Theoretical Question
- Thread starter Morbuzka
- Start date
I learned it from watching Bones...
one of the criminal killers was a man who was in the army so he was a extremly good shot. He dropped from the face of the Earth (no one knew much about him) and he came back one time and killed these criminals doing amazing shots. They still had to get him though since though even if he was killing criminals.
I learned a thing or two from that show...
but basicly, murder is murder.
one of the criminal killers was a man who was in the army so he was a extremly good shot. He dropped from the face of the Earth (no one knew much about him) and he came back one time and killed these criminals doing amazing shots. They still had to get him though since though even if he was killing criminals.
I learned a thing or two from that show...
but basicly, murder is murder.
This attitude gives violent offenders the advantage. No amount of talking or reason or non-violence will do any good. They will do what they want, with no fear of any real consequences .
The idea of world peace - no violence, everyone living in harmony is noble and impossible.
There will *always* be someone willing to do anything, at any cost, to get what they want.
On a more basic level, look at the animal kingdom. Lion prides, where the big boy in charge is determined by who the toughest SOB is. Or wolf packs. Strength and violence determine the alpha male. And no matter how strong and cunning that alpha male is, someday another will come along and take his spot. Mating season for Bull Elk. I grew up in, and still live in Montana, and am a hunter. Two big bulls fighting is a powerful and awesome event to witness. And unbelievably violent.
With the animals, it is mostly instinct. Sure, some go rogue. But it still part of them, biologically.
What is man, if not an animal? For all of mans progress over the last few thousand years, those base, biological instincts are there. That's why the stereo types of men being aggressive and protective, where women are more nurturing exist. It is in our DNA. Yes, there are anomalies, but those behaviors are still there. Hello, there is death and violence in the plant world.(unless you consider a venus fly trap luring in and devouring insects non-violence)
Sure, violence begets violence. But unfortunately, sometimes violence is the answer. I don't want to go out and cause trouble, start fights, etc. But if you threaten me and mine, and trying to be reasonable fails, I will commit violence to defend myself.
If you want to be left alone, but your neighbor truly wants to kill you - wants you dead and buried - what good will talking to? Where is the middle ground? 'Well, I cant let you kill me, but I suppose you could chop some fingers off, maybe shoot me(flesh wound only, please)'
Some people are just evil. If a vigilante did go and do what you suggested, I would not morn the death's of those evil people for one minute. But neither would I stand against the courts charging him with murder. Yes, he did the world a favor, but he knew what he was doing was wrong, and choose to do it anyway. Let him suffer the consequences of his actions.
I firmly believe that there will only be peace on earth when there is nothing left alive on the planet.
TL;DR: The meek shall not inherit the earth, and good people must be prepared to defend themselves violently from those that would do them harm.
Your analogy is flawed.
In the animal and plant kingdom, violence is only shown in competition for resources, when resources are plentiful there is harmony. Human violence can literaly be 'just for the fun of it'.
Defending yourself is not the same as perpetuating violence, but allowing one person to dispense justice is insane.
And as for non-violence, do you not believe that Gandhi proved you could passively fight?
The people who would end up getting shot in prison would probably be the people in there for committing violence in the first place. For someone to go about shooting all those criminals up would be to rile the criminal occupation of the world up. I don't quite understand what your summary has to do with the text but it looks like you're just saying that self defense is OK and it is. Modern society couldn't tolerate anything close to social darwinism where people could go about killing others in the name of natural selection. It would completely override the safety that many have taken for granted. Ergo your view is unrealistic. My previous statement still stands.
Santa Bunny probably doesn't realise just how close he is to suggesting genocide is a viable solution to problems. I know this sounds harsh and it's not meant as a dig at him, just to highlite the fact that people can be so easily swayed into thinking what they are doing is right, just look at the majority of the german population during WW2.
My point was, there will always be violence, both in man kind and mother nature. And, IMHO, sometimes there comes a point where violence is the only answer. To be clear, I am not saying that the OP 's vigilante violence was the answer in this situation .
I agree with you that society today would not tolerate social Darwinism, nor should it. That kind of mindset would have us in the stone age.In no way did I advocate what the OP discussed. I simply said I would not mourn thier deaths, nor would I champion the murderer. No matter what his justifications, he committed murder and should be punished accordingly. He made his choice, and now he has to live with it.
I will say it again. I would not mourn the deaths, nor would I condone his actions. He committed the crime, he should do the time. That in no way supports vigilante justice.
So tell me, how exactly is what I said advocating genocide? I gotta say - I a having a difficult time being civil right now, because I think what you said is pretty fucked up, no matter that you said 'its not meant as a dig at him'. Which is kinda like when someone says 'with all due respect ' and then proceeds to be disrespectful.
Again, explain to me how anything I said could be remotely related to genocide
I didn't say you advocate genocide, I insinuated that you could be easily swayed with your viewpoint as it is.
You think that I could be easily swayed to support genocide. That is incredibly fucking offensive. Explain this - what did i say specifically that makes you think I could be easily swayed to a genocidal point of view?
Jesus fucking christ. I can deal with trolls, but holy shit. you have really pissed me off. Wow. I have been called a lot of things, but this is definitely takes the cake.
Jesus fucking christ. I can deal with trolls, but holy shit. you have really pissed me off. Wow. I have been called a lot of things, but this is definitely takes the cake.
I dunno man, some people could just take it that way. I'm not so swayed, but then again I don't delve into this kind of thing often. Also, Hitler was a known committer genocide who had strong Darwinist views. That was touched upon lightly by maddo previously. In all honesty I think the original question was fucking stupid because going off and killing criminals for the greater good just puts yourself in line as another criminal to take the shots. Therefore no reasonable, sane person would really do it.
