Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 1 & 80
Entire Site: 9 & 826
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-28-24 01:01 PM

Forum Links

murder
is any death by human hands murder
Related Threads
Coming Soon

Thread Information

Views
2,338
Replies
28
Rating
0
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
drag00n365
03-31-10 06:51 PM
Last
Post
oobla37
05-25-10 04:51 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 458
Today: 0
Users: 0 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
Posts


2 Pages
>>
 

murder

 
do you believe any death by human hands is murder or do you think there is such a thing as mercy killing.
murder
 
57.1%, 4 votes
mercy killing
 
42.9%, 3 votes
Multi-voting is disabled

03-31-10 06:51 PM
drag00n365 is Offline
| ID: 161879 | 18 Words

drag00n365
Level: 73


POSTS: 36/1306
POST EXP: 40824
LVL EXP: 3380639
CP: 946.6
VIZ: 47538

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
i think that any death by human hands is murder. but i was wondering what other people think.
i think that any death by human hands is murder. but i was wondering what other people think.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-11-10
Last Post: 1151 days
Last Active: 1132 days

03-31-10 06:59 PM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 161885 | 132 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 7743/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420131060
CP: 52472.4
VIZ: 528573

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
well, I think you need to clarify what you mean.... because I can think of examples where you are totally justified in killing someone.

Take self-defense for example. If you kill someone in an effort to protect yourself I see nothing wrong with this. Or if you kill while serving as a soldier I also think this is okay, as long as the killing was required and not done once someone had surrendered etc (military service issues do get complicated so I won't go into that one further)


however, I think that in the case of mercy killings that they are still wrong to do. While the person you are killing might be saved some pain and suffering I still think it is wrong to prematurely end a life in that way.
well, I think you need to clarify what you mean.... because I can think of examples where you are totally justified in killing someone.

Take self-defense for example. If you kill someone in an effort to protect yourself I see nothing wrong with this. Or if you kill while serving as a soldier I also think this is okay, as long as the killing was required and not done once someone had surrendered etc (military service issues do get complicated so I won't go into that one further)


however, I think that in the case of mercy killings that they are still wrong to do. While the person you are killing might be saved some pain and suffering I still think it is wrong to prematurely end a life in that way.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 90 days
Last Active: 15 hours

03-31-10 10:41 PM
retro _general is Offline
| ID: 161976 | 57 Words

retro _general
Level: 66


POSTS: 970/1036
POST EXP: 25837
LVL EXP: 2400784
CP: 27.0
VIZ: 16571

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Murder is a extreme word to use when the person is on life support and has nothing else to love so mercy killing I would say be plausible to sue because your reliefing someone of pain.
Other cases however could be consider murder like taking out a entire family for no reason or for some personal reason.
Murder is a extreme word to use when the person is on life support and has nothing else to love so mercy killing I would say be plausible to sue because your reliefing someone of pain.
Other cases however could be consider murder like taking out a entire family for no reason or for some personal reason.
Member
President of DoctorWho Club


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-17-10
Last Post: 5073 days
Last Active: 5073 days

03-31-10 11:38 PM
is Offline
| ID: 161995 | 185 Words


JigSaw
Level: 164


POSTS: 3401/7936
POST EXP: 584185
LVL EXP: 57284693
CP: 8045.8
VIZ: -46031833

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Murder is a label for killings that are unjustified.

Self-defense is a tough issue to look at. You can't go self-defending against authority figures like cops or they call back up and slap charges and a beating on you.

As for soldiers... that is also a tough one to answer because soldiers are programmed to follow someone elses orders and agenda. I consider it murder whether you are defending or attacking as a soldier because its really a two sided game when your thinking of soldiers and war. There is no good or bad side because both sides think they are good and both sides think their opposition is the bad guy.

Say I was holding a gun and apart of an army and the enemy shot me eventhough I did nothing. Is that murder or self defense? So it's a tough thing to answer...

It depends on the situation I think. Personal matters its different, but in war both sides are pure murderers following someone elses agenda. If they were not murderers they would not be training with weapons and tanks simple as that.
Murder is a label for killings that are unjustified.

