Originally posted by NewjakAnd what is the greater good?
Those that kill to protect often delude themselves thinking they are killing for the greater good.
Obviously its not killing one man to save hundreds. As obviously its better those hundreds die rather than that one man.
Originally posted by NewjakITs true though, a peron can't kill again if they're dead. Or have you deluded yourself into think that locking them up will protect their future victims? Need I remind you that bundy escaped twice, and island prisons have also been escaped?
They justify it it by pretending they do it so that person doesn't kill again.
So what's your solution? How do you make 100% certain that man will never kill again?
Originally posted by NewjakObviously they don't. I mean do you have the stomache to kill a serial killer? No. Do you believe that its to keep them from killing again, ob viously not since you call it a justification. And obviously saving people isn't for the greater good. I guess saving people is an immoral act. So we should just let them die. Let the serial killer roam free unhindered. Makeing sure they never kill an innocent obviously isn't the greater good.
Then to those who don't believe thst they say don't have the stomach for it.
Originally posted by NewjakThe difference being that the heros can put down the gun and go about their lives. The serial killers don't. They'll continue to kill again, and again and again.
What I wouldn't do is try to play Judge, Jury, and Executioner because when you do such things you are no better than they are.
You can try and justify your naivety by calling those that would immoral, or deluded, or no better than they are. But it doesn't change the fact that you value the life of the serial killer far more than those of his victims. Cause hey its not the greater good to save them. It is the greater good to save the serial killer.
Originally posted by NewjakYes, because there's an endless supply of serial killers. and killing serial killers is the same as killing innocent people.
So simply because you feel they can kill again justifies you killing them. It is a never ending loop that way.
If you're done with your equivocation fallacy it'd be nice if you started thinking logically. Stop indirectly saying that the serial killer's life is more valuable than those of his victims.
Originally posted by NewjakOh yeah, I kill them all the time, and not just them, anyone who breaks the law, arsonists, bank robbers, birglurs, muggers, purse snatchers even jaywalkers and litterers... They break the law they pay with their lives. After all that's what its all about isn't it? It has nothing to do with the scope of who the victim of the crime is. Right?
But let me ask you this have you eve killed a convicted murderer before?
Originally posted by Newjakyeah, and then I go and kill everyone that the credits lists, as their all responsible for a fictional character not getting the justice he deserves, as there is no difference between reality ansd fiction.
Have you ever watched on TV and seen someone commit a dastardly brutal kill and go that person needs to die but they aren't executed.
Originally posted by NewjakReally? I'm the one who was claiming the moral highground? That's funny cause I could have sworn that I wasn't the one calling those who disagreed with me something to the effect of "immoral psychopaths"...
Well by your thinking if you were truly as noble as you say you are you would pick up a gun and every time a murderer isn't sentenced to death you should be waiting outside the Jail ready to kill them because if not then in your beliefs if that person escapes and kills again it IS YOUR FAULT FOR DOING NOTHING when you knew there was such chance.
And hey all murderers are the same. Be it accidentally killing someone, intentionally killing one person killing 36 people. And it doesn't matter if they don't have the evidence to support the accusation if they're even accused of being a murderer I'll go and kill them. I don't even wait for the verdict court system would have let them off anyway, so I go and kill them before they get a trial. Waste of time and money anyway.
Originally posted by NewjakSure I do. as soon as you posted them on a public forum they were fair game for critisism. Just the same as you're doing to mine.. or did you notice those three fingers in your hand pointing at you when you were calling hypocrite with the one pointed at me?
So unless you go around killing anyone convicted of murderer then you have no right to question my beliefs on not killing anyone.
Originally posted by Creshosk
And what is the greater good?Obviously its not killing one man to save hundreds. As obviously its better those hundreds die rather than that one man.
ITs true though, a peron can't kill again if they're dead. Or have you deluded yourself into think that locking them up will protect their future victims? Need I remind you that bundy escaped twice, and island prisons have also been escaped?
So what's your solution? How do you make 100% certain that man will never kill again?
Obviously they don't. I mean do you have the stomache to kill a serial killer? No. Do you believe that its to keep them from killing again, ob viously not since you call it a justification. And obviously saving people isn't for the greater good. I guess saving people is an immoral act. So we should just let them die. Let the serial killer roam free unhindered. Makeing sure they never kill an innocent obviously isn't the greater good.
The difference being that the heros can put down the gun and go about their lives. The serial killers don't. They'll continue to kill again, and again and again.
You can try and justify your naivety by calling those that would immoral, or deluded, or no better than they are. But it doesn't change the fact that you value the life of the serial killer far more than those of his victims. Cause hey its not the greater good to save them. It is the greater good to save the serial killer.
