As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
What would you kill for?
devoir
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm curious; in a completely serious way, what would you kill for?
For those people who's instinct is "I wouldn't kill for anything", what about your own life? The life of an innocent child? Your innocent child?
Provide some things you wouldn't kill for that you think some other people might kill for. Is it just an instinct thing, or is there a logical divide in your own mind?
For those people who's instinct is "I wouldn't kill for anything", what about your own life? The life of an innocent child? Your innocent child?
Provide some things you wouldn't kill for that you think some other people might kill for. Is it just an instinct thing, or is there a logical divide in your own mind?
devoir on
0
Posts
The life of the people I love
Not for:
money
fame
power
edit: Seriously, no one can honestly answer this question unless they've killed someone or are in a situation that makes them feel compelled to. Outside of that, it's just uninformed guesses.
Edit: I actually had a line asking for no derails if the topic didn't interest you, but I had this weird thought that maybe I wouldn't need to.
Please tell us where you are so we can make sure to check that you actually do kill someone.
And who knows, in extreme circumstances I might be capable of it for terrible reasons - revenge or anger or god knows what, although I certainly don't want to be. With subjects like this I'm uncomfortable saying "oh I could never do ______" because that smacks of tempting fate.
That's because I'm a lover, not a fighter.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I was kind of hoping that the whole war/religion/leaders thing might pop up. Note that I don't consider them the same thing, but I meant some motivating force beyond yourself that basically 'instructs' you that someone has to die for your way of life.
I think that is like, why half of all super villains exist.
That strikes me as overly reductive. I know it's all hip and modern to look for the profit motive behind any conflict but they really do arise over genuine differences of belief - which isn't necessarily any better than fighting for oil or territory or whatever, but still.
This doesn't diminish the actual reasons, it's just that's what happens. Think about Iraq? It was the US rolling in and saying really loud "we're in charge now. We're going to install a democratic government." and Saddam saying "No I'm 'da boss".
I wouldn't kill "for" anything, that is to say I wouldn't kill in order to gain. And assuming I have the capacity to just decide to kill someone and then do it, I also have the capacity to maim them instead, and I would take that option first. Killing is against my religion, as one of our Holy texts quotes Him as saying "I will fight men like this, but I will not become an executioner". For while our compassion is a weakness our foes will not share, that is precisely what makes it so important. "It seperates us from them". But if it was the only way to prevent the death of someone who wasn't trying to kill people, I might do it, because I'm merely a man, not a terrible thought, not an idea.
Of course, it just depends how you define "safety of myself and my loved ones".
What makes you "the fittest"? What makes your loved ones who apparently need you to defend them "the fittest"? Does the ability to successfully kill someone make you the fittest between the two of you? If so, in what way does that not make "survival of the fittest" a pretty way of saying "kill to prove you can"?
Shogun Streams Vidya
Whatever humanity decides to put on top of this is just sugar coating. Individuals may consider their "pack" to just be themselves, or their immediate family, or their community, or their nation, or whatever.. but like you said in your own post..
When push comes to shove, thoughts and ideas are nothing to do with it.. in a situation where it is either kill or be killed (or watch someone important to you die) then instinct takes over.
Put it this way - the police aren't trying to kill a guy when they shoot him, they're trying to remove the threat. That's why if he survives we rush medical attention to him.
Most of the time.
Shogun Streams Vidya
I guess I don't really see the difference. If you use lethal force, you intend to kill.
Well, if lethal force stops them but doesn't kill them, you don't generally go ahead and put two in the brainpan anyway. If you're acting to kill them, you don't stop until they're dead (as opposed to stopping when they're no longer a threat). The phrase "lethal force" carries a silent "potentially" at the front of it. Seriously, that's the usage. Shooting someone is application of deadly force, even if they don't die of the gunshot wound you inflicted (or even if you miss, for that matter).
As well as hollowpoints.
Shogun Streams Vidya
Well. Stupid silent words.
Also false, see above. Deadly force/lethal force is just a notation of the destructive potential of the means you employ, it does not reference a requisite or intended result. Applying deadly force to stop someone is not synonymous with just outright trying to kill someone.
My core values really come down to being allowed to live a relatively free life (obviously requiring me to LIVE)
No being forced to work where some jerk with a gun tells me to work, no being someone's sex toy unless I opted in, no living in a cage, no forced ceremonial garbage, no being forced to give up my possessions or land unfairly, no removing body parts of mine I didn't sign a release for...
If someone threatens those for myself or for others...
World War IIIncenjucar.
But generally speaking, while I'm very comfortable with using force, I have no interest in unnecessary force, and I'd tend to meet a threat with adequate, rather than maximum response.
I would like to believe that I wouldn't kill for for revenge. Unless it was in a Bruce Willis movie sort of way, when those fuckers just have it coming.
I'm exceedingly happy that this was post #2, derail or no. It just had to be done. It was my first thought when I saw the thread.
Exactly. Generally when somebody uses deadly force, they don't give two shits if the target actually dies. It's not the point. Keeping myself (or others) alive is the intent, and the target's death is simply something you're willing to accept to achieve that end; it's not necessarily desired.
What would I be willing to kill for? My life, that of my family, those of my fellow citizens, or those of my fellow soldiers. Personally I'd prefer to never be put in a position where my life is in danger, despite the fact that I'm in the Army. But, if my orders put me in a situation where killing somebody is necessary to protect myself or others...*shrug*
I've had to point a loaded weapon at somebody one time. I was lucky in that I didn't have to fire it. It's still a sickening feeling.
Still, if somebody threatens the life of another? I could, and would, if at all possible.
This is of no concern to me, there are plenty of half-pollocks in the world making my particular genes irrelevant to the future of human civilization. Unless I'm somehow miraculously genetically immune to cancer or AIDS or something in an identifiable and replicable way. I don't live in a pack, I don't kill my dinner with my teeth, I live in civilization. "Biological urge + spread your seed lol" isn't a valid argument against gay marriage nor in favor of running around the alleys uptown with a wooden club to spawn successors, I don't see how it's a valid argument to kill people (which I think is fair to say is at least worse than two gay people tying the knot if not the other thing).
WWBD? I'm not talking about snapping and returning to my predator-roots (which I don't have, being a human), I'm talking about failing to find a better way before I run out of time.
Edit: I'm saying I don't have plot-armor.
So I end up being a kind of de facto pacifist.
I'd kill a man in Reno just to watch him die...
But what about a baby that's not yours? If you are willing to do that, then what about a child that's not yours? A teenager?
Is there a point where someone else's child becomes theoretically capable of protecting themselves and you no longer feel a moral responsibility?
Take a race riot, would you kill to protect an innocent toddler/child/teenager/man from being hammered by a crowd for no reason other than his skin?
EDIT: Also, I myself at least noted that I'd also be willing to use lethal force to protect random strangers (i.e. fellow countrymen etc.). But when you throw out a specific example, you muddy the waters. For example why can't I use a water cannon and and some teargas ?