a hopeless attempt to advocate your obvious claim that killing is bad. Yes, it is. But sometimes – and how frequently is up for debate which we’re having right now – it’s also necessary. You claim, “never” – fine, your life, your opinion. But both vika and karma (mind you, both of whom you had indirectly called “murderers” earlier – and it’s still a stance you haven’t changed after I corrected you as to the semantics behind it) wouldn’t have been here now, if they hadn’t chosen their lives over their attackers’.
Sure, there are regrets, but in the end, if you’re aware of the situation you’re in, it’s as simple as “me or the attacker”, or “my loved ones or the attacker”. You would let the attacker kill you, fine. You said that you would choose the life of your son’s to-be-murderer rather than your son’s. A controversial claim, alright, but it’s your “preference” of choice, so it isn’t up for debate whether or not you mean it, or if it was just another not thought-through statement you threw in the name of pacifism. Fine. At least be kind enough to stand by it or correct it, because as you go deeper in your promotion of pacifism, you’re going out of “opinion zone”, you’re going into sociology, and there your beliefs, however noble, can be rightfully confronted; otherwise – as my “non-contextual misquotations” of you clearly show – your voice is no longer worth anything in this discussion: neither contradicting yourself, nor rewording and rephrasing absolutist, yet vague statements made earlier equates with making new points.

Quality discussion is all I’m asking – strangely it’s the same thing you’ve been straying away from all this time, by dodging inconvenient subjects, deliberate misuse of words, hiding behind semantics or flame-baiting.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
The issue is one of responsibility.

Premise: I am responsible for the safety of those around me.
[…]killing someone to save your child, the central philosophical nugget is who you are more responsible for.

You are clearly responsible for the welfare of your own child. That would trump your responsibility for the welfare of a potential murderer.
I would do “nothing” and the crazy person would kill my child.
 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I draw the line, biguglyorc, at suffering foolish hypothetical situations.

Can I expect a stab in the back now?

You want me to say, “I would do nothing and allow my kid to die.”

If I wanted you to say anything, it would be that you would neglect your idealism and save your son. But what I actually want is your honest answer, whatever it is.

I’m not sure what kind of victory that is for you.

None…? I thought I made it clear that I’m interested only in what you would do. If you so desperately seek a victory for me to have, just satisfy my curiosity, I’ll be fine with that.

As for your story – I get it. I get it just the same as I said I got it a few posts earlier. You seek alternate solutions that are compatible with your way of life. Everyone does that. I’m neither surprised, nor disappointed, nor do I really feel it’s important that I comment on this any more than I already did.

Mind you – it’s one thing to avoid confrontations (even those over the Internet), another to be unable discuss your view on the world, which you brought to this thread. I would accept that you don’t care to explain it, but you do, you try to explain it, as long as you have a way out. I didn’t spam you with situations you had to relate to – the very first “fabricated story” I made is the one you wouldn’t actually relate to, although you kept going around it – even if all this time you could simply give a one-liner as the answer.

And no, it isn’t so that I had constructed any of this to prove anything – especially that your view on the world is wrong, which I don’t think it is. As I stated a bunch of times, I’m interested in the answer, not in your world crumbling down to dust right in front of me.

So the answer is “no.” I would do “nothing” and the crazy person would kill my child.

Thank you. That is really everything there was to it.

I cannot predict the future, nor can I confidently say what I would do in a life-threatening situation. Circumstances—both external (environmental) and internal (mental)—would be major factors.

And this serves as a valuable addition, too.
Fair answer, so much for my interrogation on this matter.

 
Flag Post

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

@karma
I’m not trying to destroy pete’s outlook on life. I’m asking where or if he draws the line; whether or not he is willing to sacrifice everything, and by extension everyone, for pacifism – hence that example, as it clearly contradicts what he had earlier defined as pacifism, at the same time forcing him to do something. It wasn’t my point that pacifism in any form or shape is dumb. To be fair, I made none. I didn’t ask my questions to ridicule him, but out of curiosity as to how he sees it.

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.

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

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I can fabricate an answer for you, sure.

In my answer, aliens come down and teleport my would-be child’s murderer to another plane of existence.