Yes, because there's an endless supply of serial killers. and killing serial killers is the same as killing innocent people.
If you're done with your equivocation fallacy it'd be nice if you started thinking logically. Stop indirectly saying that the serial killer's life is more valuable than those of his victims.
Oh yeah, I kill them all the time, and not just them, anyone who breaks the law, arsonists, bank robbers, birglurs, muggers, purse snatchers even jaywalkers and litterers... They break the law they pay with their lives. After all that's what its all about isn't it? It has nothing to do with the scope of who the victim of the crime is. Right?
yeah, and then I go and kill everyone that the credits lists, as their all responsible for a fictional character not getting the justice he deserves, as there is no difference between reality ansd fiction.
Really? I'm the one who was claiming the moral highground? That's funny cause I could have sworn that I wasn't the one calling those who disagreed with me something to the effect of "immoral psychopaths"...
And hey all murderers are the same. Be it accidentally killing someone, intentionally killing one person killing 36 people. And it doesn't matter if they don't have the evidence to support the accusation if they're even accused of being a murderer I'll go and kill them. I don't even wait for the verdict court system would have let them off anyway, so I go and kill them before they get a trial. Waste of time and money anyway.
So:
Vigilantism = 👆
System of Law = 👇
Makes perfect sense to moral folks.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Sure I do. as soon as you posted them on a public forum they were fair game for critisism. Just the same as you're doing to mine.. or did you notice those three fingers in your hand pointing at you when you were calling hypocrite with the one pointed at me?
Thats doesn't make sense and sounds like a threat. I'll have to hunt you down so you don't kill Newjak in some deranged bloodfrenzy.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
had batman killed joker or Spiderman killed carnage....thousands of innocents would have livedi guess to me, innocent lives are worth more than the rehabilitation of a serial murderer...but that's just me
Because we all know to one and only solution to criminal behavior is killing people. Hey wait a second that sounds like JackTheRipper . . .
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So:Vigilantism = 👆
System of Law = 👇Makes perfect sense to moral folks.
Or did you miss the part where I exagerated his claims to illustrate how foolish they were?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosAre you kidding me? I have thousands of law breakers undermy belt. Like I'm going to be afraid of a greehorn with no penchant for killing?
Thats doesn't make sense and sounds like a threat. I'll have to hunt you down so you don't kill Newjak in some deranged bloodfrenzy.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
the only solution? no.the most effective solution? yes
No it's not the most effective solution at all. It's just the fastest.
The argument that Bundy escaped from jail (which I'm sure will pop back up) is ridiculous unless you can prove that most serial killers will escape.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWhen it comes to certain people it becomes the only solution. Locking these guys up doesn't seem to work, how about rehabilitation? No that doesn't seem to work either...
Because we all know to one and only solution to criminal behavior is killing people. Hey wait a second that sounds like JackTheRipper . . .
Oh well, we'll keep sacrificing innocents until we find a way to deal with the serieal killers because they're far too valuable to kill innocents are a dime a dozen..
Originally posted by Creshosk
So reading comprehension problems = 👆
Sarcasm = 👇Or did you miss the part where I exagerated his claims to illustrate how foolish they were?
Nope. But you do seem to supporting killing people while ignoring the option of dealing with killers though means that aren't comically hypocritical.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Are you kidding me? I have thousands of law breakers undermy belt. Like I'm going to be afraid of a greehorn with no penchant for killing?
Defacing the corpse with animal parts? You sicko. The death penalty I say.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThen what is?
No it's not the most effective solution at all.
I have yet to hear an alternate solution that is effective from those that value the life of the killer over the lives of his victims.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosNo it's not. It's proof that life imprisonment is not as effective.
It's just the fastest.The argument that Bundy escaped from jail (which I'm sure will pop back up) is ridiculous unless you can prove that most serial killers will escape.
How many serial killers have killed again after being executed? 0%
How many have after being locked up? at least one. and mathmatically speaking 1 is an infinite times greater than 0.
Life imprisonment is not as effective as death.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIt's only hypocritical to the foolishly naive. I thought that my exageration of your veiws demonstrated that?
Nope. But you do seem to supporting killing people while ignoring the option of dealing with killers though means that aren't comically hypocritical.
All murderers are equal? all criminals are equal? AS all crimes are equal?
The only ones comicallyu hypocritical around here are those claiming the moral high ground by justifying the killers actions indirectly with their woeful ignorance.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosCase in point.
Defacing the corpse with animal parts? You sicko. The death penalty I say.
Originally posted by Creshosk
When it comes to certain people it becomes the only solution. Locking these guys up doesn't seem to work
Usually imprisonment is effective in preventing them from killing again. And if they do kill while in prison what do you care just gets rid of another criminal.
Originally posted by Creshosk
how about rehabilitation? No that doesn't seem to work either...
Nope. But studying them does give us information that can be used to reduce chances of people becoming serial killers later on as well as in catching the ones that are born. Killing them sorta removes that data.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh well, we'll keep sacrificing innocents until we find a way to deal with the serieal killers because they're far too valuable to kill innocents are a dime a dozen..
Or we could do something insane and radical where we don't kill people . . .
Originally posted by Master-Borgfor the rest of their life no less.
a guy who is jobless has to beg on the streets for change and live in shitty conditionsa guy who kills gets a heated room with 3 meals a day and access to a library, gym and job training (all paid by the taxpayers)
Now what was that about "the value of human life" and "comically hypocritical" ?
Originally posted by CreshoskFirst of all I never said anything about you being a psychopath
And what is the greater good?Obviously its not killing one man to save hundreds. As obviously its better those hundreds die rather than that one man.
ITs true though, a peron can't kill again if they're dead. Or have you deluded yourself into think that locking them up will protect their future victims? Need I remind you that bundy escaped twice, and island prisons have also been escaped?
So what's your solution? How do you make 100% certain that man will never kill again?
Obviously they don't. I mean do you have the stomache to kill a serial killer? No. Do you believe that its to keep them from killing again, ob viously not since you call it a justification. And obviously saving people isn't for the greater good. I guess saving people is an immoral act. So we should just let them die. Let the serial killer roam free unhindered. Makeing sure they never kill an innocent obviously isn't the greater good.
The difference being that the heros can put down the gun and go about their lives. The serial killers don't. They'll continue to kill again, and again and again.
You can try and justify your naivety by calling those that would immoral, or deluded, or no better than they are. But it doesn't change the fact that you value the life of the serial killer far more than those of his victims. Cause hey its not the greater good to save them. It is the greater good to save the serial killer.
Yes, because there's an endless supply of serial killers. and killing serial killers is the same as killing innocent people.
If you're done with your equivocation fallacy it'd be nice if you started thinking logically. Stop indirectly saying that the serial killer's life is more valuable than those of his victims.
Oh yeah, I kill them all the time, and not just them, anyone who breaks the law, arsonists, bank robbers, birglurs, muggers, purse snatchers even jaywalkers and litterers... They break the law they pay with their lives. After all that's what its all about isn't it? It has nothing to do with the scope of who the victim of the crime is. Right?
yeah, and then I go and kill everyone that the credits lists, as their all responsible for a fictional character not getting the justice he deserves, as there is no difference between reality ansd fiction.
Really? I'm the one who was claiming the moral highground? That's funny cause I could have sworn that I wasn't the one calling those who disagreed with me something to the effect of "immoral psychopaths"...
And hey all murderers are the same. Be it accidentally killing someone, intentionally killing one person killing 36 people. And it doesn't matter if they don't have the evidence to support the accusation if they're even accused of being a murderer I'll go and kill them. I don't even wait for the verdict court system would have let them off anyway, so I go and kill them before they get a trial. Waste of time and money anyway.
Sure I do. as soon as you posted them on a public forum they were fair game for critisism. Just the same as you're doing to mine.. or did you notice those three fingers in your hand pointing at you when you were calling hypocrite with the one pointed at me?
And I never claimed the moral highground.
And I never pointed a finger oddly enough. Although I will say this if you want to talk about being a hypocrite. I live by what I believe every day I do not take the life of another human being but as you so sarcastically have shown is that you don't go around eliminating those people you have deemed unworthy to live. So in reality who is a hypocrite. Those who do what they believe in or those who do not.
But let's get to the beef of this and what is your subjective nature. You claim my being naive because I chose not to take life whether it be a someone who hasn't committed a crime or those who have. You have already deemed such a person inferior and undeserving of living and that you by all reason have all the right to take their life.
So let's really look at this.
As I have already pointed out by your own logic every time you do not kill someone you know is a murderer then you yourself are in fact responsible for any and all lives they could take in the future once again going by what you say.
So then why is it you don't go and kill them?
Why is it that these inferior people are allowed to live on your watch?
These are questions I would like to have answered from you because you can say all this tough stuff about I would kill someone who killed someone yet you haven't and there has to be a reason why you don't.
So let's hear it. You want to criticize me fine I understand that but when you live your life exactly as I live it everyday not killing those who you deem to be unworthy of life but say you would do something what is the reason you don't do what you say?