• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

How bad is murdering someone?

How does it result in innocent deaths?

Look up Richard Kuklinski for an example of a full blown psychopath and look up Richard Ramirez while your there..

A person becomes a monster once they rape another person, or sexual abuse another person, torture another person or kill another person (depending on the motives).
 
How does it result in innocent deaths?

It's not even contentious that many innocent people have been executed for things they didn't do.

Look up Richard Kuklinski for an example of a full blown psychopath and look up Richard Ramirez while your there..

A person becomes a monster once they rape another person, or sexual abuse another person, torture another person or kill another person (depending on the motives).
Okay, what made these people like this/do these things?
 
As early as WW1, the US military knew servicemen had a hard time pulling the trigger on the enemy. Through the use of shooting at human silouhettes the servicemen were desensitized. Further training such as referring to the enemy as less than human. Be it Nazis, huns, nips ,slopes, gooks, dune coons, sand n###rs, The reward of cold beer or 3 days pass for a good body count...............and we wonder why there is such a high incidence of suicide, ptsd, etc., in combat troops.
 
you're basically advocating vigilante justice and summary execution without a trial? but that's ok, because you only do it to people who really deserve it - people who are obviously guilty? but how do you know they're obviously guilty?

the u.s. constitution guarantees due process so what you're essentially arguing is for the removal of a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

you're not another one of these people who support the idea of these freedoms in principle but, when a hard case comes along, that all falls apart, are you? i've said it before and i'll say it again, it's the difficult cases that make these ideas worth anything at all.

it's like free speech. it's the easiest thing in the world to believe in free speech when somebody's saying a bunch of stuff you believe in. the monologue at the end of the american president says it far better than i can:

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

so it is with criminals. it's easy to talk about due process and innocence-until-proven-guilty when somebody's stolen a pack of smokes. it only becomes truly meaningful when you extend the same rights to the guy who assaults and murders children.
How do you rehabilitate a full blown psychopath that loves to rape children?
maybe you don't. maybe that guy is incapacitated. there's no reason the system can't accommodate a mix of approaches.

alasdair
 
Before I say anything I want everyone to know that I do not believe in capital punishment. Violence begets, violence. Evil begets Evil. However, I do believe that there are certain people in this world that I have done certain things that are so horrible that they do deserve to die.... But, this leads us to bit of a crossroads, how can any fellow human being have the audacity of believing that have the capability to judge who is worthy of life and who is not worthy. We have all made mistakes and done maybe some questionable things. There is only one time I believe that it is passable to kill,. that is when it is necessary to survive. To protect oneself, or ones friends and family's. In a life or death situation when there is an assailant , as much as I wish it were the case, you do not have time or the privilege of trying to not kill the person trying to kill you or your family. Sure if some extremely gold opportunity arises where no one has to die then yes TAKE IT. But the reality of the matter is, sometimes waiting for that opportunity could cost you your life, or a loved ones.

Just something I wanted to add at the end. Even if it is PASSABLE. If I was in this situation even if it was killing to protect, it would probably scar me forever.
 
"I do not believe in capital punishment" & "I do believe that there are certain people in this world that I have done certain things that are so horrible that they do deserve to die"

these two contradict each other. how do you reconcile them?

sounds like a more accurate version of your first statement is "i do believe in capital punishment, just in very specific cases". then, as ever, it becomes a question of degree.

alasdair
 
say we decide that the world would be better off without you. we can kill you? and you'd be fine with it?

alasdair
Do you remember who famously said something along the lines that "all pot smokers were traitors and should be put to death?" I think it was a Drug Czar under Reagan, but I don't remember. I can imagine that a lot of government officials still feel the same way about marijuana use and maybe even those of us who post on websites like bluelight.



Along the lines of vigilante justice gone wrong (especially since pedophilia keeps coming up under this topic), I wanted to share this:

Bijan Ebrahimi Burned To Death After False Pedophilia Accusations
An innocent man in the United Kingdom was burned to death after being wrongly accused of pedophilia.

According to the Bristol Post, Bijan Ebrahimi, an Iranian man who lived in Bristol, England, was murdered in July after rumors began swirling in his community that he had been taking indecent photographs of children.

The Telegraph reports that Ebrahimi, who was an avid gardener, had indeed taken photos of local youths. However, it is now believed that these youths had been harassing Ebrahimi by damaging his flowers, and that he may have been collecting the photos as evidence to present to the police.

Ebrahimi's family says that he had been a victim of racism and harassment for years.....
On July 11, Ebrahimi's neighbors reportedly contacted the authorities to complain about this photo taking. When the police arrived, Ebrahimi is said to have been arrested for "breaching the peace."

With emotions running high, a crowd of residents chanted "pedo, pedo" as Ebrahimi was led away for questioning, The Telegraph reports.

"There were about 20 people out there all having a say. They had him down as a 100 per cent pedophile," a witness of the incident told the Post.

....
"We can categorically state he had not taken any indecent images and that nothing of concern had been found on his computer," a police spokesman said, according to The Telegraph.

On July 14, Ebrahimi was reportedly beaten unconscious by a 24-year-old local resident named Lee James. The young man, with the help of Stephen Norley, also 24, then set Ebrahimi on fire after dousing him with alcohol....



source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/bijan-ebrahimi-burned-to-death-pedophilia_n_4209497.html
 
How bad it is depends on context, I think. I don't believe it justified for retribution for any act, as I consider retribution (even that institutionalized) invalid.

ebola
 
^if it depends, then there is at least one instance where you find it acceptable. please elaborate.

besides fat people and gingers, those are a given.
 
It's interesting because most people will say it's okay to kill someone in one situation but not in another, so the summation of all those acceptable situations being put together means that killing people is okay.

It's called social conditioning. That sociopathy is on the rise is no accident in this world. It takes careful cultivation to poison people's minds so. The alternate hypothesis is this growing spread of mental disorders is simply an accident that They never considered when deciding to base the modern world on Their own greed. I can't tell if the ignorance theory or the conspiracy theory is more upsetting....that's my big problem with the world in general.

Obviously the answer to the OP is no. Not killing someone is so much cooler than killing someone in any circumstance. Don't be "that guy". As far as the "how bad" aspect of the question how are we measuring? Are killers nonredeemable? I don't think so, but I think that their murderous rage would definitely rank as the low point in their careers as Samaritans.
 
Last edited:
Well, I mean homicide (premeditated), but how bad do you think it is to kill someone? And why? What if they have hurt someone so badly that you think they deserve it?

Personally I think rape is the worst thing to do, followed by excessive torture, then murder. I don't know for sure how I feel about 'vigilante justice' resulting in death. I don't really belive human life has intrinsic value. We're all animals & the loss of someone I don't know is virtually meaningless. IMO they were probably a shithead like most people.

Is killing someone morally over-come-able? Would karma fuck you?
EDIT: I could be confusing murder & homicide (i'm a tad durnk & can't look it up) but i'm talking about a premeditated killing

Rape isn't that bad, it became bad due to emancipation of women but 2,000 years ago it was ok, as it is mentioned in the Bible, in Deuteronomy, Chapter number 22, verses 28 to 29 which says:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

The rapist isn't even punished for it, he is rewarded the woman he raped as wife! So I hope this clears the misconception. It is due to emancipation that rape is considered so bad because women became much more than they were 2,000 years ago :)
 
Murder however is very bad, as it is mentioned in Surat Al-Mā'idah, Chapter number 5, verse 32 which says:

"whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. "

It is mentioned in the Qur'an 1,400 years ago that murder is the highest sin after Shirk, so this was bad 2,000 years ago, 1,400 years ago, it is bad now and it will always be bad.
 
I would say murder is in top of the list followed by rape and then torture. Murder is on top of the list as this is taking away a life which you cannot bring back.
 
^IDK, brutally raping and torturing someone causes a lot more suffering than shooting someone in the head. If I had to compare a serial rapist who never murdered anyone to a hitman for a Mexican drug cartel: The rapist would be worse in my estimation,....especially if he was preying on innocent women, as opposed to the hitman targeting people already involved in criminal activity and violence.

We could spend all day talking about the circumstances surrounding each murder, the reasons behind the murder etc. For me, those types of things do enter into it. I place more value on the life of an innocent child than I do an adult that routinely hurts other people in their day to day life. Of course, that's my opinion.
 
Yes I agree with you, everyone will be have different opinions regarding this matter and my opinion is this:

If the murder is committed as an act of retaliation(vigilance), then we should also consider the severity of the initial crime. This really depends on the circumstances and if justice was served. I know some of you may think that an eye for an eye does not work out but I have always believed in equal justice.

If a person has been murdered, not only was the life taken away but also the chance to redeem oneself. Yes torturing someone causes a lot of pain but a tortured person's wounds/injuries will heal but a murdered person's body will rot away not being given the chance to live life anymore.
 
If the murder is committed as an act of retaliation(vigilance), then we should also consider the severity of the initial crime.

In general terms, on what grounds can we justify retribution? I've yet found none I consider valid. I'm open to listen to new ideas though.

ebola
 
This is a very complex subject, but, I'll try my best to explain how I feel.

I feel like premeditated murder has it's grey areas. For instance, a father killing a man for raping his daughter. to understand this, you'd have to understand that when a man or woman is raped, their life as they know it comes to an end. They will never be the same person that they were before they were sexual abused/assaulted. So a father may feel like in return for ending his daughter's life as she knew it, the rapist no longer deserved to live. I personally find this to be logical. Do I think he should bring this matter's consequences into his own hands? No. But I do believe the equivalent punishment for rape is the death penalty. I think you could figure out why, or at least have a general idea.

But murder for the sake of doing it? It is absolutely "Bad." It's horrid. I don't believe in violence as a solution to problems to begin with, let alone murder for the hell of it. Taking someone else's life is like playing God to me. I know that sounds contradictory because of what I said previously about the death penalty for rapists, but there's is a distinct difference between killing someone who didn't deserve it and giving someone the death penalty for ending someone else's life.


Also, when someone is raped or sexually abused, there's a chance that this may affect them mentally in that they may do the same thing that was done to them to others. It's like a snowball affect or a chain reaction that could possibly take affect. I don't think I need to explain any further to a community of adults just how devastating rape is.
 
Top