Would You Kill Someone?

Off Topic
122

[quote]

BostonBarrister asked:
Could any guy really tell me he wouldn’t kill someone who raped and beat his daughter?

Varqanir responded:
Not if he is an honest man.

pushharder objected:
Then place a huge, black, felt tip pen mark in the column under “dishonest man” for me.

BostonBarrister then queried:
Really Push? You wouldn’t, if you had the chance?

Varqanir wrote:

Boston, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that my buddy Push would most definitely blow several large holes in the head and torso of a man who had just raped and beaten his daughter. As would I. As would any man. Anyone who says he wouldn’t is a liar, like I said earlier.

However, it looks to me as if Push – astonishingly enough – misunderstood my statement and took issue with it.

Push: read Boston’s question one more time, slowly and out loud. Then read my response. Then read your response. Is that really what you wanted to say?

pushharder wrote:
I’m not sure where the miscommunication was but here we go: you can mark me down as a dishonest man if a dishonest man would without hesitation end the life of his daughter’s rapist. Now I would actually go one step further at the risk of sounding like an internet warrior and say that the rapist would probably die a slow and painful death.[/quote]

The miscommunication occurred somewhere near the top – somewhere up there in the ether and penumbras of the statement… and in using the word “man” and unclear reference pronouns too many times in one sentence.

We’ll mark you as an honest man, because it’s both more apt and fits the original point; to rephrase: only a dishonest man (“Man A”) would lie and say he (Man A again) would refrain from killing (slowly and painfully) a rapist (“Man B”) who attacked and violated his (“Man A’s”) daughter.

Clear as mud, and written in perfect legalese, but I think it conveys the point unambiguously now.

123

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’m not sure where the miscommunication was but here we go: you can mark me down as a dishonest man if a dishonest man would without hesitation end the life of his daughter’s rapist. Now I would actually go one step further at the risk of sounding like an internet warrior and say that the rapist would probably die a slow and painful death.[/quote]

That’s what I thought. The misunderstanding (or “miscommunication”, if you want to shift the blame onto me :P) was this:

Boston asked “can any man really tell me that he would not kill someone who had raped and beaten his daughter?” I then responded, “not if he is an honest man.” In other words, “if he is an honest man, then no, he cannot tell you that.” You apparently took my statement to mean, “if he is an honest man, then no, he would not kill the rapist,” which is 180 degrees from what I meant.

I think every man would – and should – make his daughter’s rapist die a slow and painful death. An honest man would admit this. A dishonest man would not.

Boston understood me, but then he’s a lawyer. :wink:

124

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Tell me, Boston: how much do laws concerning the concept of “justifiable homicide” vary throughout the United States? I do know that laws in Oklahoma and Colorado allow the use of force, including deadly force, in defending one’s home, but I imagine this is not the case in all states.[/quote]

They vary quite a bit. The majority of the states require an attempted retreat before you use force (any force, not just deadly force), and if the person is leaving and is no longer a threat to you you’re technically not supposed to do anything but notify the police.

Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Montana and Idaho I think all don’t require you retreat. At the very least I know Florida and Texas don’t. Stopping a crime is a tough one to prove in a lot of states, although the laws are very lenient in Florida for stopping Class A/B (or 1/2, depending on where you live) felonies.

It’s a tough call, and living in Europe or Canada you’re basically better off letting yourself be killed and raped because they’re almost comically anti-self defense, but you can get avoid a fair amount of legal trouble in most of the states.

125

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Boston understood me, but then he’s a lawyer. ;)[/quote]

So he took logic courses in college, eh?

Most logic is illogical. Fuck the LSAT.

126

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Dedicated wrote:
The original question reminds me of the movie Deliverance. Burt’s character easily took to the task without hesitation. Jon Voight’s character struggled greatly with killing, first with the deer, and then successfully with the man. I’d like to think under those circumstances I would be like Burt.

D

But would you squeal like a pig?[/quote]

That’s a big negative Varq,no Ned Beaty here, in that case I would be dead before it came to that. :slight_smile:

D

128

Be like Vincent, my friends.

129


If we are going to get into movie references regarding the ramifications/philosophy on killing, these are my picks (off the top of my head)…
Straw Dogs(What does it take for a pacifist to kill?)
The Unforgiven(“All a man has” speech)
The Green Berets (Duke/David Janssen scene)
Warhunt(John Saxon/Robert Redford)
The Wild Bunch/Major Dundee (Peckinpah)
All Quiet on the Western Front(Ernest Borgnine’s character “Kat”)
The Big Red One(Marvin vs.Hammill)
For the limitations of film, these get it close, I’m sure there are many I’ve missed…

130

Methinks pacifism is evil.

How could you spare the life of a wicked person at the expense of your loved ones?

132

Don’t knock it till you try it

But if you try it, you’re going to prison. So take the good with the bad.

133

[quote]Dirty Tiger wrote:
Methinks pacifism is evil.

How could you spare the life of a wicked person at the expense of your loved ones?
[/quote]

Not only that. If, because you abhor the thought of taking human life, you fail to kill a murderer when you have the chance, then you have the blood of all of his future victims on your hands, not only those of your family that he murders along with you.

134

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Boston understood me, but then he’s a lawyer. ;)[/quote]

Can I still be an honest man?

