Murder

[ramenkage]

Are there any circumstances in which you should kill another human being?

[Jade]

No.

None whatsoever. Even if that person killed someone really important to you, you still have no right at all to kill him/her. You would be doing the same stupid thing that person did.

I think everyone deserves to live, but unfortunately, not all people do, so murder occurs. Which completely sucks. ~_~

But I say no. I don't think there is any circumstance in which you should, or are allowed to kill another being.

[Ronin]

Self Defence.

Yes.

[Sempfy]

I'm with Ronin on this one.

[Ronin]

If someone comes at you with the intent to kill, what are you gonna do?

Stand there and wait for death?

No you're gonna prove that your Kung Fu is betta!!

[Sempfy]

And kick that muddafu**a's ass! :headbang: :toocool: :whatevah: :face82:

[Ronin]

Hell yeah. Serious, this world will get so soft with this "No Killing" shite, then an evil race of aliens is gonna walk in and take us over...

You guys do realize you are acting rather French =\

[Mashed Potato]

If anyone ever steals my socks, they deserve to be murdered

=]

[Ronin]

If anyone ever steals my socks, they deserve to be murdered

=]

You tell em Mashy...

[Mir♠gio]

What Ronin said.

[ramenkage]

there are many reasons why a person should die
1. euthanasia, if there is no chance of recovery in the context of the vegetative state, or if simply living is causing more, than death is the better alternative
2. if the person is a threat to innocents
3. if by sacificing the person will save others (more than one)

there are probably more reasons

[Ronin]

There are people I know, that I don't hang out with all the time, that I would take a bullet for. Call it a sense of honour, but those people are what makes this world good.

[ramenkage]

i think your answer is in the wrong thread, but meh i guess it relates
suicide, murder of self its all the same =/

[Malicious insomniac]

i'm with kenshin on this one, every person deserves a chance at life. If a person comes at you with the intent to kill, i will try all means to disable the person without taking his/her life. If that cannot be done, and u've reached the last straw, then i would take that life in order to preserve my own.

I guess what i'm saying is that i would try every single method to disable and not kill a person unless there is no other option left...

[ramenkage]

ummm youre not as skilled as kenshin. its most likely that youll get killed before you disable your attacker. in order to disable someone you need to be several times more skillful than them.

[nightdevil]

when.. by killing you can save thousands and thousands of people?

ok i think that's a monster, not human.

[ramenkage]

when.. by killing you can save thousands and thousands of people?
ever heard of hitler?
many heroic attempts have been made on his life

wait who is the moster the one being killed or the killer?

[Schoulayer]

There are some situations where murder is justified. Immediate self defense of yourself, or loved ones obviously.

But I would go one step furthur personally. If theres a SEVERE INJUSTICE done and the law fails, I would sometimes resort to murder. Say for instance somebody rapes one of your loved ones (sister, wife, ect). And he gets off without any penalty because there wasn't enough proof (despite her witness). I would probably kill that man. Again, if somebody killed one of my loved ones and got away with it legally, they're mine. Or that insurance scheme, where one truck gets in front of a car, and another to its side just as the truck in front slams on their breaks. If one of my family or friends was critically injured from something like that *and* they had the gull to turn around and sue my family/friends on top of it, they're definately mine.

Basically, anybody who seriously harms my friends or family without provocation and gets away with it. I've only watched the anime, but, I think if Ichigo were to carve his way through soul society to rescue Rukia, it would be justified! Where's your passion?

No.

None whatsoever. Even if that person killed someone really important to you, you still have no right at all to kill him/her. You would be doing the same stupid thing that person did.

I think everyone deserves to live, but unfortunately, not all people do, so murder occurs. Which completely sucks. ~_~

But I say no. I don't think there is any circumstance in which you should, or are allowed to kill another being.

Most of the time I would allow the law to take care of it, however if the law fails, you are absolutely justified in killing a GUILTY person. You state your doing the same stupid thing that person did. This is completely false, there is a huge difference in killiing a GUILTY monster, and killing an innocent person.

Such thinking disgusts me. Move to France please.

[Sempfy]

^ Great post up there, totally agree with all of it.

[Koopsta Knicca]

only if the person is fixen to really kill u then yes but other then that no....

[Jinchuu]

I might kill someone if he attempts to hurt me or anybody I know seriously otherwise I'd not harm any human being unless he asks for it and needs some lecture.

