Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → For what things would you be willing to die for?
I'm with you yell. Kill first, ask questions later
Haven't you updated your list based on new people posting, Yell?
I like trains too 
Trains are pretty badass!
yeah after some sleep
No, trains are badass before, after, and during sleep! X(
Derailing from topic, warning to Zarf
Rules apply to me too? *sigh* fine...
maybe he'd kill or be killed to tell people he likes trains?
I Like Trains kid, thanks for clarifying Flint's statement. Flint, I better understand what you mean by the church goers bit and that is a bit more reasonable.
What I wonder now is, that if a serial killer who targets only children were at church to seek God's wisdom, would you still protect him from a would-be murderer? What if the would-be murderer was the father of a child who had been killed? You would kill the father to save the serial killer?
Oh and by the way, you aren't a forum moderator so you have no business or authority to warn others. Let the f-mods do their job. If you have a complaint about a particular post, there is a "report" link for your use.
Zarf and me got an understanding Pie, it was not me moderating but a sly and humourous way to ask him to stop.
And I would stop ANY blatant murder Isaw, tho I might not risk my life for certain types including your hypothetical situation
So to stop any blatant murder is an honorable thing, but to do so you would kill the victim's father in this hypothetical situation? Keep in mind, the serial killer is actively attending church to seek God's wisdom and "innocent by default" as you say.
The guy can be arrested if he is wanted, he is in an open place. It is only self defense or defense of others that I will engage in.
I am not judge, jury, executioner and we have a 'mostly' intact legal system to handle such.
I do not believe in vigilanteeism but I do believe tyranny is bad. Were not in tyranny (at least not yet) and I will follow the law and protect others as I see fit.
That's all fine and well, but what I'm describing here is a scenario in which the law is unable to act in time and another man's life is about to end at the hands of an attacker. You yourself have the opportunity and ability to save this man from being murdered, and the only way is to kill his attacker.
You've very clearly stated that you will kill or die for certain things you believe in, one of them being protecting church goers. Is this not one an example of doing just that?
I thought I was clear, the attacker will die. He is not a judge, he is not a jury, he is not an executioner.
How clear must I be?
A little more clear apparently.
So then yes, you would kill the attacker to save the serial killer. Now, if that serial killer left church that day and murdered 10 children, would you still feel like you made the right decision?
If the man was a serial killer and I had no idea... how could I feel guilt?
Then if I knew he was an sk I could detain him til police arrived
Now I can only directly quote Oregon Revised Statutes (Law of Oregon) as that's the State my degree is in
A person can only make a citizens arrest in the event he witnessed a misdemeanor or felony. That I would risk a grand jury saying I was wrong to 'arrest' a man in headlines as a serial killer right after saving his life means I won't let him get away, but so long as in that specific time frame he does not present a danger to others then no harm shall come to him.
Btw if I did make a citizens arrest I would use defense of others as a claim, maintaining he had done such before and there was a significant probability (falling back on my expertise of statistics) that he was an immiment danger to others. Aka less than an hour. I would probably be able to get a lawyer to back this up with a few other experts and get me off the false arrest charge.
A person, according to law, and to ethics, can only take a life in self defense, defense of another, as a soldier in an act of war, as an agent of a Government against someone identified as an enemy of the State (a foriegner in US law), or as executioner on someone found guilty of a Capital Crime and duly sentenced to death.
There is no hypothetical situations outside this. To take a life should be the last resort of a civilian. But in my view, if someone decides to violate that, then it is they that must die.
Ah, to clarify yes somehow in this situation you are aware that he is a serial killer. Whether or not you'd be able to detain him after is another question.
I know this is a strange hypothetical, and thanks for following along. I ask though because I'm interested in where your boundaries exist in these matters.
So, let's say that after you killed the attacker to save the serial killer, the serial killer starts running away and is very fast. You are unable to detain him but you are armed, and know that he is still a threat to your community. You only have one shot, and shooting him fatally is your best chance of stopping him from potentially murdering more children if he gets away.
Would you take the shot?
To hypothetical.
I could not decide unless really there, knowing different things, knowing the environment (is there civilians on the other side of him, is there room for a warning shot to whiz by him, what's the urgency.
Plus if I knew he was an SK I probably called police on discovery or made him aware he was caught or other crap. At this point your hypothetical spirals out of quantifiable aspects into 'fog of war' where hypothesizing does nothing to help the debate but attempts to entrap a person.
I have stated the structure I follow. Be happy with that
I would only kill if it was to protect my life or someone important to me. Since I am an egoist, I wouldn't be willing to die for any causes or many people. However, I would be willing to die for my escort. I'm not really sure why, other than I just feel that way about her.
![[TI] Primo](https://imperialconflict.com/forum/img/avatars/711.jpg)
It's a difficult question. And then there is the difference between giving your life, as in certain death, and risking your life. And then there is risk assessment. What are the chances of you being able to save that person, and what are the chances of you surviving it?
Would I give my life for my family and loved ones? Yes.
Would I give my life to protect my country? Not sure.
Would I risk my life to protect my country? If needed, yes.
Would I give my life to stop a schoolshooting? If I were sure to stop it, yes.
Would I risk my life to stop a schoolshooting? Yes
Flint, my questions are serving a purpose and it's not to "entrap" you.
The point is: at this moment you would have to decide whether or not to shoot the escaping serial killer, and either choice violates your principles. If you shoot and kill him, you are no better than the attacker that you had just killed to protect him. If you let him go, you are failing to protect the community.
It's a difficult problem, but these hypothetical situations are useful for examining the extremes of which our principles will be tested. It is very useful.
I'm curious about all this though, because I don't agree with the idea that people attending church are "innocent by default". That is to suggest that given two strangers, you will risk your life for the worshiping stranger (even if he is a murderer) simply because he is engaged in a religious ritual, whereas you will not do the same for the atheist even if the atheist has committed no crime.
I would have no qualms shooting an attempted shooter, I would have qualms shooting your sk.
"However, I would be willing to die for my escort. I'm not really sure why, other than I just feel that way about her."
She reads your posts? Evil!
I'd be willing to die for some rest right now...oh, and put it on my grave when I die.
Imperial Forum → Politics → For what things would you be willing to die for?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.