Self-defense is a tough issue to look at. You can't go self-defending against authority figures like cops or they call back up and slap charges and a beating on you.

As for soldiers... that is also a tough one to answer because soldiers are programmed to follow someone elses orders and agenda. I consider it murder whether you are defending or attacking as a soldier because its really a two sided game when your thinking of soldiers and war. There is no good or bad side because both sides think they are good and both sides think their opposition is the bad guy.

Say I was holding a gun and apart of an army and the enemy shot me eventhough I did nothing. Is that murder or self defense? So it's a tough thing to answer...

It depends on the situation I think. Personal matters its different, but in war both sides are pure murderers following someone elses agenda. If they were not murderers they would not be training with weapons and tanks simple as that.
Vizzed Elite
PHP Developer, Security Consultant

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-06-06
Location: Area 51
Last Post: 1706 days
Last Active: 1700 days

04-01-10 12:28 AM
Zenrix is Offline
| ID: 162013 | 68 Words

Zenrix
Level: 10


POSTS: 9/15
POST EXP: 631
LVL EXP: 4153
CP: 2.0
VIZ: 972

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I would only classify murder, if within the bounds of my morality i feel regret for killing that certain person. It isn't for legal system to decide whether or not you are guilty of murder, because whats happening in your head can be worse then any prison sentence, even a death sentence. The regret could be killing you from the inside, but you just cant die from it.
I would only classify murder, if within the bounds of my morality i feel regret for killing that certain person. It isn't for legal system to decide whether or not you are guilty of murder, because whats happening in your head can be worse then any prison sentence, even a death sentence. The regret could be killing you from the inside, but you just cant die from it.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-31-10
Location: Spokane, Washington, USA
Last Post: 5110 days
Last Active: 3826 days

04-01-10 01:05 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 162038 | 276 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 7752/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420131060
CP: 52472.4
VIZ: 528573

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Originally posted by JigSaw
As for soldiers... that is also a tough one to answer because soldiers are programmed to follow someone elses orders and agenda. I consider it murder whether you are defending or attacking as a soldier because its really a two sided game when your thinking of soldiers and war. There is no good or bad side because both sides think they are good and both sides think their opposition is the bad guy.

Say I was holding a gun and apart of an army and the enemy shot me eventhough I did nothing. Is that murder or self defense? So it's a tough thing to answer...

It depends on the situation I think. Personal matters its different, but in war both sides are pure murderers following someone elses agenda. If they were not murderers they would not be training with weapons and tanks simple as that.



Well, in cases like this I would say that you're not accountable for the results. You're a soldier and simply following orders. The person who made the order to go to fight would be accountable for these deaths.

However, if you had the choice of killing or capturing and you chose to kill when a capture would have been equally possible then I think that would be a murder. But again, to make a judgement about soldiers in combat situations is tough. They are fighting for their lives and they are just doing the job they signed up for. It's not their fault that the group/country the work for is attacking someone or something else today. They've got to make a living the way they know how.
Originally posted by JigSaw
As for soldiers... that is also a tough one to answer because soldiers are programmed to follow someone elses orders and agenda. I consider it murder whether you are defending or attacking as a soldier because its really a two sided game when your thinking of soldiers and war. There is no good or bad side because both sides think they are good and both sides think their opposition is the bad guy.

Say I was holding a gun and apart of an army and the enemy shot me eventhough I did nothing. Is that murder or self defense? So it's a tough thing to answer...

It depends on the situation I think. Personal matters its different, but in war both sides are pure murderers following someone elses agenda. If they were not murderers they would not be training with weapons and tanks simple as that.



Well, in cases like this I would say that you're not accountable for the results. You're a soldier and simply following orders. The person who made the order to go to fight would be accountable for these deaths.

However, if you had the choice of killing or capturing and you chose to kill when a capture would have been equally possible then I think that would be a murder. But again, to make a judgement about soldiers in combat situations is tough. They are fighting for their lives and they are just doing the job they signed up for. It's not their fault that the group/country the work for is attacking someone or something else today. They've got to make a living the way they know how.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 90 days
Last Active: 15 hours

04-01-10 06:07 AM
drag00n365 is Offline
| ID: 162084 | 131 Words

drag00n365
Level: 73


POSTS: 38/1306
POST EXP: 40824
LVL EXP: 3380639
CP: 946.6
VIZ: 47538

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
i think if the battle is justified then it is ok for soilders to kill. what i was talking about was like when a patient is dying slowly and a doctor kills him to be "merciful" was the doctor wrong in doing so. also i think any death by human hands is wrong.whether they say its a mercy killing or not. also i think any one that commits murder. should be put to death. even the bible says that the punishment should be death. and it leaves no room for mercy killings.( for a good example of the kind of example of what im talking about look up the story coup de graw by ambrose beirce) you know this probably shouldnt be a poll is there some way to change that?
i think if the battle is justified then it is ok for soilders to kill. what i was talking about was like when a patient is dying slowly and a doctor kills him to be "merciful" was the doctor wrong in doing so. also i think any death by human hands is wrong.whether they say its a mercy killing or not. also i think any one that commits murder. should be put to death. even the bible says that the punishment should be death. and it leaves no room for mercy killings.( for a good example of the kind of example of what im talking about look up the story coup de graw by ambrose beirce) you know this probably shouldnt be a poll is there some way to change that?
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-11-10
Last Post: 1151 days
Last Active: 1132 days

(edited by drag00n365 on 04-01-10 11:02 PM)    

04-01-10 10:40 PM
tonetone714 is Offline
| ID: 162573 | 34 Words

tonetone714
Level: 60


POSTS: 18/823
POST EXP: 38078
LVL EXP: 1691315
CP: 24.0
VIZ: 18061

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
i think if the person is in a balanced state of mind and wants to be put out of their pain and maybe the family agrees it would be best then go for it.
i think if the person is in a balanced state of mind and wants to be put out of their pain and maybe the family agrees it would be best then go for it.
Trusted Member
"So nice, they named him twice."


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-10-10
Location: BIG BAD Orange County, CA
Last Post: 4402 days
Last Active: 2985 days

04-02-10 10:07 AM
Elara is Offline
| ID: 162770 | 60 Words

Elara
Level: 115


POSTS: 1027/3383
POST EXP: 286046
LVL EXP: 16521065
CP: 1070.0
VIZ: 211251

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I really don't see this as a black and white issue so I can't answer either way. In general yes, murder is wrong but we have no problem putting down a dog or cat when it is dying and suffering because that is the "humane" thing to do... yet we get uppity when a person asks for the same consideration.
I really don't see this as a black and white issue so I can't answer either way. In general yes, murder is wrong but we have no problem putting down a dog or cat when it is dying and suffering because that is the "humane" thing to do... yet we get uppity when a person asks for the same consideration.
Vizzed Elite
Dark Elf Goddess
Penguins Fan


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-08-04
Last Post: 2362 days
Last Active: 1753 days

04-02-10 10:43 AM
Light Knight is Offline
| ID: 162780 | 131 Words

Light Knight
Davideo3.14
Level: 121


POSTS: 781/3819
POST EXP: 276083
LVL EXP: 19816294
CP: 11293.5
VIZ: 1051184

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
There are so many circumstances to take into consideration when it comes to mercy killing. In almost any circumstance I think it's wrong, even if your child feels nothing but pain, to willingly take a life is murder. But it doesn't mean it's not understandable, and I don't feel any anger when someone understandably mercy murders someone. It's murder, but I can symphathize.

A soldier killing someone else is murder. The commander who gave the order, the soldier, and any one else up the line who gave permision for this to happen have murdered. Anyone joining the army to fight have willing been trained to kill, and know they may have to. They have a choice, and they choose to kill someone their country (marked off by invisible lines) wants dead.
There are so many circumstances to take into consideration when it comes to mercy killing. In almost any circumstance I think it's wrong, even if your child feels nothing but pain, to willingly take a life is murder. But it doesn't mean it's not understandable, and I don't feel any anger when someone understandably mercy murders someone. It's murder, but I can symphathize.

