Who here thinks that you shouldnt kill a child rapist? Say there is clear evidence that they are guilty and you know without a doubt they raped that kid?

I drink non-alcoholic tom collins all the time lol :(

what about babies guys should we kill babies

what about when they're still in the mommy

that's the most wrong thing :(

If you are over 50 and the kid looks like a piece of chewed gum on the Ultrasound :\

well in the bible it says that the rapist should pay the girls father fifty shekels of silver and marry the girl for he has violated her. and never divorce her as long as he lives.

Well Im not asking what the Bible says. Im asking what you honestly and personally think. Not to mention when it comes to the law no religious beliefs should come into play.

But they do, ain't that wacky? :O

They do but they shouldnt.

I think in the Wahabbi interpretation of Islamic law, the rapist gets something like 50 lashes and the rapee gets 200 - for being provocative. Or some such nonsense.

Religion is in many ways quite idiotic.

EDIT - but none of these interpretations include capital punishment for this offense, do they? :offtopic

[quote=kahljorn;645756]
No. The act of killing (with the intent to do so) can never be right. For example, in self-defense, the act of self-defense is right, the idea of being passive and letting somebody else kill you is not right (if its wrong for you to kill them, its wrong for them to kill you); Regardless of this, it is still wrong to kill that person if you acted with the intent to do so. :) [quote]

Hmm, you just seem to say "It's wrong to kill" without saying much else here. I think it can be right to kill if you can justify it first. So, if you can prove it's right, then it's right. You have already said that that self defense killing (if it's the last resort before your own death) is "less wrong" than letting yourself die. We don't choose the wrong or the less wrong option, it's wrong or right. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's still the right one to choose.

Ok, so a blanket moral statement like "less deaths are good" might be needed to justify a war. Most wars have been "justified" at the time, sure, but I would not consider most of them just though. What counts as justification? Well, if you can convince yourself truthfully, and the population, and outside observers that your course of action is the lesser evil, then that is justified. Do what you think is the right thing to do, that's all I'm saying. The vast majority of people do anyway.

Going to war in Iraq was unjustified. Most people think that way. Justifying by telling lies and spin is hardly justice.

What is it that makes it justified/unjustified? Well, that depends on the circumstances. Would going to war save lives? Make people's lives better? Would horrendous acts be stopped? In the case of the Iraq war..

Oh, I'm not talking about a reason like "WMDs" or "terrorists" or that kind of justification - those are reasons.

Sorry, according to my morals. My main point is personal morals; if you can justify it, do it. That's not a free reign to do what you want, it's a reason to make sure what you want to do is right not only by you but by the majority of others.

I'm too hungry to really read or respond right now but congratulations to zhukov for discovering part of the criticism of my argument.

insertclappingemoticonhere

I'm not sure what you mean by this. That I'm not saying much about why its wrong to kill people, or that you don't understand my point there and that I am only saying its wrong to kill a person.
My point is that, no matter how much you can justify an action, it is never right to kill a person. The actual act of killing the person cannot be good, regardless of whatever goods are achieved. Even if you traveled back in time and killed hitler, despite all the goods it would accomplish: the actual killing of hitler would be wrong.

If you meant the first part let me know and I'll give you some actual reasons for why it's always wrong to act with the intent to kill

If by less wrong you mean equally as wrong. In this circumstance, either way, somebody was likely to die or get seriously injured, so as far as wrongness goes it is equal. The thing that makes it partially "Good" is that you were protecting yourself from serious injury.

:)

I guess.

Is that a good justification? So a small population is being exterminated by a neighbor with vastly superior numbers but they are jerk racists and just think those other persons are inferior. There will be less deaths if you just let them exterminate that populace.
Is that a just war decision on our part? Certainly, if we went to war to save this small population, there would be more deaths than if we didn't go to war. So that would make that war to save the small population, according to this justification, wrong.

What?
This is contradictory.
But you can justify anything. And justify it in front of others? Lots of people were behind the Iraq war.
Your view of morality is confusing at best. In a sense, honestly, I agree with doing what you think is right, even if it means killing somebody. But people aren't going to agree with you universally about it, and you're not going to have any ability to know the universal opinion on an act.

Shit just look at the capital punishment debate. Tons of people want it, tons of people don't. So what do you do?

I would say fuck what other people think and do what you think is right, but you're telling me it needs to be right in the eyes of others and have universal consent but at the same time i should do what i want personal morality.

and how does all of this fit into capital punishment anyway? We should what pick one dude in america and let him use his personal morality to decide if the guy should live or die? of course according to what everybody else in the world thinks.

I mean the first. WHY is it wrong to kill? I mean, I know why; ending someone's life is a very drastic action and should not be taken lightly at all, etc... but how can it always be the wrong choice, especially when there are so many variables?

Ugh, my computer fucked up and that was posted mid type. I forgot what else I was going to say now. Really, I think everyone should think things through, with as many variables as possible, and with the betterment of as many people as possible in mind before they act. I know this isn't how things are, but oh well.

As far as killing goes, well, it's the same. If it's the lesser of two evils in a certain situation, then that's the better choice to make. No, I suppose it doesn't make it "good". But I do consider less evil to be "right choice".


I don't know how this fits into capital punishment, since I'm mostly against that, really.

So are we now off capital punishment and on just causes for war? I dont know what to argue about anymore. :(

The bible also says Jesus was down with killing sinners.

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-6.htm

The Bible is so inconsistent, and contains so many contradictions it's a wonder more evangelicals' heads aren't exploding. ;)

More proof, I suppose that they don't have brains.

Right right. My favorite are the ones that think it was written by god himself.

Well Kahl and I are talking about killing as a whole. He is saying it is always wrong, and I am saying that there are circumstances that can make it (if not good) right.

Yeah. Sometimes they just need to be put down. Like a rabid dog. What if some ass hole goes on a rampage at a public location? Starts gunning down anyone and everyone he sees. Someone with a concealed handgun license (or hell, license or no) just happens to be in the right spot at the right time and could easily take him down. Possible hero guy knows that if he shoots psycho in the leg he is just going to keep shooting people more than likely starting with hero guy. He knows the only way to save as many lives as he can is to put this guy down. Are you saying its wrong for him to do so?

I think they should get the electric chair, either that or something more painful .

Death is too final, and way too easy a solution for the worst sociopaths. Lock them in a room and force them to watch reruns of Howard Cosell on Wide World of Sports over .... and over .... and over .....

:Sleeper

In Oklahoma the Firing Squad is still on the table.

"We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself." - John Stuart Mill on the value of life.