The validity of online relationships.

[Light Ice]

Trust a simple comparison to lead my point to be completely missed.

 

[Hikari]

Trust a simple comparison to lead my point to be completely missed.

I know how you feel man...

 

[Chgris]

There may be horrible people in the world, but not a single person has the right to decide who should die and who shouldn't.

Certainly self-defense is an understandable reason to cause a person's death, but anything else is quite unethical.

We determine a killer's right to live depending on the circumstances of the killing. A soldier and a serial killer do the same job. One is insane and the other is committing what is considered socially justifiable manslaughter. Yet we give one medals and the other a death sentence. Why?


The serial killer destroys a few lives and the soldier destroys many. One is placed on a pedestal and the other is condemned.


The people you kill, supposedly have one life. Now imagine for a moment that there is no afterlife. No pretty clouds or paradise. You are just dead in the ground. It changes the whole game. You aren't sending someone to their maker, you are removing their very existence to suit your own selfish needs.


What then gives you the right to determine a person's worth and right to life based squarely upon their morality?

Sorry, Hikari. I do have the right to decide. If you come at me or mine with the intent of doing us harm, you have made a choice. That choice has consequences. And in this case, the consequence is you forfeit your right to continue breathing.

I find your inability to comprehend the difference between a serial killer and a soldier incomprehensible based on every other 'moral assertion' you have made here. A soldier and serial killer do not do the same 'job'. A serial killer has no 'job'. He/she/they are transgressing against the laws of the society that you and LI have held up. They are breaking the compact that allows society to function. Their right to continue to live is forfeit.

As to the 'one life' thing... Good. I'd rather they stay in the ground than be reincarnated and I have to take them out again. Or worse, maybe this time they get the drop on me and I can't stop them.

Obviously, I do not believe in moral equivalence.

 

[Chgris]

Trust a simple comparison to lead my point to be completely missed.

I missed nothing. I was simply struck by the selective moral choices you make. And was curious as to how far you would go to stick to your beliefs.

You chose not to respond, other than with a snide comment. So be it. Do return to the "Holier than thou" discussion.

 

[Light Ice]

I missed nothing. I was simply struck by the selective moral choices you make. And was curious as to how far you would go to stick to your beliefs.

You chose not to respond, other than with a snide comment. So be it. Do return to the "Holier than thou" discussion.

It's an entirely separate argument. If you'd like to have it somewhere else, I will, but I see absolutely no reason to have it here.

 

[Hikari]

Sorry, Hikari. I do have the right to decide. If you come at me or mine with the intent of doing us harm, you have made a choice. That choice has consequences. And in this case, the consequence is you forfeit your right to continue breathing.

I find your inability to comprehend the difference between a serial killer and a soldier incomprehensible based on every other 'moral assertion' you have made here. A soldier and serial killer do not do the same 'job'. A serial killer has no 'job'. He/she/they are transgressing against the laws of the society that you and LI have held up. They are breaking the compact that allows society to function. Their right to continue to live is forfeit.

As to the 'one life' thing... Good. I'd rather they stay in the ground than be reincarnated and I have to take them out again. Or worse, maybe this time they get the drop on me and I can't stop them.

Obviously, I do not believe in moral equivalence.

They both have the goal of killing people. The deaths that are caused by both have the same weight. Not everyone that dies in a war has committed a sin of some kind. Innocents die alongside the guilty.

A serial killer may believe they are doing society a favor. Does that change the morality of their actions?

It doesn't. If you kill someone, you've stolen their life away no matter the reason.

Survival is one thing, but killing based on your own morality is another. You're basically saying that your personal morality should be upheld over the life of a human being. That is messed up.

If not committed for self defense it is usually unneeded to kill another human being. Unless maybe you were trapped in a cave in the arctic and the motherfucker drew the short straw for cannibalism.

There are many exceptions and situations where killing someone could be considered socially acceptable, but it can never really be morally justifiable to kill needlessly.

Lots of people could hurt those you care about in ways worse than death. You can't protect people from everything. So you can shoot a nightly intruder, and lose your whole family in a car wreck anyway. That's the way the world works unfortunately.

 

[Chgris]

Hikari, you and I have a different set of morals, obviously. You subscribe to the theory of moral equivalence.

Your last sentence is meaningless. A car accident killing my family has nothing whatsoever to do with an intruder being shot.

You and I are going to simply have to agree to disagree.

I am wondering at what point in this discussion Godwin's Law will be invoked.

 

[Hikari]

Hikari, you and I have a different set of morals, obviously. You subscribe to the theory of moral equivalence.

Your last sentence is meaningless. A car accident killing my family has nothing whatsoever to do with an intruder being shot.

You and I are going to simply have to agree to disagree.

I am wondering at what point in this discussion Godwin's Law will be invoked.

I'm saying that the idea that killing some to protect others is a futile method of overall protection. You can't watch your family every moment of every day indefinitely, and the chances of you ever needing to protect them in an act of self-defense like that is pretty slim.

They are more likely to die in a car accident than in a gun battle in your living room.

To protect someone from everything, you would remove that person's ability to live a normal life.


There is no real hierarchy when it comes to human life. When you set up a hierarchy of certain lives against others you set the up the moral framework for genocide, honor killings, and witch burnings.

 

[Noor]

However i did want to add something concerning friendship- both here and rl. I trust those that i play with. Most of them have my cell number, know my real name and are people who have kept me sane. They are friends that i met here. In rl it is the same thing. If i trust you with my fam, my heart, my dreams then we are friends. There isnt any diffference.

I strongly agree with this.