[kivol]

if they try to hurt me or my family ban in the face with a gun. and or if murder was legal not many people i don't like, would be walking around. lol

[Jedimuse]

I might kill someone if he attempts to hurt me or anybody I know seriously otherwise I'd not harm any human being unless he asks for it and needs some lecture.

I agree with u, the only way i think i could possible kill someone was in self defense or protect family/friend. I wouldn't want to die and I think most of us don't either (unless they are suicidal), so I would feel bad about doing it. I wouldn't be only hurting the person but everyone he knows and care about them. It's a big burden.

[ramenkage]

how do you feel about killing an enemy on the front in a mutual war?

[Jedimuse]

i hate the idea of war, but men are savages so they go out to fight. i personally wouldn't go to the war front, but if the war came to me like a surprise attack or something, i would defend myself.

[nighthawksw]

i agree with ramen, if killing a person saves other lives, and there is no other option, i believe killing is acceptable. I think killing should always be a last resort, and that it's best if you can merely eliminate a threat by paralysing or neutralizing them >_< But if the situation calls, the kill can be made.

As for the war comment~ i think war's stupid, and putting your life on the line for a goal is foolish. The idea to stand in peaceful revolt or opposition is ideal, but to go out with the intention of eliminating everybody who has a different opinion is pathetic. I will never go into war by choice~ war's a game of power, of who has enough power to force their ideas/ideals on others, and i think it's unjust and on equal standings to terrorism; both have hte same goal, to subdue the other side and enforce a single idea over others

[ramenkage]

As for the war comment~ i think war's stupid, and putting your life on the line for a goal is foolish. The idea to stand in peaceful revolt or opposition is ideal, but to go out with the intention of eliminating everybody who has a different opinion is pathetic. I will never go into war by choice~ war's a game of power, of who has enough power to force their ideas/ideals on others, and i think it's unjust and on equal standings to terrorism; both have hte same goal, to subdue the other side and enforce a single idea over others
but on the front how do you feel about shooting at another person? and as i said this is a theoretical war, with mutual participants.

[Jedimuse]

i agree with ramen, if killing a person saves other lives, and there is no other option, i believe killing is acceptable. I think killing should always be a last resort, and that it's best if you can merely eliminate a threat by paralysing or neutralizing them >_< But if the situation calls, the kill can be made.

As for the war comment~ i think war's stupid, and putting your life on the line for a goal is foolish. The idea to stand in peaceful revolt or opposition is ideal, but to go out with the intention of eliminating everybody who has a different opinion is pathetic. I will never go into war by choice~ war's a game of power, of who has enough power to force their ideas/ideals on others, and i think it's unjust and on equal standings to terrorism; both have hte same goal, to subdue the other side and enforce a single idea over others
I couldn't have said it better.

[Zero]

As for the war comment~ i think war's stupid, and putting your life on the line for a goal is foolish. The idea to stand in peaceful revolt or opposition is ideal, but to go out with the intention of eliminating everybody who has a different opinion is pathetic. I will never go into war by choice~ war's a game of power, of who has enough power to force their ideas/ideals on others, and i think it's unjust and on equal standings to terrorism; both have hte same goal, to subdue the other side and enforce a single idea over others

Don't forget, a good percent of soldiers are in war not because they want to. But because they are forced too. If you join the army, you get to go to college for free, along other things. Which is appealing to some, and defending their country(Albeit, you don't defend it sometimes) is also not something bad to brag about. Being titled a deserter is not something nice though.

[Jedimuse]

it really sucks that people coming from low-income homes join the military just so they could better their situation by getting an education. But then again they are making a choice to which they know the consequences. They know they will problably go to war, so when they join, they are agreeing to fight/kill the enemy.
If u don't believe in or don't wan to kill anyone, then don't enlist.

[WarLord]

I believe there's a good and bad side to everything. We make choices depending on what consequences we feel is best. So, can murder be justifiable? The philosophical answer would be yes and no. However, most ppl are never satisfied with such answers. Everyone has to take a side rather than looking at things at a concrete and formal level. If you look hard enough, you can find something good within an immoral deed, and something bad within a moral one. Yet, everyone is different, so we choose to believe in things that we want to, rather than looking at the big picture. I guess I'll always be the middle man, lol.

[Alchemy]

On murder, I believ that it can be justified. I'm not going to go all hero and be "no one should ever die!" because it's not like that in the world. Some people are naturally bad. Go read Death Note and you'll see what I mean. I can really relate to Raito-kun.

[ramenkage]

question is, is death the solution?
will killing one man matter?
if they successfully killed hitler would the nazi fall?
so basically, does one person make a difference?

