you could say that about a terrorist and most the others. though i would have to agree.S.Lythberg wrote:
child abuser, they prey on those unable to defend themselves.
Poll
If you had to kill one out of this list, which one would you kill?
| A child abuser | 36% | 36% - 65 | ||||
| A rapist | 12% | 12% - 23 | ||||
| A corrupted politician | 17% | 17% - 31 | ||||
| A terrorist | 14% | 14% - 26 | ||||
| A drug dealer | 2% | 2% - 4 | ||||
| A serial killer | 15% | 15% - 28 | ||||
| Total: 177 | ||||||
The instinct to protect one's own children is understandable and natural, but the emotional response of wanting to kill a molester is not logical. I think that's what mikkel is trying to say.Ilocano wrote:
For now. See ya when holding your newborn for the first time.mikkel wrote:
Conversely, that right there proves my point. I understand fully, I just don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you do.
Most of us are heavily influenced by emotion especially when our children are involved, but a rational response to a molester is to apprehend and imprison him. Killing him would be a bit excessive unless he has actually killed someone else.
Granted, I think I'm basically against the death penalty at this point, but that's another discussion....
Child abuser. Children are vulnerable and should be cared for by adults, anyone who goes against this basic human understanding is a monster.
What I'm trying to say is that by any standard, murder is worse than molestation. I haven't seen a single sound reasoning for why this shouldn't be so, and I'm trying to find out why people would rather see their children murdered than molested. All I'm getting so far are people who seem to think that having children is a prerequisite for understanding irrational opinions, which is a patently false and completely empty answer. What I'm asking for is the reasoning behind these opinions, regardless of how irrational they are.Turquoise wrote:
The instinct to protect one's own children is understandable and natural, but the emotional response of wanting to kill a molester is not logical. I think that's what mikkel is trying to say.Ilocano wrote:
For now. See ya when holding your newborn for the first time.mikkel wrote:
Conversely, that right there proves my point. I understand fully, I just don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you do.
Most of us are heavily influenced by emotion especially when our children are involved, but a rational response to a molester is to apprehend and imprison him. Killing him would be a bit excessive unless he has actually killed someone else.
Granted, I think I'm basically against the death penalty at this point, but that's another discussion....
Agreed, but that shows you how many cultures (American and otherwise) have hangups with sexually related crimes. Societies more open about sex and mental illness understand that murder is still worse than rape in all of its horrible forms. At least with rape, the person has the ability to recover. Death is final.mikkel wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that by any standard, murder is worse than molestation. I haven't seen a single sound reasoning for why this shouldn't be so, and I'm trying to find out why people would rather see their children murdered than molested. All I'm getting so far are people who seem to think that having children is a prerequisite for understanding irrational opinions, which is a patently false and completely empty answer. What I'm asking for is the reasoning behind these opinions, regardless of how irrational they are.
So yeah, I completely agree that many responses in this thread have been far from logical, but a lot of people prefer to live by emotion and instinct over logic.
The assholes on that list are all scumbags, and it's very difficult to choose one over the other. But, if you think about it for a minute, when people vote for a child abuser, they aren't saying they'd rather prefer their children dead than molested. It's more than obvious at this point that everyone would choose a child killer. What we are trying to say is that kids must be protected from these sick people, not that the other people on that list are good for society.mikkel wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that by any standard, murder is worse than molestation. I haven't seen a single sound reasoning for why this shouldn't be so, and I'm trying to find out why people would rather see their children murdered than molested. All I'm getting so far are people who seem to think that having children is a prerequisite for understanding irrational opinions, which is a patently false and completely empty answer. What I'm asking for is the reasoning behind these opinions, regardless of how irrational they are.Turquoise wrote:
The instinct to protect one's own children is understandable and natural, but the emotional response of wanting to kill a molester is not logical. I think that's what mikkel is trying to say.Ilocano wrote:
For now. See ya when holding your newborn for the first time.
Most of us are heavily influenced by emotion especially when our children are involved, but a rational response to a molester is to apprehend and imprison him. Killing him would be a bit excessive unless he has actually killed someone else.
Granted, I think I'm basically against the death penalty at this point, but that's another discussion....
I'd still choose the terrorist because they aim to kill multitudes of people -- which makes them the greatest threat.sergeriver wrote:
The assholes on that list are all scumbags, and it's very difficult to choose one over the other. But, if you think about it for a minute, when people vote for a child abuser, they aren't saying they'd rather prefer their children dead than molested. It's more than obvious at this point that everyone would choose a child killer. What we are trying to say is that kids must be protected from these sick people, not that the other people on that list are good for society.
I disagree. I voted for child abuser/molester/pedos, but the greatest threat is a corrupted politician. They can kill thousands of people just for money.Turquoise wrote:
I'd still choose the terrorist because they aim to kill multitudes of people -- which makes them the greatest threat.sergeriver wrote:
The assholes on that list are all scumbags, and it's very difficult to choose one over the other. But, if you think about it for a minute, when people vote for a child abuser, they aren't saying they'd rather prefer their children dead than molested. It's more than obvious at this point that everyone would choose a child killer. What we are trying to say is that kids must be protected from these sick people, not that the other people on that list are good for society.
It's possible to live by emotion and instinct while remaining logical, but I don't really see this as being the problem in this case. Emotion would tell most people that they would rather their loved ones live with scars than die without. The other way around really comes off to me as being silly in any context.Turquoise wrote:
Agreed, but that shows you how many cultures (American and otherwise) have hangups with sexually related crimes. Societies more open about sex and mental illness understand that murder is still worse than rape in all of its horrible forms. At least with rape, the person has the ability to recover. Death is final.mikkel wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that by any standard, murder is worse than molestation. I haven't seen a single sound reasoning for why this shouldn't be so, and I'm trying to find out why people would rather see their children murdered than molested. All I'm getting so far are people who seem to think that having children is a prerequisite for understanding irrational opinions, which is a patently false and completely empty answer. What I'm asking for is the reasoning behind these opinions, regardless of how irrational they are.
So yeah, I completely agree that many responses in this thread have been far from logical, but a lot of people prefer to live by emotion and instinct over logic.
If the choice was between a family member or my fiancée being raped or murdered, I know what my answer would be. Logically, emotionally and immediately.
And the need to protect children from murderers isn't greater than protecting them from molestation? When people are saying that they'd rather kill a person to protect children from molestation than kill a person to protect them from being murdered, one would assume that they feel that the need to protect children from molestation is more urgent than the need to protect them from murder.sergeriver wrote:
The assholes on that list are all scumbags, and it's very difficult to choose one over the other. But, if you think about it for a minute, when people vote for a child abuser, they aren't saying they'd rather prefer their children dead than molested. It's more than obvious at this point that everyone would choose a child killer. What we are trying to say is that kids must be protected from these sick people, not that the other people on that list are good for society.mikkel wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that by any standard, murder is worse than molestation. I haven't seen a single sound reasoning for why this shouldn't be so, and I'm trying to find out why people would rather see their children murdered than molested. All I'm getting so far are people who seem to think that having children is a prerequisite for understanding irrational opinions, which is a patently false and completely empty answer. What I'm asking for is the reasoning behind these opinions, regardless of how irrational they are.Turquoise wrote:
The instinct to protect one's own children is understandable and natural, but the emotional response of wanting to kill a molester is not logical. I think that's what mikkel is trying to say.
Most of us are heavily influenced by emotion especially when our children are involved, but a rational response to a molester is to apprehend and imprison him. Killing him would be a bit excessive unless he has actually killed someone else.
Granted, I think I'm basically against the death penalty at this point, but that's another discussion....
That, or that their replies aren't fully thought through.
What other conclusion could you arrive at?