I don’t think you understand how axioms work – I gave you boundaries in between which you can “work” in described situation. Sure, you could come up with something like this, were you to create your own situations, you are however a subject in this one. You’re stripped of other choices, it’s just a “do or don’t” kind of thing. That’s why the answer to this:

This removes all of those ridiculous factors that muddy things up. Does NOT killing my child’s murderer equate to “doing nothing?” Of course not.
is “yes”.
But to clarify:
• What did I do to allow this situation to happen in the first place? Did the murder just “appear” suddenly?
Yes. Because it doesn’t matter – I could just as well come up with another fabricated background story and it wouldn’t matter then, either.
• What are my options for communicating with the murderer?
There are none. The “murderer” offers you his deal, you take it or leave it. No time for chit-chats.
• Has the murderer killed others? How do I know he’s serious?
I take it a simple “you just know that in this scenario” won’t suffice, will it? I don’t know, he chops your son’s arm off to give you a hint he’s serious.
• What happens if I shoot my own son?
He’s shot. Duh. But it won’t cause a sudden change of heart in anyone but your son.
• What happens if I shoot all of the bullets into the ground?
The ground is very sad it was shot at. But the killer still kills your son.
• Can I shoot the murderer in a non-life-threatening place on his body?
No.

No other choices, no ways around. “Kill or let your kid die”.

I probably didn’t answer your first question because I didn’t understand it. Mind asking it again?

It’s what you would do in this fabricated, ridiculous, completely unbelievable situation, given that one and only choice you’re presented.
Murdering and killing are, in colloquial terms, identical.
They aren’t, either. If you were to say “I’m going to murder this cow for dinner”, everyone would understand you, yes, but they’d also take it as a joke nevertheless. When you swat insects, you “kill” them, not “murder” them, regardless of how much you despise violence. It isn’t legalese.
Incidentally, your link to Exodus 20:13 took me to someone’s interpretation of the bible.
Exodus 22:2
If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed
– it isn’t very open for interpretation, you know. It reads quite literally as “it’s okay to kill red-handed burglars”.
Exodus 21:12-13
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.
– “unintentional killing is okay”.

Although all those excerpts work well in this discussion, I gave that link for these two quotations:
Exodus 2:11-12
One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Glancing this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. (God did not judge Moses as a murderer because he was protecting the life of the slave)

Genesis 14:14-16
When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people. (God did not judge Abram as a murderer because he was protecting the life of Lot)

Even in the Bible the differences are quite distinguishable. There are situations where the biblical God allows killing of another man.

Here’s a much better hypothetical situation, since you’re so fond of axioms:
You kill someone. How do you justify it?

Truthfully. If I meant to kill them for whatever, I justify it as such and have to live with it now. If I didn’t mean to kill them, I’m the one to live with it.

It isn’t about making up excuses for killing anyone, though – if that’s what you were getting at with this question. If anything, I’m curious how far you’re willing to go with pacifism – that’s why there are so many “stupid” questions (as in, not only mine) 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.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Your hyperbole is too unstable. Somehow the fact that I would not kill someone equates to your claim that I would “do nothing at all.”

Kill or let your kid die. What’s so hard to understand here? It is a hypothetical situation, with set axioms and boundaries.


You are distorting my position into areas that support your fabricated

Why bother pointing out a hypothetical situation, as I’ve called it myself in the first post, is fabricated? Of course it’s fabricated, as to my knowledge you partook in no such event.
and highly implausible story about a crazy man that wants me to murder him.


Yeah, no.

You also claim that there’s a difference between murder and killing.


Yes. There is.
All murders are an act of killing, but not all kills are murders. They are two different terms describing different acts, whatever your beliefs are. As I’ve said, I respect your beliefs, please respect my affinity for proper terminology.

Also, since you recommended checking Exodus 20:13. Learn your bible, if you must insist on using it on others. But please, let’s not make it another religion discussion.

If there were nobody else that could end someone’s excruciating pain, I don’t know that I would. Probably not, but perhaps I could find the means for them to do it themselves.

Fair answer, I take it. Thank you.


What if I’m delusional and I’m projecting that they want to die? What if my dog tells me that they want to die? What if they’ll probably get over it? What if my friend, in passing, says something like “this sucks… I wish I could just die”? At what point am I supposed to grab a gun and end their life?


It’s beyond the case I presented, but I understand your doubts.

Here’s my answer: NEVER.


See how simple that is?

I don’t, actually. It gets complicated more than it is, because you redefine terms to your needs and cause confusion as you do it. And you still haven’t responded to the first fabricated story of mine. Could you do that, please?