A soldier killing someone else is murder. The commander who gave the order, the soldier, and any one else up the line who gave permision for this to happen have murdered. Anyone joining the army to fight have willing been trained to kill, and know they may have to. They have a choice, and they choose to kill someone their country (marked off by invisible lines) wants dead.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Loyal Knight of Vizzed


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-08-04
Location: The Internet
Last Post: 65 days
Last Active: 28 days

04-02-10 11:54 AM
Elara is Offline
| ID: 162819 | 18 Words

Elara
Level: 115


POSTS: 1028/3383
POST EXP: 286046
LVL EXP: 16521065
CP: 1070.0
VIZ: 211251

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
what about religious wars like the crusades? Or biblical punishments like stoning a person to death for adultery?
what about religious wars like the crusades? Or biblical punishments like stoning a person to death for adultery?
Vizzed Elite
Dark Elf Goddess
Penguins Fan


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-08-04
Last Post: 2362 days
Last Active: 1753 days

04-02-10 12:21 PM
drag00n365 is Offline
| ID: 162825 | 12 Words

drag00n365
Level: 73


POSTS: 39/1306
POST EXP: 40824
LVL EXP: 3380639
CP: 946.6
VIZ: 47538

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
you answered your own question elara thats exactly what they were punishments.
you answered your own question elara thats exactly what they were punishments.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-11-10
Last Post: 1151 days
Last Active: 1132 days

04-02-10 01:08 PM
Light Knight is Offline
| ID: 162835 | 97 Words

Light Knight
Davideo3.14
Level: 121


POSTS: 784/3819
POST EXP: 276083
LVL EXP: 19816294
CP: 11293.5
VIZ: 1051184

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Originally posted by Elara
what about religious wars like the crusades? Or biblical punishments like stoning a person to death for adultery?


I believe the crusades were wars like any other. People were still killing others, I don't approve.

As for biblical punishment, when isreal was under the Moseic law, it was God's will, and his way of doing it. We no longer live by that, we live by the new law found in the new testiment. We are not to kill, God will judge. Especially in so called holy-wars, possibly the most hypocitical thing I've heard of.
Originally posted by Elara
what about religious wars like the crusades? Or biblical punishments like stoning a person to death for adultery?


I believe the crusades were wars like any other. People were still killing others, I don't approve.

As for biblical punishment, when isreal was under the Moseic law, it was God's will, and his way of doing it. We no longer live by that, we live by the new law found in the new testiment. We are not to kill, God will judge. Especially in so called holy-wars, possibly the most hypocitical thing I've heard of.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Loyal Knight of Vizzed


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-08-04
Location: The Internet
Last Post: 65 days
Last Active: 28 days

04-02-10 02:50 PM
JusTReaL is Offline
| ID: 162862 | 88 Words

JusTReaL
Level: 80


POSTS: 642/1634
POST EXP: 91083
LVL EXP: 4730608
CP: 134.9
VIZ: 55320

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Well I think murder is a strong label to put on every death by a humans hands. I mean be rational, if you put your dog to sleep is that murder? Also the soldiers at war who fight for our country, they are fighting for a cause and even though they are kiiling other human beings, it's not logically like they are murdering them. Murder to might is a selfish, unacceptable act of killing an innocent being. Or the killing of one for unexcusable reasons. That's my opinion.
Well I think murder is a strong label to put on every death by a humans hands. I mean be rational, if you put your dog to sleep is that murder? Also the soldiers at war who fight for our country, they are fighting for a cause and even though they are kiiling other human beings, it's not logically like they are murdering them. Murder to might is a selfish, unacceptable act of killing an innocent being. Or the killing of one for unexcusable reasons. That's my opinion.
Vizzed Elite

April 2010 VCS Champion


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-12-10
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Last Post: 4994 days
Last Active: 4967 days