[WarLord]

question is, is death the solution?
will killing one man matter?
if they successfully killed hitler would the nazi fall?
so basically, does one person make a difference?

It's not that one person does make a difference, it's more like one person can make a difference. However, an individual's impact on a group of people will usually only work if the Zeitgeist [Change of time] works in their favor. Sometimes a person can do something that is way ahead of their time.

[For example: Charles Darwin's theory of Evolutionism was way ahead of the zeitgeist, it took years before Charles had the courage to bring this theory to society. He probably wouldn't have brought it out if someone didn't threaten to beat him to it.]

Anyone can pretty much justify why it's best to take the life of another human being. If those justifications fall out of a higher authority's rationale, then they consider it to be "Criminal" and "Immoral". That's just the way most societies work. The concept of right and wrong is too abstract to think about in a logical manner.

[nighthawksw]

Don't forget, a good percent of soldiers are in war not because they want to. But because they are forced too. If you join the army, you get to go to college for free, along other things. Which is appealing to some, and defending their country(Albeit, you don't defend it sometimes) is also not something bad to brag about. Being titled a deserter is not something nice though.

that's true, you get paid off to do things that could go against ur ideals, and strips you of all right as an individual. That's just dandy..i'm sorry, but i'm not subscribing for that bribe >_> I'm staying out of the military, and every pull in i can avoid. I'm glad there are ways to defend the country and it's ideals, but they should find another way than forcing soldiers to go out into a war-front chosen by a man voted into office, based on trust that they'll do the right thing. If you agree with the ideas behind a war, and approve of the actions chosen for it, you should be able to go...but if you dont, i feel you shouldn't have to or else be called a "deserter".

I personally feel, that if there's a more civil way to solve a problem (once again, civil being based on personal opinions and ideals), then murder shouldn't take place. I guess i view murder as a last resort, but justifiable in the proper circumstances. Every choice people make is based on their own weight-scale of pro's and con's to a decision. You dont need to verbalize that~ everybody knows there are both good sides and bad sides to anything...even if they dont conciously realize it ^_^

[Pipp-ORK]

Self defence. I have a black belt 4th degree in karazenpo go shinjutsu, but in our dojou we have a creed that specifies we don't use it for any reason OTHER than self defence..Besides, I was always taught that murder was a "Very VERY BAD DEED!!" by my Mother. That never stopped me from getting into loads of fights in grade-school, but I'd never murder anyone apart from the reason mentioned above. Killing someone is disturbing, and my Uncle was killed by a drunk with a fire-arm a few years back, but even then I wouldn't go that far..

[kivol]

yeah like others said defense. if he is dangering your family and families around you then yes. if you are straving (like in a 3rd world country) maybe.

[Zero]

yeah like others said defense. if he is dangering your family and families around you then yes. if you are straving (like in a 3rd world country) maybe.

Funny how you use the pronoun 'he'.. Our current society's people are so sexist(And yes, that includes me). :(

To your 'Straving' comment:

Do you mean strafing, striving, starving or straining?

I'll assume starving for the next comment:

Do you think that it's right to kill people just so you can survive? That's selfish, among other things.

[ramenkage]

Funny how you use the pronoun 'he'.. Our current society's people are so sexist(And yes, that includes me).
he is an acceptable form of he/she because he/she is not a a distraction pronoun

[Zero]

he is an acceptable form of he/she because he/she is not a a distraction pronoun

I find s/he or 'someone' or 'a person' less sexist. Don't you think so?

[ramenkage]

nope
its only sexist if you intend it to be

[Zero]

nope
its only sexist if you intend it to be

So thinking men or women are inferior isn't sexist, if I don't think it's sexist?

[ramenkage]

it is sexist because you intended it to be sexist...
if i said you were gay, is that an offense? using gay as the synonym for happy

[Zero]

it is sexist because you intended it to be sexist...
if i said you were gay, is that an offense? using gay as the synonym for happy

Answer my question, is it sexist if I think that men or women are inferior, but I don't intend it to be sexist.

No it would not, because then it would mean I were happy.

[ramenkage]

Answer my question, is it sexist if I think that men or women are inferior, but I don't intend it to be sexist.
i did answer...
it is sexist, because that is a sexist belief. how is using he instead of he/she sexist. answer that

[eze67]

i believe killing another person is okay in two circumstances.
self defence
and the death penalty.

if someone were to put my life or my families in danger i would not hesitate killing them, and i believe that if you plan and follow through killing them(not acidental) then you should be killed.