Generally speaking, a politician has a lot more to lose than a terrorist. If you can make it in the politician's best interest to serve the greater good (i.e. - holding the politician accountable for his actions), then he will.sergeriver wrote:
I disagree. I voted for child abuser/molester/pedos, but the greatest threat is a corrupted politician. They can kill thousands of people just for money.Turquoise wrote:
I'd still choose the terrorist because they aim to kill multitudes of people -- which makes them the greatest threat.sergeriver wrote:
The assholes on that list are all scumbags, and it's very difficult to choose one over the other. But, if you think about it for a minute, when people vote for a child abuser, they aren't saying they'd rather prefer their children dead than molested. It's more than obvious at this point that everyone would choose a child killer. What we are trying to say is that kids must be protected from these sick people, not that the other people on that list are good for society.
A terrorist is often suicidal (hence suicide bombings), so he has very little to lose, and his only method of action is usually killing others.
Child abuser. Only one at whose hands I HAVE suffered. i know the others are bad, but I have a personal experience with them--and trust me, if I knew where one lived, he'd be dead within the hour. I am not joking, they have done, are doing and will do some of the worst things you can think of.
I like pie.
First off, a clever politician has a lot more to win than a terrorist. And terrorists are not suicidal, they send dumb people to commit suicide bombings, they don't go themselves. They are clever enough not to buy the 72 virgins BS. Terrorism is about politics and politics is about money. So, you may say a corrupted politician and a terrorist are pretty much the same.Turquoise wrote:
Generally speaking, a politician has a lot more to lose than a terrorist. If you can make it in the politician's best interest to serve the greater good (i.e. - holding the politician accountable for his actions), then he will.sergeriver wrote:
I disagree. I voted for child abuser/molester/pedos, but the greatest threat is a corrupted politician. They can kill thousands of people just for money.Turquoise wrote:
I'd still choose the terrorist because they aim to kill multitudes of people -- which makes them the greatest threat.
A terrorist is often suicidal (hence suicide bombings), so he has very little to lose, and his only method of action is usually killing others.
Well, as cynical as I am, I'd still say the politician has more worth to society. Politicians do whatever makes them money. Murder is optional.sergeriver wrote:
First off, a clever politician has a lot more to win than a terrorist. And terrorists are not suicidal, they send dumb people to commit suicide bombings, they don't go themselves. They are clever enough not to buy the 72 virgins BS. Terrorism is about politics and politics is about money. So, you may say a corrupted politician and a terrorist are pretty much the same.Turquoise wrote:
Generally speaking, a politician has a lot more to lose than a terrorist. If you can make it in the politician's best interest to serve the greater good (i.e. - holding the politician accountable for his actions), then he will.sergeriver wrote:
I disagree. I voted for child abuser/molester/pedos, but the greatest threat is a corrupted politician. They can kill thousands of people just for money.
A terrorist is often suicidal (hence suicide bombings), so he has very little to lose, and his only method of action is usually killing others.
Terrorists kill for money and power -- murder is mandatory. Therefore, there's not much you can do with terrorists other than kill them before they kill you.
Again, all those on the list are scumbags. It's up to you to decide which one is the worst.Turquoise wrote:
Well, as cynical as I am, I'd still say the politician has more worth to society. Politicians do whatever makes them money. Murder is optional.sergeriver wrote:
First off, a clever politician has a lot more to win than a terrorist. And terrorists are not suicidal, they send dumb people to commit suicide bombings, they don't go themselves. They are clever enough not to buy the 72 virgins BS. Terrorism is about politics and politics is about money. So, you may say a corrupted politician and a terrorist are pretty much the same.Turquoise wrote:
Generally speaking, a politician has a lot more to lose than a terrorist. If you can make it in the politician's best interest to serve the greater good (i.e. - holding the politician accountable for his actions), then he will.
A terrorist is often suicidal (hence suicide bombings), so he has very little to lose, and his only method of action is usually killing others.
Terrorists kill for money and power -- murder is mandatory. Therefore, there's not much you can do with terrorists other than kill them before they kill you.
A corrupted politician will affect more of the masses, take for example some of the great dictators of the last century. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many African politicians, who can get their message to a wide range of people and in many cases influence people to do things more so than most people could.Turquoise wrote:
Well, as cynical as I am, I'd still say the politician has more worth to society. Politicians do whatever makes them money. Murder is optional.sergeriver wrote:
First off, a clever politician has a lot more to win than a terrorist. And terrorists are not suicidal, they send dumb people to commit suicide bombings, they don't go themselves. They are clever enough not to buy the 72 virgins BS. Terrorism is about politics and politics is about money. So, you may say a corrupted politician and a terrorist are pretty much the same.Turquoise wrote:
Generally speaking, a politician has a lot more to lose than a terrorist. If you can make it in the politician's best interest to serve the greater good (i.e. - holding the politician accountable for his actions), then he will.
A terrorist is often suicidal (hence suicide bombings), so he has very little to lose, and his only method of action is usually killing others.
Terrorists kill for money and power -- murder is mandatory. Therefore, there's not much you can do with terrorists other than kill them before they kill you.
But... all the major dictators in history only were able to rise with the help or complicity of others. If Hitler hadn't had a movement strong enough behind him to stay in power and the Germans had been more wary of his hate (and willing to fight him), he would've been overthrown.GorillaKing798 wrote:
A corrupted politician will affect more of the masses, take for example some of the great dictators of the last century. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many African politicians, who can get their message to a wide range of people and in many cases influence people to do things more so than most people could.Turquoise wrote:
Well, as cynical as I am, I'd still say the politician has more worth to society. Politicians do whatever makes them money. Murder is optional.sergeriver wrote:
First off, a clever politician has a lot more to win than a terrorist. And terrorists are not suicidal, they send dumb people to commit suicide bombings, they don't go themselves. They are clever enough not to buy the 72 virgins BS. Terrorism is about politics and politics is about money. So, you may say a corrupted politician and a terrorist are pretty much the same.
Terrorists kill for money and power -- murder is mandatory. Therefore, there's not much you can do with terrorists other than kill them before they kill you.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a corrupt politician can be dealt with much easier than a suicidal terrorist, because the politician still has a self-preservation instinct and depends on the obedience of others to do anything.
If you believe in the death penalty...
ALL OF THEM.
If you dont....
NONE. Let em rot in prison.
ALL OF THEM.
If you dont....
NONE. Let em rot in prison.
A terrorist can't raise one of the greatest armies ever seen and bring them into a World War, and corrupted politicians are extremely hard to stop, as they have so many people who buy into their lies.Turquoise wrote:
But... all the major dictators in history only were able to rise with the help or complicity of others. If Hitler hadn't had a movement strong enough behind him to stay in power and the Germans had been more wary of his hate (and willing to fight him), he would've been overthrown.GorillaKing798 wrote:
A corrupted politician will affect more of the masses, take for example some of the great dictators of the last century. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many African politicians, who can get their message to a wide range of people and in many cases influence people to do things more so than most people could.Turquoise wrote:
Well, as cynical as I am, I'd still say the politician has more worth to society. Politicians do whatever makes them money. Murder is optional.
Terrorists kill for money and power -- murder is mandatory. Therefore, there's not much you can do with terrorists other than kill them before they kill you.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a corrupt politician can be dealt with much easier than a suicidal terrorist, because the politician still has a self-preservation instinct and depends on the obedience of others to do anything.
Perhaps, I should rephrase what I mean then. Killing someone as evil and as powerful as Hitler was is more important than killing a terrorist, but... killing the average corrupt politician vs. a terrorist is excessive.GorillaKing798 wrote:
A terrorist can't raise one of the greatest armies ever seen and bring them into a World War, and corrupted politicians are extremely hard to stop, as they have so many people who buy into their lies.Turquoise wrote:
But... all the major dictators in history only were able to rise with the help or complicity of others. If Hitler hadn't had a movement strong enough behind him to stay in power and the Germans had been more wary of his hate (and willing to fight him), he would've been overthrown.GorillaKing798 wrote:
A corrupted politician will affect more of the masses, take for example some of the great dictators of the last century. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many African politicians, who can get their message to a wide range of people and in many cases influence people to do things more so than most people could.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a corrupt politician can be dealt with much easier than a suicidal terrorist, because the politician still has a self-preservation instinct and depends on the obedience of others to do anything.
I don't quite understand what you are saying, I'm assuming you mean that killing a terrorist vs. killing a corrupt politician is easier, and will end up in the loss of less lives. In the short term that may be true, but the long term effects of a corrupt politician would be far greater.Turquoise wrote:
Perhaps, I should rephrase what I mean then. Killing someone as evil and as powerful as Hitler was is more important than killing a terrorist, but... killing the average corrupt politician vs. a terrorist is excessive.GorillaKing798 wrote:
A terrorist can't raise one of the greatest armies ever seen and bring them into a World War, and corrupted politicians are extremely hard to stop, as they have so many people who buy into their lies.Turquoise wrote:
But... all the major dictators in history only were able to rise with the help or complicity of others. If Hitler hadn't had a movement strong enough behind him to stay in power and the Germans had been more wary of his hate (and willing to fight him), he would've been overthrown.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a corrupt politician can be dealt with much easier than a suicidal terrorist, because the politician still has a self-preservation instinct and depends on the obedience of others to do anything.
That depends on how corrupt the politician is and what his/her goals are. Suffice to say, if you feel strongly about killing corrupt politicians, you've got about 100 Senators to dispose of. lolGorillaKing798 wrote:
I don't quite understand what you are saying, I'm assuming you mean that killing a terrorist vs. killing a corrupt politician is easier, and will end up in the loss of less lives. In the short term that may be true, but the long term effects of a corrupt politician would be far greater.
I lol'd The only politicians I feel are corrupt are those who truly are out to end freedom for all, take over the world, etc.Turquoise wrote:
That depends on how corrupt the politician is and what his/her goals are. Suffice to say, if you feel strongly about killing corrupt politicians, you've got about 100 Senators to dispose of. lolGorillaKing798 wrote:
I don't quite understand what you are saying, I'm assuming you mean that killing a terrorist vs. killing a corrupt politician is easier, and will end up in the loss of less lives. In the short term that may be true, but the long term effects of a corrupt politician would be far greater.
Last edited by GorillaKing798 (2008-03-27 17:47:54)
I do believe in the sanctity of human life...which is why I don't condone murder or vigilante justice. I don't support state-sponsored death either, mostly because of my own morals, but also because the system is not 100% foolproof. Innocent people are put to death.Lai wrote:
Well sometimes you have to fight for peace,.. I guess it's just a matter of whether you believe in the sanctity of human life, the impossibility of someone loosing his status as a "human" and perhaps also your own (un)willingness to lose some innocense (no that's not the correct word, I know). In any case it's something we're not going to agree on, so I'll leave it at this.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Is a part of your own morals to not kill other people? It is for mine. I don't agree with rape or child abuse (DUH!), but I don't condone the killing of rapists or child abusers either.Lai wrote:
You make "own-morals" sound like something culturally or in any case not universally determined. As an archaeology/athropology student I've got to say you're right considering morals in general, but I would happily enforce my personal morals if they're about "don't rape" and/or "don't abuse your child".
Morals aren't universally determined.
I can't really understand the point you are trying to make, so feel free to elaborate.
Corrupt politician.
Fucking over a whole country as oppose to everything else up there
Fucking over a whole country as oppose to everything else up there
A corrupted politician