136

I wasn’t sure if I could kill. But now that I’m on the Creatine, I can’t stop thinking about killing.

DB

137

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

No bombardments, no artillery fire, no pressing the button that launches the ICBMs. I mean mano a mano, up close and personal, look your adversary in the eyes as you squeeze the trigger, stab him in the belly, or snap his cervical vertebrae type of killing.

[/quote]

If your point is the moral implication of taking another life, and being able to deal with it, I submit the long range version counts just as much; even more so when you consider the scope of destruction and the potential scale of lives lost. They are just as dead, and you are just as responsible. Given that, and my Air Force background, would I put the pipper on the building and pickle off a laser guided bomb to kill somebody? You betcha. If the intel said there were bad guys in the building, and their deaths meant US military personnel were safer I wouldn’t hesitate.

I am a little concerned with the idea that you WANT to kill, and exploring the military to have that opportunity. None of us WANTS to kill, but we realize that someone has to be able to, in order to protect the liberty of everybody else.

As for the nitpicking that those who fought since the Civil War weren’t defending their country, while that may be technically true, defending the lives and liberty of those who cannot defend themselves anywhere in the world is still both a noble calling and an honorable pursuit. Are they killing for political reasons - no! In most cases, they are doing so in defense of the soldier to their right or left, and would gladly accept the enemy’s concession of the field of battle without loss of life.

Boy I can really see a long way from up here on my soap box!! Now it’s time for me to get down and get back to work…

Rocket

138

[quote]Rocket Scientist wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:

No bombardments, no artillery fire, no pressing the button that launches the ICBMs. I mean mano a mano, up close and personal, look your adversary in the eyes as you squeeze the trigger, stab him in the belly, or snap his cervical vertebrae type of killing.

If your point is the moral implication of taking another life, and being able to deal with it, I submit the long range version counts just as much; even more so when you consider the scope of destruction and the potential scale of lives lost. They are just as dead, and you are just as responsible. Given that, and my Air Force background, would I put the pipper on the building and pickle off a laser guided bomb to kill somebody? You betcha. If the intel said there were bad guys in the building, and their deaths meant US military personnel were safer I wouldn’t hesitate.

I am a little concerned with the idea that you WANT to kill, and exploring the military to have that opportunity. None of us WANTS to kill, but we realize that someone has to be able to, in order to protect the liberty of everybody else.

As for the nitpicking that those who fought since the Civil War weren’t defending their country, while that may be technically true, defending the lives and liberty of those who cannot defend themselves anywhere in the world is still both a noble calling and an honorable pursuit. Are they killing for political reasons - no! In most cases, they are doing so in defense of the soldier to their right or left, and would gladly accept the enemy’s concession of the field of battle without loss of life.

Boy I can really see a long way from up here on my soap box!! Now it’s time for me to get down and get back to work…

Rocket [/quote]

What’s wrong with wanting to kill people?

139

[quote]Rocket Scientist wrote:

If your point is the moral implication of taking another life, and being able to deal with it, I submit the long range version counts just as much; even more so when you consider the scope of destruction and the potential scale of lives lost. They are just as dead, and you are just as responsible. Given that, and my Air Force background, would I put the pipper on the building and pickle off a laser guided bomb to kill somebody? You betcha. If the intel said there were bad guys in the building, and their deaths meant US military personnel were safer I wouldn’t hesitate. [/quote]

I am not interested in the moral implications of killing, only the willingness of people to do it, and the circumstances under which they would. The reason I draw a distinction between short- to medium range killing and long-range killing is that as the range increases, the easier the kill becomes. At very long ranges, the weapon system used reduces personal involvement, personal risk, and by extension personal responsibility.

Choking or beating a man to death, or breaking his neck, is about as risky and personally involved as you can get. It is much more difficult than killing a man by slashing one of his major arteries, or stabbing a vital organ. The pistol is easier than the knife (and safer, because you don’t have to touch your victim), the rifle easier and safer still.

Beyond the range of a military battle rifle (and for the purposes of this argument, beyond the distance where the killer can see the blood of his victim), I contend that technology replaces human involvement to the point where although you may be responsible for a building full of corpses that you quite easily and instantly created by laser-guided missile, you would surely not feel as responsible as you would had you walked into the building and shot or stabbed all fifty of them yourself, one by one. There is a reason we give medals for doing the latter, and not the former.

[quote]
I am a little concerned with the idea that you WANT to kill, and exploring the military to have that opportunity. None of us WANTS to kill, but we realize that someone has to be able to, in order to protect the liberty of everybody else.[/quote]

I’m not sure who you’re talking to here. Surely not me. I don’t believe I ever implied that I WANT to kill, nor that I am exploring the military for that reason. I got that shit out of my system twenty years ago, in the Army.

Oh, jeez. Save it for the left-wingers, man. If you go back and read my little exchange with pushharder, you may find that I was not disputing the nobility or honor of fighting a war, nor the rectitude of fighting for any other reason than to defend your homeland. Simply that there is a difference between offense and defense, and that you can’t be “defending your country” while you are fighting in someone else’s. Semantic point, not a moral one. Surely it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that. :wink:

140

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Boston understood me, but then he’s a lawyer. :wink:

Can I still be an honest man?[/quote]

Of course, Boston. You’re the most honest lawyer I know. :slight_smile: