BF2S Forums If you had to kill one out of this list, which one would you kill?

then I would have no reason to want said people killed.

Locoloki wrote:

How come pedophile didnt make the list?

They are included in child abuser.

If I had to kill someone and there was no conceivable way of getting out of it, it would be a serial killer.  But I would be no better than these miscreants.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

But is the OP's poll based on the actions of a vigilante or end result of a court of law?

I guess I took "you" to literally mean "me"

End result of a court of law, the only one I could say unequivocally would be a serial killer - which is still unfortunate because most are products of bad childhoods.

Any others, nope, wouldn't support state-sponsored death.

Personal responsibility really is your peoples kryptonite isn't it.

Who is "your peoples"?  Am I personally responsible for someone being executed in California even though I don't agree with the execution or the death penalty?

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Rationality and objectiveness do not come into play when it comes to your childrens' safety.

I don't need to be a parent to understand irrationality from passion

It's right there. Read the post.

Proves it right there.  Unless you ARE a parent, you really don't understand.  Once you are a parent, all gloves are off when it comes to your own children, and to a certain degree, for all children.

Last edited by Ilocano (2008-03-27 09:33:10)

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Rationality and objectiveness do not come into play when it comes to your childrens' safety.

I don't need to be a parent to understand irrationality from passion

It's right there. Read the post.

I did read it. You mentioned having a rational, objective basis for an opinion. That's what I was responding to. Should've been easy to figure out, as I was using your own words.

You apparently ignored the context. It was easy to figure out, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Seems I shouldn't have.

I know there's nothing rational about the notion that an emotionally scarred child is worse than a murdered person, and nothing in my post said that there was. What my post said is that attributing a difference of opinion on the matter to ignorance simply because that difference exists is as arrogant in this context as it is in any other.

Ilocano wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Rationality and objectiveness do not come into play when it comes to your childrens' safety.

I don't need to be a parent to understand irrationality from passion

It's right there. Read the post.

Proves it right there.  Unless you ARE a parent, you really don't understand.  Once you are a parent, all gloves are off when it comes to your own children, and to a certain degree, for all children.

Conversely, that right there proves my point. I understand fully, I just don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you do.

Ilocano wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Conversely, that right there proves my point. I understand fully, I just don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you do.

For now.  See ya when holding your newborn for the first time.

Then my opinion will very likely be the same. Who are you to tell me what my opinion will be?

sergeriver wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Conversely, that right there proves my point. I understand fully, I just don't subscribe to the same beliefs as you do.

For now.  See ya when holding your newborn for the first time.

And don't forget that an abused child will probably have issues as an adult, and he could even end being a rapist, murderer, serial killer, etc.

So what? You don't have any chances when you're dead.

mikkel wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

For now.  See ya when holding your newborn for the first time.

And don't forget that an abused child will probably have issues as an adult, and he could even end being a rapist, murderer, serial killer, etc.

So what? You don't have any chances when you're dead.

When you're dead you can't harm others, when your mind is fucked up then you can.

sergeriver wrote:

Locoloki wrote:

How come pedophile didnt make the list?

They are included in child abuser.

That's not fair, it means that "child abuser" as a poll option is basically "rapist+". It gives the poll option an unfair advantage over the others.

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Child Abusers and Rapists don't always kill their victims. Now a Serial Child Killer would be the worst

That's only true if you consider murder more evil than rape. I think that murder can have a certain businesslikeness about it, that rape can never have. Serial killings often lack this as well, but then again, that kind of serial killings are often associated with sexual abuse. Also with serial killers in general as with child abusers, there is practically always some form of mental illness involved. I would kill the rapist definitely!

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

How would you murdering any one of those morally set you apart from anyone on that list?

Dumb thread TBH.

Those are the scum of society, they don't deserve to be a part of it at all.

But you as a murderer would be deserving to be a part of society because it is your job to self-police society based on your own morals?

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".



P.S. "terrorists" are something different though (note the " 's)

mikkel wrote:

Just casually? None. In the act? All but the politician if they fail to heed warnings.

It disturbs me how many people think that the emotional scarring of a child is worse than the murder of any individual.

I traced this back to the beginning of ya'lls discussion...

...to jump in here...

In reality it's really a no-win situation, as the choices start dark and get darker.

A hypothetical for example:
Would you rather be raped by someone you know or someone you've never met?

Well, to be honest...getting raped by anyone sucks...

Lai wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

But you as a murderer would be deserving to be a part of society because it is your job to self-police society based on your own morals?

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".

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.

Morals aren't universally determined.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Lai wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

But you as a murderer would be deserving to be a part of society because it is your job to self-police society based on your own morals?

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".

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.

Morals aren't universally determined.

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.