What would it take for you to kill without guilt?
- Thread starter Pinocchio's Hoof
- Start date
)the only legal repercussions is if someone starts bragging about murder, as for detailed opinion, do you mean as in how you would kill someone like to stick a toothpick in someones eye and use it as a lollipop if you caught them in your house. I don't see any problems with legality unless you have something to hide...........Hmmmm:bugeye:
I have a b/w Jack russell mix called 'sally' and she's about as useful as a guinnea pig when it comes to protecting me. she's happy to growl at me if I'm on the P.c. to long though, i tried to put a cam shot of her as my Avatar but it wouldn't take it as kb was to big and I don't wat to do to make it smaller....Jack Russells rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right, so I am saying if you can't gauge their intent then you have no idea what their mindset is in which case they may just be victims of society IOW you and the government are partially responsible for them being there. If the burglary is drugs related for example it's the gov's fault for not erradicting the problem in the first place. It's all about cause and reaction and the reaction ie shooting someone is normally blind of the cause. Just because because the law allows you to shoot someone entering your house with intent to steel or harm does not make it moral to shoot them in my opinion.
This attitude is so typical of American trigger happy individuals. 'Shoot em first and ask questions later'.
Watch the youtube link a few posts ago.
I can't really say...
I know its possible, but the circumstances seem to be very, very difficult to fully gauge. It I was attacked and outnumbered, I would quickly go into kill mode if I couldn't find an alternative...namely escape. I really try to avoid it though, because releasing those chemical combinations into my blood has affects I am trying to avoid. They ravage your senses numb. You really do have to shut off certain parts in order to switch in kill mode.
I could think of many things, I am very territorial, if someone breaks into my home, starts swinging their dicks around while brandishing a knife and threatening me, he would die or he would have less then 2 seconds to kill me.
I wouldn't even bother to think about this question if that happened.
What I was trying to get at, was that for myself the situations are so many, though none of them are preferable. It is better not to be in a situation where you have to kill, as the whole act robs you of precious time needed to escape the cycles.
And also if they say something that can be classified as religious, political, racial or sexist hatred.
The Forum Rules already sanction what can be said in this regard.
Ie. If someone said, for example "I would feel no guilt over killing a Muslim/Christian/black/liberal/homosexual", this would probably get deleted.
So this is the sort of input you probably won't get in this thread, even though such input would reflect the actual state of affairs regarding people's stance on killing without guilt.
Ok, I can't comment on forum rules as i'm a noobie.
I feel if you could give an adequate statement which gave you ground's for an extremist stance your outlook could be debated.
I.e. if you said I would kill a muslim because they are terrorist's, then the statement is stupid without factual base. the same would be if you said....
I would kill americans because they have invaded the middle east this statement is as stupid because the armed forces under the command of the government has invaded so your problem would be with the government.
I think it would depend on how you put it across if in doubt you could PM a moderator
i feel you have something to add but are wary of how it would be recieved
A jelly donut
lol......:jason::runaway:
I don't think those so-called "extremists" debate much.
To understand an "extremist", one would first need to be an extremist oneself (although not necessarily extremist about the same thing).
I think many people underestimate the cruelty humans are capable of.
But consider the Milgram Experiment, for example.
That's ridiculous, and irrelevant. Listen, you have no business being a parent until you get past this idea.
If someone breaks into my house, my #1 responsibility is to protect my two year old and my wife. Why that person is in my house is completely irrelevant. To do anything less than whatever I thought I had to do to protect them would be not only callous, it would be criminal cowardice.
I think your right the cruelty mankind is capable of is underestimated, perhaps some can feel better as they feel the blame for the pain they inflict lies on the biology teacher.
I believe any one will kill under the right circumstance, it's in our nature
PH that doesnt mean that afterwards we wont feel guilt for it
take the example of a couple who have been together for 50 years and one has terminal cancer so the other helps him/her to end there life. Now do you think that the remaining partner is going to feel no guilt?
take the example of a couple who have been together for 50 years and one has terminal cancer so the other helps him/her to end there life. Now do you think that the remaining partner is going to feel no guilt?
you have to protect your family sam
i will kill to protect my family
You might want to delete that post.
I doubt the people who took part in the milgram experiment felt much guilt.
It depends on how much pain your partner was in if it is a mercy killing there shouldn't be that much guilt, as i feel you would have overcome that to perform the act.
Most of the guilt will be forced on you by society's reaction, and you would go to court where again they enforce guilt on you, I think the guilt in these cases are caused externaly.
The answer is in the question for me.
It would take me feeling right in doing so.
If I felt my actions were righteous and justified, I would have no problem.
It's not ridiculous that you are partially responsible for an asailant being in your home. You are part of society right? And society in some way has have let the asailant down, whether that be lack of money, support or advice, either way the root problem can easily be solved in a fully functioning society.
Unfortunatly America is far from fully functioning!
I agree that in most cases dysfunctional people in society are society's children and fault.
I also think that our "justice" system is in serious trouble and rather than working to rehabilitate our failures, it aims to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist.
I agree with all this, and I agree that we all have a part to play.
That said...
If anyone breaks into my house (man or beast) I will do what I must to protect those I care for - and not feel the least bit of remorse.
No joy in it, but no remorse either.
Furthermore, you know nothing about 15ofthe19, how he lives or what he does for a living.
For all you know, he could spend his time working to improve prison conditions - he could be a social worker - he could vote for politicians that work towards fixing bringing rehabilitation into the prison system - he could more a part of the cure than the problem.
It is awfully short-sighted to blindly pass that judgement on someone you do not know and, in my book, amounts to an unwarranted accusation.
Regardless, even if he isn't, he has a fundamental, intrinsic right to pritec himself and those he loves from those out to do them harm.
Why not just free every person in prison because it's not his or her fault - it's ours.
Yes, we need to accept accountability for our failures - but at the same time we need to take responsibility to correct the failing system, and a simple mea culpa does not accomplish that.
People are put behind bars because they are dangerous, regardless whose fault it is.
You go ahead and discuss the problems of the person in your home.
I'm going to do what I can to try and fix the problems we face in this society, but not risk the life of my family to do so.