[Pipp-ORK]

I agree with you, eze67. If you actually PLAN to kill someone for something they've done, it's just as bad. Personally, I don't think I'd be able to kill anybody unless they've done something really bad, like indanger my family/friends..

[Koopsta Knicca]

I could kill a pseron quick becuase I get mad that easily... but I'm not going to cause that could end ur whole life and plus I don't wanna go to hell and stuff...

[Schoulayer]

I agree with you, eze67. If you actually PLAN to kill someone for something they've done, it's just as bad. Personally, I don't think I'd be able to kill anybody unless they've done something really bad, like indanger my family/friends..

I disagree. What if the law failed, and a murderer was set free because of insufficient evidence, despite the fact that you SAW them commit murder and kill your friend or family member?

Would it be wrong to plan out his murder and kill him for what he did? I don't think so - and I would kill him. Its not immediate self-defense, but I would still do it.

[eze67]

there are times when the law fails, it's an imperfect thing. sometimes juries decide to make a point to the government or established law and choose to say the murderer is not guilty, either for political reasons or personal. if that were the cas i believe that it'd be alright to kill that person for what they had done. but i wouldn't do it out of vengence, because then thier family might kill me out of vengence. i would in stead be inacting justice.

[crazyazn]

killling in self defense is okie
and if you were a paid/trained assassin on a job
but thats about it...
and death penalty should be dealt to those that did the killing willingly(as in for fun---like serial)

[kinonai]

If you are defending yourself, then it's fine.

Death row is murder as well though...so technically the goverment should be put to death too? And then the people that do that? And the people that do that? And them? And them? And them? (going on forever)

I think it would be worse punishment to make them sit in a cell for the rest of their life to think about what they did.

[Schoulayer]

Death row is murder as well though...so technically the goverment should be put to death too? And then the people that do that? And the people that do that? And them? And them? And them? (going on forever)

I think it would be worse punishment to make them sit in a cell for the rest of their life to think about what they did.

Your missing the point, somebody murdered another person in cold blood, so they're put to death. Somebody who murders an innocent person is different than somebody who murders a guilty person. A prison guard who flips that switch isn't guilty of anything.

Do you honestly see no difference in killing a killer than killing a random person walking down the street?

That being said I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous criminals. Like the kind of people who kill children.

I've brought this up several times but I'm curious as to your opinion on it. Say you witness somebody kill a friend or family member of yours, for no reason - and they get off because of lack of evidence. Then you kill them - does that make you "wrong"? I think not.

[BlueKyroDragon]

you make a very good point, a very good one indead, and personaly, if I saw someone kill my famiely in cold blood, their death would be all thats important to me (sound familer?). But, this world isent Naruto or what not, killing is killing no matter what, why does killing someone who kills not count as murder? The answer is that there is no answer. The resolution to this problem lies souly in belifs and views of the ones in power, but isent it alwasy that way?

[MooL]

killling in self defense is okie
and if you were a paid/trained assassin on a job
but thats about it...
and death penalty should be dealt to those that did the killing willingly(as in for fun---like serial)

Among other things, being paid to kill someone does not pass for "okay". It is still murder. Being rewarded for "doing your job" does not justify the crime. You kill someone for those reasons is the equivalent of murder. An asassin is a murderer.


Say you witness somebody kill a friend or family member of yours, for no reason - and they get off because of lack of evidence. Then you kill them - does that make you "wrong"? I think not.

Unfortunately, it is this kind of thinking that causes a vast number of innocent people to die. It makes me think of arrogance in the due process of the law. I mean, what good are the rules if no one respects them? In that specific case, I think that there is hardly any good outcome for taking the law into your own hands.

Granted that hundreds of killers are released back into the streets, but what good does it do to kill a man in cold revenge? It won't bring back the one(s) you've lost. In turn, it makes you a killer and you've quite possibly killed someone else's loved one.

The cycle never ends.

[leafdeathstar19]

I say that murders should die becuase they killed another person... Like the bible said or something like that "thy shall not commit murder"

[Ryudell]

Uh... this killing cycle never ends. By killing one person in the name of righteousness for another, we trigger a chain reaction. What's fair and not depends on the individual, and thus what seems 'fair' to some is 'unfair' to others and vice versa. To me who believes in the afterlife, killing criminals as punishment to them is a bit skewed, since Judgement will be passed. The heaviest crime is to kill another human, and evethough the equal punishment would be to kill the murderer, it actually makes more sense to use him as a warning to public. For me who believes in the afterlife, he who commits sins is already promised punishment, so it is perhaps more necessary to warn others from comitting so.

Quote from XXXHolic: "Killing someone is unforgivable. He who kills takes on the burden of the murder, and it is a very heavy burden indeed. For those who know it, they will never dare to kill another."

[Schoulayer]

I believe your justified in killing somebody if:
1. Somebody is attacking, you can use lethal force in defense - this includes rape.
2. In defense of somebody else you know against a violent attacker - if you saw a friend you work with being assaulted by three guys with knives.
3. Killing somebody you KNOW to be a murderer who got away with murder - as in my hypothetical situation.
4. If somebody breaks into your household and your not sure if they're armed, and they don't respond to you when you command them to leave your house.
5. Soldiers in time of war, if the war is justified.


Unfortunately, it is this kind of thinking that causes a vast number of innocent people to die. It makes me think of arrogance in the due process of the law. I mean, what good are the rules if no one respects them? In that specific case, I think that there is hardly any good outcome for taking the law into your own hands.

Granted that hundreds of killers are released back into the streets, but what good does it do to kill a man in cold revenge? It won't bring back the one(s) you've lost. In turn, it makes you a killer and you've quite possibly killed someone else's loved one.

The cycle never ends.

Arrogance in the due process of law? During the American revolution, did the fore-fathers of the American constitution think about "british law" before they revolted? No - because it was wrong at the time. The law is here to protect us from criminals and violators, that doesn't mean its infallible.

That being said I don't take the law into my own hands on a whim. I'd first let the murderer be tried, its only if he gets away with it in the court of law, and is released that the law has failed. In that hypothetical situation I WOULD take the law into my own hands. "Legality" is the last thing I'd be thinking about.

I realize even murderers have loved ones - does that mean they can go around killing other peoples loved ones at will? The same could be said about islamic terrorists - should countries just ignore their acts? Try to appease them (france..)? Or should we go in and annihilate them. I prefer the active approach.

And by the way, if there was any way to prevent a murderer who gets off free from being in society ASIDE from killing them I wouldn't be against it. Killing them seems like the only choice in that circumstance, letting them do as they please is not an option. Your not only "getting revenge" your saving everybody they might murder in the future.

That being said I do believe righteous vengeance IS a reason to kill.

[Hinatetsu]

I believe your justified in killing somebody if:
1. Somebody is attacking, you can use lethal force in defense - this includes rape.
2. In defense of somebody else you know against a violent attacker - if you saw a friend you work with being assaulted by three guys with knives.
3. Killing somebody you KNOW to be a murderer who got away with murder - as in my hypothetical situation.
4. If somebody breaks into your household and your not sure if they're armed, and they don't respond to you when you command them to leave your house.
5. Soldiers in time of war, if the war is justified.



Arrogance in the due process of law? During the American revolution, did the fore-fathers of the American constitution think about "british law" before they revolted? No - because it was wrong at the time. The law is here to protect us from criminals and violators, that doesn't mean its infallible.

That being said I don't take the law into my own hands on a whim. I'd first let the murderer be tried, its only if he gets away with it in the court of law, and is released that the law has failed. In that hypothetical situation I WOULD take the law into my own hands. "Legality" is the last thing I'd be thinking about.

I realize even murderers have loved ones - does that mean they can go around killing other peoples loved ones at will? The same could be said about islamic terrorists - should countries just ignore their acts? Try to appease them (france..)? Or should we go in and annihilate them. I prefer the active approach.

And by the way, if there was any way to prevent a murderer who gets off free from being in society ASIDE from killing them I wouldn't be against it. Killing them seems like the only choice in that circumstance, letting them do as they please is not an option. Your not only "getting revenge" your saving everybody they might murder in the future.

That being said I do believe righteous vengeance IS a reason to kill.



I completely agree with Schoulayer. He/she took all the words right out of my mouth! (I'm not feeling too intelligent right now)

[omen]

My neighbor killed someone in his house. He was gone for 10 years and I just saw him yestarday, he rolled by my house to see his old house. He talked about the killing like it was nothing, then he just took off.

Dunno, I guess it's just weird to have someone with a life under his belt talk to yoU about what he did like he'll do it again.

Interesting thread this one, lots of valid points.

[Kiechi]

Are there any circumstances in which you should kill another human being?

This is rather a very stupid question... unlike "religion", this isn't much an controversial issue.

The answer to your question and how Ronin perfectly put it...

Yes. Self-defence.