04-02-10 03:05 PM
drag00n365 is Offline
| ID: 162871 | 12 Words

drag00n365
Level: 73


POSTS: 40/1306
POST EXP: 40824
LVL EXP: 3380639
CP: 946.6
VIZ: 47538

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
well killing a dog isnt considered murder but humans are not dogs.
well killing a dog isnt considered murder but humans are not dogs.
Vizzed Elite

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-11-10
Last Post: 1151 days
Last Active: 1132 days

04-13-10 12:41 AM
BTowns is Offline
| ID: 167564 | 306 Words

BTowns
Level: 86


POSTS: 448/1929
POST EXP: 135277
LVL EXP: 6071361
CP: 225.2
VIZ: 16520

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
In war, I believe that the soldiers aren't the murderers, the ones who started the wars and the ones directing the battles are. Soldiers are in a kill or be killed environment, and some of them realize that the people they are fighting against are people just like them, in the same situation as them. If you see someone with a gun aiming at you, you don't have the opportunity to consider whether or not he's going to shoot. Either you shoot or you die. That's not murder. If he has no weapon and has surrendered to you, if you kill him then, heartlessly, I believe that can be considered by some as murder.

As for mercy killings, that is completely dependent upon the individual receiving the euthanasia. Forcing someone to stay alive against their will is more of a moral crime than ending their life, in my opinion. If I was completely paralyzed, unable to even move my mouth, but still completely brain conscious, I would pray every day for death. I wouldn't be able to handle that, that isn't living. You would feel like a prisoner receiving the worst kind of torture, and with my claustrophobia that feeling of being trapped within my own body would be unbearable.

Usually when I talk about euthanasia with people, they've never considered if they were the person in need of the mercy. I hope you've all thought about that, I don't know if you have. But actually think about, try and put yourself in that situation where you can't move, can't eat, can't communicate, can't even defecate by yourself. You wouldn't be able to ask anyone for help, talk to anyone, or do anything. You'd be living a nightmare, and I don't know how strong some of you are, but I wouldn't be able to do that.
In war, I believe that the soldiers aren't the murderers, the ones who started the wars and the ones directing the battles are. Soldiers are in a kill or be killed environment, and some of them realize that the people they are fighting against are people just like them, in the same situation as them. If you see someone with a gun aiming at you, you don't have the opportunity to consider whether or not he's going to shoot. Either you shoot or you die. That's not murder. If he has no weapon and has surrendered to you, if you kill him then, heartlessly, I believe that can be considered by some as murder.

As for mercy killings, that is completely dependent upon the individual receiving the euthanasia. Forcing someone to stay alive against their will is more of a moral crime than ending their life, in my opinion. If I was completely paralyzed, unable to even move my mouth, but still completely brain conscious, I would pray every day for death. I wouldn't be able to handle that, that isn't living. You would feel like a prisoner receiving the worst kind of torture, and with my claustrophobia that feeling of being trapped within my own body would be unbearable.

Usually when I talk about euthanasia with people, they've never considered if they were the person in need of the mercy. I hope you've all thought about that, I don't know if you have. But actually think about, try and put yourself in that situation where you can't move, can't eat, can't communicate, can't even defecate by yourself. You wouldn't be able to ask anyone for help, talk to anyone, or do anything. You'd be living a nightmare, and I don't know how strong some of you are, but I wouldn't be able to do that.
Vizzed Elite
Computer Engineering Student at UBC


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-07-10
Location: West Coast Canada
Last Post: 4527 days
Last Active: 481 days

04-13-10 12:47 AM
geeogree is Offline
| ID: 167566 | 277 Words

geeogree
Mr Geeohn-A-Vash53215
Level: 290


POSTS: 8153/29291
POST EXP: 1955397
LVL EXP: 420131060
CP: 52472.4
VIZ: 528573

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
BTowns: well, your second part is talking about mercy killings but I would make a distinction there.

I think a mercy killing is when you kill someone who has terminal cancer throughout their body and will die very soon but until then they are just living with pain. You kill them earlier than they would have naturally died.

Forcing people to stay alive through breathing machines and such is different in my opinion. I don't think it is immoral to remove someone from a machine that is keeping the body alive even though without it the body would die in a few minutes. And I think the argument of: "But what if a cure is found soon?" is garbage 99% of the time. Most people who are being kept alive by machines will not live long enough or be "fixable" by the time a treatment comes out to reverse the damage that forced them to be kept alive by machines. And even if you can reverse that and bring them back to life they have been living in a bed for YEARS by this point. The body degrades if it isn't used.... what kind of a life are you bringing them back to?

I think it's selfish to force people to stay alive. Who is really benefiting? The person on the bed or the people that are visiting? I also think when people make the choice to keep someone alive they themselves stop living their lives. Instead they become consumed with either finding a cure or spending time in the hospital room with the person who is not alive anymore.

/rant Just my thoughts on it.
BTowns: well, your second part is talking about mercy killings but I would make a distinction there.

I think a mercy killing is when you kill someone who has terminal cancer throughout their body and will die very soon but until then they are just living with pain. You kill them earlier than they would have naturally died.

Forcing people to stay alive through breathing machines and such is different in my opinion. I don't think it is immoral to remove someone from a machine that is keeping the body alive even though without it the body would die in a few minutes. And I think the argument of: "But what if a cure is found soon?" is garbage 99% of the time. Most people who are being kept alive by machines will not live long enough or be "fixable" by the time a treatment comes out to reverse the damage that forced them to be kept alive by machines. And even if you can reverse that and bring them back to life they have been living in a bed for YEARS by this point. The body degrades if it isn't used.... what kind of a life are you bringing them back to?

I think it's selfish to force people to stay alive. Who is really benefiting? The person on the bed or the people that are visiting? I also think when people make the choice to keep someone alive they themselves stop living their lives. Instead they become consumed with either finding a cure or spending time in the hospital room with the person who is not alive anymore.

/rant Just my thoughts on it.
Vizzed Elite
Former Admin
Banzilla


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-03-05
Last Post: 90 days
Last Active: 15 hours

04-13-10 09:24 AM
Crawldragon is Offline
| ID: 167618 | 765 Words

Crawldragon
Level: 50


POSTS: 175/551
POST EXP: 59116
LVL EXP: 931114
CP: 554.0
VIZ: 24490

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Originally posted by JigSaw
As for soldiers... that is also a tough one to answer because soldiers are programmed to follow someone elses orders and agenda.
Are you aware of the social experiment by Stanley Milgram that proves that? He had a setup where a man behind a window was wired up to a (fake) electric chair, and he would bring students in and tell them to press a button, giving him a shock whenever he answered a question wrong. After several shocks the man would start screaming, banging on the window, and eventually he would fall silent. The voltage counter would go up every time, starting at 45 volts. Not one of them stopped pressing the button until after 300 volts (three times the lethal dosage) and most of them not until 450 volts, at which point it couldn't go any higher. Later, Charles Sheridan and Richard King performed the same experiment, only the man being electrocuted was a puppy, and the shocks were real. Same results.



I believe that life is precious, much more precious than most people realize, and that it's something no one has the right to take. Obviously, there are unfortunate situations where it may be necessary, such as in self-defense, but one should seriously think about the circumstances before killing.

I think that war is a terrible thing. Ultimately, I see it as mass murder made by the leaders of nations or organizations too lazy or stupid to work things out diplomatically, and really what's the point? To prove that we can train people to go out and die because a man with a badge said to? It's tragic how much that says about human nature.

Now, I'm the first to admit that my vision of death and killing is shaped by a belief in hell, and when people kill other people (let's not call it "assisted suicide." If you end someone's life, that's killing) and say that it's to "ease pain" I think they're full of ****. If someone decides to give up because it hurts too much then they're in for a nasty shock on the other side. I realize that's their choice, but if we can prevent someone from living in a place of unimaginable misery for all eternity I think that's well-worth living in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine for only one lifetime.

