Is killing a human being...

[L2R]

if you think humanity isn't special, you must have missed the chelsea v barcelona match this morning (or highlights)

If you killed someone in self defense would you not feel for the loss of their family, because of the poor choices they made to lead them up to that point?

yes.
i would also be ashamed for not having the capability of finding a non lethal alternative, as per the definition of civility.

 

[modern buddha]

^ I wouldn't feel ashamed in that case. If I did not mean to kill him, there's no reason to feel ashamed.

I'd feel badly, yes, that I killed him. But not ashamed.

 

[freddy47]

If you killed someone in self defense would you not feel for the loss of their family, because of the poor choices they made to lead them up to that point?

Not at all. If the choice was me or him I would really not feel bad at all killing someone who was trying to kill me. The poor choices he made are his to pay for not mine. Why should I feel the least bit of shame/guilt? Because he has a family? Well nuts to that. I have a family as well. Where was his shame/guilt when he tried to kill me?

I often found the whole turning the other cheek thing kind of ridiculous and quite honestly impractical. In my experience a lot of Christians do as well.

 

[panic in paradise]

^ Of course if it had to happen it would.

It could be better to be killed justifiably and die rather then go to prison for the rest of ones life...hahah
:-\

There are societal ethics that encourage mass rehabilitation and progress, and on the contrary many at play that encourage a social deconstruction or stand-still.

Personally I could imagine if a person broke into my house it would most likely be some one twaked out on drugs looking for money to get more. Why should somebody be so desperate? Not saying it is the families fault but it is a social issue, neither am I implying it is all an issue of drug legality.


There are lyrics from a DJ Shadow track that describes this well:

"everybody's so concerned about heroin and marijuana and all that, until they forget the most dangerous narcotic that exist's, and that's the narcotic that's injected into the minds of infants... it's called social narcotics... so, you know as well as i do that things are changing... change, you know..."

 

[hiphophippy]

No I just didnt like the way he responded.

Why?

 

[Portillo]

Its alright. Its just an Internet discussion anyway. Peace.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Man, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd far prefer the company of someone who has a strong emotional reaction against the harming of any other person, over that of someone who'll cooly and rationally explain to me why the only reason they don't further their genes by afflicting others is because the system is set up to make it a costly choice. In fact, there are probably no people who make me sicker than ones who'll nonchalantly say something to the effect of, "It's a dog eat dog world, so I'm going to be a dog, and whatcha gonna do about it?"

I don't begrudge anyone getting riled up by the topic of killing. If any topic should be emotionally charged, this is it! I'm far more bothered by people who can discuss it dispassionately.

 

[freddy47]

It could be better to be killed justifiably and die rather then go to prison for the rest of ones life...hahah

I don't know about that.

If someone is trying to kill me, but I could disarm/incapacitate him without resorting to using deadly force I would. Then the guy could repent or pay penance and maybe learn something about himself.

But chances are if someone is determined to kill me I will have to kill him in self defense.

Man, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd far prefer the company of someone who has a strong emotional reaction against the harming of any other person, over that of someone who'll cooly and rationally explain to me why the only reason they don't further their genes by afflicting others is because the system is set up to make it a costly choice. In fact, there are probably no people who make me sicker than ones who'll nonchalantly say something to the effect of, "It's a dog eat dog world, so I'm going to be a dog, and whatcha gonna do about it?"

I don't begrudge anyone getting riled up by the topic of killing. If any topic should be emotionally charged, this is it! I'm far more bothered by people who can discuss it dispassionately.

I'm not saying that at all. If I killed someone in self defense, I probably would be traumatized. But shame/guilt... no I just don't see that happening. I'd probably go through some sort of emotional trauma based on how close I came to dying, and how much of a bullshit situation my assailant put me in.

But shame and guilt for killing to preserve my own life? No.

If it were in a war I would feel differently, because I would be killing someone who is only following orders like me. But say a random street encounter or something of that nature. Hell no. I wouldn't for example feel the slightest bit of guilt or shame if say a serial killer had picked me for his target and I killed him in self defense. Or a mugger or gangster for that matter.

Those types of people made their choice to try and take my life, and if the only thing between them and my life is me taking theirs then so be it.

 

[panic in paradise]

I don't know about that.

If someone is trying to kill me, but I could disarm/incapacitate him without resorting to using deadly force I would. Then the guy could repent or pay penance and maybe learn something about himself.

But chances are if someone is determined to kill me I will have to kill him in self defense.

I mean, if, I was going to kill someone in cold blood, I would rather die fighting afterwords, then be arrested to go to prison for life.

 

[p0ly]

No because if a Human dies a lot of people can be affected in a bad way. I doubt they have much of a funeral or therapy for cockroaches.

 

[freddy47]

I mean, if, I was going to kill someone in cold blood, I would rather die fighting afterwords, then be arrested to go to prison for life.

I don't know most people don't go kill people just for the fun of killing. I mean yeah that happens but most of the time people kill because they want something the person they are killing has. And if they want something chances are they enjoy life enough to not want to die in a street fight.

 

[panic in paradise]

Man, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd far prefer the company of someone who has a strong emotional reaction against the harming of any other person, over that of someone who'll cooly and rationally explain to me why the only reason they don't further their genes by afflicting others is because the system is set up to make it a costly choice. In fact, there are probably no people who make me sicker than ones who'll nonchalantly say something to the effect of, "It's a dog eat dog world, so I'm going to be a dog, and whatcha gonna do about it?"

I don't begrudge anyone getting riled up by the topic of killing. If any topic should be emotionally charged, this is it! I'm far more bothered by people who can discuss it dispassionately.

well, it is a 'dog eat dog world'

For instance Buddhism is not the little timid practice many believe it to be, they know if an individual is a 'natural born killer', and will for example, if trust worthy, give that person a job as a body guard, or arrange them in a mercy kill to make right their Dharma and Karma.

 

[tokenname]

No because if a Human dies a lot of people can be affected in a bad way. I doubt they have much of a funeral or therapy for cockroaches.

For argument's sake..there weren't too many funerals or therapy sessions
for the victim's of the holocaust either.

In fact, holocaust victims were viewed as cockroaches.

hmmmm....

 

[freddy47]

well, it is a 'dog eat dog world'

For instance Buddhism is not the little timid practice many believe it to be, they know if an individual is a 'natural born killer', and will for example, if trust worthy, give that person a job as a body guard, or arrange them in a mercy kill to make right their Dharma and Karma.

Yeah like it or not, natural born killers type people do exist.

People like that only understand violence. Might makes right is their only philosophy. And the only way to face down such people is to be mightier.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

freddy47, your posts were not what prompted my reply -- I was speaking more to hiphophippy and Biovail. I actually agree with you about fighting back in self defense. I'm just against being violent in any situation that's capable of being handled without violence, which is not what you're describing.

I don't think the unfortunate necessity of using violence to stop people who'll only deal in violence logically justifies having a low threshold for deeming any situation worthy of violent intervention. "I was raised on the hard streets, so look at me wrong and I'll start swinging" is pure operant conditioning. It's not a reasoned or reasonable position, and certainly not one that produces the least suffering for all.

Nor does the necessity of using violence to stop the relentlessly violent render the quest for nonviolent solutions a futile one. That's like saying vaccines and antibiotics are all futile, because there are some bacteria we'll never kill.

well, it is a 'dog eat dog world'

For instance Buddhism is not the little timid practice many believe it to be, they know if an individual is a 'natural born killer', and will for example, if trust worthy, give that person a job as a body guard, or arrange them in a mercy kill to make right their Dharma and Karma.

If it's a dog eat dog world (and it still is to some degree), then the proper response is "Let's make it less of one", not, "Then I'm justified in being a dog and eating whomever I can". The latter part is generally implicit and unspoken, but evident in the actions of many people I've met who take a very dog-eat-dog world viewpoint.

I'm all for better identification and management of people who are true sociopaths. I applaud anyone who has the stomach for this kind of work long term, but who doesn't let it erode their faith in humanity overall. I think of the stereotypical police detective hero in film noir -- unafraid of the dark side of humanity and flirting with nihilism, but in the end triumphant in the knowledge that he's made the world a little brighter, at least temporarily.

 

[freddy47]

reddy47, your posts were not what prompted my reply -- I was speaking more to hiphophippy and Biovail. I actually agree with you about fighting back in self defense.

My mistake.

I actually agree with you about fighting back in self defense. I'm just against being violent in any situation that's capable of being handled without violence, which is not what you're describing.

As am I. Violence IMO is only necessary when all other solutions have been utterly exhausted. Again if someone were trying to hurt/kill me and I could somehow disable him without killing him I would. I don't want to kill anyone, but if I have to I will.

I don't think the unfortunate necessity of using violence to stop people who'll only deal in violence logically justifies having a low threshold for deeming any situation worthy of violent intervention. "I was raised on the hard streets, so look at me wrong and I'll start swinging" is pure operant conditioning. It's not a reasoned or reasonable position, and certainly not one that produces the least suffering for all.

I've known some people that are like that. And to be honest those guys just don't know what diplomacy is. I remember one particular incident especially. This guy was at a party. He got belligerently drunk. Started hitting on the girls in a fuck up sort of way. (asking them if they wanna fuck, continuing to talk to them after the girls told him that they were not interested, stuff like that) Eventually he sat down on this couch with this one girl that just wanted to be left alone. He started hitting on her touching her leg and shit. I sat myself down on a chair and observed just to make sure he didn't cross a line. (for all I knew the girl didn't mind) Eventually the girl told him to fuck off and slapped him. Then he got angry and started aggressively touching her. At that point I stood up and told him to leave her alone and get the fuck out of the house. He stood up and starting threatening me.

Eventually me and my friend who hosted the party had to physically and painfully subdue him. It wasn't fun. But that was the only way of making him see that his behavior was wrong. We HAD to resort to violence.

Which brings me to my next point.

Nor does the necessity of using violence to stop the relentlessly violent render the quest for nonviolent solutions a futile one. That's like saying vaccines and antibiotics are all futile, because there are some bacteria we'll never kill.

Sometimes nonviolent solutions are futile. By all means search for a nonviolent solution. Search exhaustively. Try them all out, doesn't work? Try them again. But in the end if nonviolence isn't working then it simply isn't working. Sometimes a slap on the wrist works. Sometimes it doesn't. Now and then you need to hammer someone down for them to see the error of their ways.

I'm all for better identification and management of people who are true sociopaths.

I've always wondered, is being a sociopath a form of mental illness. And if it is, is their perhaps a treatment?

I applaud anyone who has the stomach for this kind of work long term, but who doesn't let it erode their faith in humanity overall. I think of the stereotypical police detective hero in film noir -- unafraid of the dark side of humanity and flirting with nihilism, but in the end triumphant in the knowledge that he's made the world a little brighter, at least temporarily.

My uncle was a cop and he has this attitude towards life. A lot of his friends do as well. In the end though I wonder if he still thinks that he has made the world a brighter place. He talks about it sometimes. In the end it seems like he retired not because he couldn't do the job anymore, but because he had seen too much of the dark side of humanity.

 

[panic in paradise]

If it's a dog eat dog world (and it still is to some degree), then the proper response is "Let's make it less of one", not, "Then I'm justified in being a dog and eating whomever I can". The latter part is generally implicit and unspoken, but evident in the actions of many people I've met who take a very dog-eat-dog world viewpoint.

I'm all for better identification and management of people who are true sociopaths. I applaud anyone who has the stomach for this kind of work long term, but who doesn't let it erode their faith in humanity overall. I think of the stereotypical police detective hero in film noir -- unafraid of the dark side of humanity and flirting with nihilism, but in the end triumphant in the knowledge that he's made the world a little brighter, at least temporarily.

I must agree, and will add that, maybe the more we allow the harsher realities of life to remain hidden, the more will continue to successfully carry out the attitude of "Then I'm justified in being a dog".

Or maybe the eventual acceptance of how what we assume dangerous for the majority to have the knowledge of, the controlling minority will begin to take other liberties and advantage with. And no matter in what manner sensitive information is kept and practiced, once the majority wises up all bets are off.

My uncle was a cop and he has this attitude towards life. A lot of his friends do as well. In the end though I wonder if he still thinks that he has made the world a brighter place. He talks about it sometimes. In the end it seems like he retired not because he couldn't do the job anymore, but because he had seen too much of the dark side of humanity.

I would thank him for that where he served...

 

[hiphophippy]

freddy47, your posts were not what prompted my reply -- I was speaking more to hiphophippy and Biovail. I actually agree with you about fighting back in self defense. I'm just against being violent in any situation that's capable of being handled without violence, which is not what you're describing.

I don't think the unfortunate necessity of using violence to stop people who'll only deal in violence logically justifies having a low threshold for deeming any situation worthy of violent intervention. "I was raised on the hard streets, so look at me wrong and I'll start swinging" is pure operant conditioning. It's not a reasoned or reasonable position, and certainly not one that produces the least suffering for all.

Nor does the necessity of using violence to stop the relentlessly violent render the quest for nonviolent solutions a futile one. That's like saying vaccines and antibiotics are all futile, because there are some bacteria we'll never kill.

Where did I say that? Most of my more extreme postings are jokes because the majority of people on here are not mature enough to have a cool rational discussion; especially when they are the ones being forced into a corner so so speak. That corner being that their philosophical position is a crock of shit with very little backing that has not been extrapolated to it's axioms.

Reason is hardly a place to interject emotions. I'm sorry I'm the only Vulcan in the room but a lot of peoples, "reason based philosophical" views are nothing more that the bashing together of their emotions and something they read on the internet or heard from their mommy. actually it's a lot more bulshit than theat but I'm tired of typing so IDGAF.

If it's a dog eat dog world (and it still is to some degree), then the proper response is "Let's make it less of one", not, "Then I'm justified in being a dog and eating whomever I can". The latter part is generally implicit and unspoken, but evident in the actions of many people I've met who take a very dog-eat-dog world viewpoint.

If we're still arguing about who's bullshit smells better the world will continue to stink.

 

[XThexXTank]

Human morals are made up as what we as a society percieve what is wrong/right. In reality though, there is no moral or immoral.

 

[panic in paradise]

Human morals are made up as what we as a society percieve what is wrong/right. In reality though, there is no moral or immoral.

maybe there is no moral or immoral, but there is accepting and cooperative.