Maybe you don't believe in hell, and you only believe in oblivion. Why don't you do something for me? Sever all of your nerve endings, gouge out your eyes and sinuses so you can't see or smell, burn off your taste buds so you can't taste and pour hot silver in your ears so you can't hear. That's what oblivion is like. Maybe life here on Earth isn't all it's cracked up to be, but if you don't believe in an afterlife I don't see how you could think removing someone from existence entirely is any better, and if you can do that without any residual pain on your conscience I seriously wonder about your status as a human being.

One of you brought up that if you were in a bed and you couldn't speak, eat, defecate, or do anything then you'd prefer to die. OK, that's your choice and while I don't condone it there's nothing I can do to stop you from making a doctor pull the plug except ward him off with a scalpel. But what about if someone else was on the bed and you were the one making the decision? Is it ethical to decide to kill someone for them? If they can't speak and they're unaware of the world around them they can't exactly instruct someone to kill them, so you don't have any right to make the decision for them. That's like seeing a homeless guy on the street and without so much as considering his feelings stabbing him in the gut to prevent him from living with no house. Would you do that?

I believe that life is precious, and ultimately no one has the right to decide whether another person lives or dies. If there's hope that someone can live or that their suffering could be eased at least a little then that's better than just giving up. People who compare it to mercy-killing a dog or a cat need to seriously look at their relationship with the people they care for, because personally if I'm laying on a hospital bed I'd appreciate it if you thought of me as a bit more valuable than something that eats its own crap.
Originally posted by JigSaw
As for soldiers... that is also a tough one to answer because soldiers are programmed to follow someone elses orders and agenda.
Are you aware of the social experiment by Stanley Milgram that proves that? He had a setup where a man behind a window was wired up to a (fake) electric chair, and he would bring students in and tell them to press a button, giving him a shock whenever he answered a question wrong. After several shocks the man would start screaming, banging on the window, and eventually he would fall silent. The voltage counter would go up every time, starting at 45 volts. Not one of them stopped pressing the button until after 300 volts (three times the lethal dosage) and most of them not until 450 volts, at which point it couldn't go any higher. Later, Charles Sheridan and Richard King performed the same experiment, only the man being electrocuted was a puppy, and the shocks were real. Same results.



I believe that life is precious, much more precious than most people realize, and that it's something no one has the right to take. Obviously, there are unfortunate situations where it may be necessary, such as in self-defense, but one should seriously think about the circumstances before killing.

I think that war is a terrible thing. Ultimately, I see it as mass murder made by the leaders of nations or organizations too lazy or stupid to work things out diplomatically, and really what's the point? To prove that we can train people to go out and die because a man with a badge said to? It's tragic how much that says about human nature.

Now, I'm the first to admit that my vision of death and killing is shaped by a belief in hell, and when people kill other people (let's not call it "assisted suicide." If you end someone's life, that's killing) and say that it's to "ease pain" I think they're full of ****. If someone decides to give up because it hurts too much then they're in for a nasty shock on the other side. I realize that's their choice, but if we can prevent someone from living in a place of unimaginable misery for all eternity I think that's well-worth living in a hospital bed hooked up to a machine for only one lifetime.

Maybe you don't believe in hell, and you only believe in oblivion. Why don't you do something for me? Sever all of your nerve endings, gouge out your eyes and sinuses so you can't see or smell, burn off your taste buds so you can't taste and pour hot silver in your ears so you can't hear. That's what oblivion is like. Maybe life here on Earth isn't all it's cracked up to be, but if you don't believe in an afterlife I don't see how you could think removing someone from existence entirely is any better, and if you can do that without any residual pain on your conscience I seriously wonder about your status as a human being.

One of you brought up that if you were in a bed and you couldn't speak, eat, defecate, or do anything then you'd prefer to die. OK, that's your choice and while I don't condone it there's nothing I can do to stop you from making a doctor pull the plug except ward him off with a scalpel. But what about if someone else was on the bed and you were the one making the decision? Is it ethical to decide to kill someone for them? If they can't speak and they're unaware of the world around them they can't exactly instruct someone to kill them, so you don't have any right to make the decision for them. That's like seeing a homeless guy on the street and without so much as considering his feelings stabbing him in the gut to prevent him from living with no house. Would you do that?

I believe that life is precious, and ultimately no one has the right to decide whether another person lives or dies. If there's hope that someone can live or that their suffering could be eased at least a little then that's better than just giving up. People who compare it to mercy-killing a dog or a cat need to seriously look at their relationship with the people they care for, because personally if I'm laying on a hospital bed I'd appreciate it if you thought of me as a bit more valuable than something that eats its own crap.
Trusted Member
Lurker Of The Century


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-18-10
Last Post: 3544 days
Last Active: 2700 days

04-14-10 12:20 PM
Jimsen is Offline
| ID: 168067 | 143 Words

Jimsen
Level: 17

POSTS: 33/45
POST EXP: 4153
LVL EXP: 21624
CP: 23.2
VIZ: 21810

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Crawldragon are you familiar with the full extent of Milgram's experiment. Not to be mean but he ran several experiments and it was determined that when there was nobody giving the orders to continue with the shocks most people were likely to stop before death would have been the result. However, with the removal of the person from view and someone standing over their shoulder saying that they will take the blame for any consequences it was found that people were much more likely to keep shocking the victim to beyond the point of death.

I think that Milgram's experiments when looked at as a whole make Jigsaw's point more valid than less because a soldier is trained to follow orders from his commanders knowing that if their is going to be a problem it follows the chain of command upwards not down.
Crawldragon are you familiar with the full extent of Milgram's experiment. Not to be mean but he ran several experiments and it was determined that when there was nobody giving the orders to continue with the shocks most people were likely to stop before death would have been the result. However, with the removal of the person from view and someone standing over their shoulder saying that they will take the blame for any consequences it was found that people were much more likely to keep shocking the victim to beyond the point of death.

I think that Milgram's experiments when looked at as a whole make Jigsaw's point more valid than less because a soldier is trained to follow orders from his commanders knowing that if their is going to be a problem it follows the chain of command upwards not down.
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 03-10-10
Last Post: 3952 days
Last Active: 2772 days

04-14-10 12:22 PM
Crawldragon is Offline
| ID: 168068 | 174 Words

Crawldragon
Level: 50


POSTS: 179/551
POST EXP: 59116
LVL EXP: 931114
CP: 554.0
VIZ: 24490

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Originally posted by Jimsen
Crawldragon are you familiar with the full extent of Milgram's experiment. Not to be mean but he ran several experiments and it was determined that when there was nobody giving the orders to continue with the shocks most people were likely to stop before death would have been the result. However, with the removal of the person from view and someone standing over their shoulder saying that they will take the blame for any consequences it was found that people were much more likely to keep shocking the victim to beyond the point of death.

I think that Milgram's experiments when looked at as a whole make Jigsaw's point more valid than less because a soldier is trained to follow orders from his commanders knowing that if their is going to be a problem it follows the chain of command upwards not down.
I know all of that. I was using Milgram to validate what Jigsaw said. Actually, what part of my response gave you the impression I was disagreeing with him?
Originally posted by Jimsen
Crawldragon are you familiar with the full extent of Milgram's experiment. Not to be mean but he ran several experiments and it was determined that when there was nobody giving the orders to continue with the shocks most people were likely to stop before death would have been the result. However, with the removal of the person from view and someone standing over their shoulder saying that they will take the blame for any consequences it was found that people were much more likely to keep shocking the victim to beyond the point of death.

I think that Milgram's experiments when looked at as a whole make Jigsaw's point more valid than less because a soldier is trained to follow orders from his commanders knowing that if their is going to be a problem it follows the chain of command upwards not down.
I know all of that. I was using Milgram to validate what Jigsaw said. Actually, what part of my response gave you the impression I was disagreeing with him?
Trusted Member
Lurker Of The Century


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-18-10
Last Post: 3544 days
Last Active: 2700 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×