Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 8/21/2005 9:07:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 7:08:24 PM EDT by motown_steve]
OK, you are in an SHTF situation. You have your gun, but you lost your food and water. You come across someone else who has food and water. Do you try and re-appropriate their resources? How far would you go if they decide not to let you take their stuff?

ETA - Most of you were willing to steal other people's stuff, and possibly even kill to do it in a SHTF situation. Now alot of you are bitching about people looting grocery stores and drug stores for food and water.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:08:46 PM EDT
Did they vote Republican?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:09:13 PM EDT
Oh boy.


Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:09:39 PM EDT
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:10:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would it not matter anymore at that point?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:12:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:14:44 PM EDT
I try not to be the things I hold in contempt.

Generally I try to never harm the innocent. I try to never overlook the guilty.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:15:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:16:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
The level of my morality will have a direct link to my percieved needs should such a time come.



That's how most gang bangers rationalize all the shit they do now.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:17:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?





"Morality" is nothing but a mental construct that helps to preserve our social structure.

Once that structure is gone, playing the game is pointless and inefficient.



(Granted - I've had a lot to drink, which brings out my cynicism )
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:21:21 PM EDT
Bad poll choices.
You have one extreme or the other.

Personally, I would give them every opportunity to help me.
If after all that they chose not to help me, chances are they would have cursed me and spit on me, therefore envoking my wrath.

If they couldn't help me, but wanted to, I would know, and that is understandable.

If they could help me, knew that I really did need it, and refused it....well, I wouldn't let my family starve.

Of course this is a post apocalyptic SHTF crazy ass scenario.

Bottom line is: There are two distinct types of people in this world. In a post apocalyptic SHTF crazy ass scenario, there is no need for the "other" kind. That may sound cold, but so are they.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:21:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?





"Morality" is nothing but a mental construct that helps to preserve our social structure.

Once that structure is gone, playing the game is pointless and inefficient.



(Granted - I've had a lot to drink, which brings out my cynicism )



Personally, I would like to think that I have the moral fortitude not to degenerate into an armed thug living off of what I can steal from others. But realisticly I can't say that under extreme circumstances where I am facing death and society has collapsed under the weight of some horrible event/s I would not do whatever was necessary to survive.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:22:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 9:23:48 PM EDT by FortyFiveAutomatic]
what's up with all the "roboman" questions?

j/k
i wouldn't sacrifice my morality to simply save my skin. if good people don't survive, then the dregs will take over and humanity is lost. and if some fucker tried to steal my shit, he's a dead man.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:24:45 PM EDT
I would offer a pact, my protection, for a share of their supply.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:25:41 PM EDT
Russians, living under Stalin's rule, starved to the point that they ate their own children.

None of us know the lengths we would go to.

Although I could NEVER imagine doing that.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:27:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Took me about 7 secs to realize what the 2nd one was.

And I would ask nicely, then try to find my own.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:28:15 PM EDT
I guess the it comes down to my kid or anothers. Then there really is no choice in the matter.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:28:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 9:29:09 PM EDT by SteyrAUG]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?





"Morality" is nothing but a mental construct that helps to preserve our social structure.

Once that structure is gone, playing the game is pointless and inefficient.



(Granted - I've had a lot to drink, which brings out my cynicism )




My personal values are not derived from that structure.

I don't refrain from robbing people because I fear jail (socieities penalties).

I don't refrain from killing people because I fear Gods judgement.

I do what I do based upon right and wrong. This can usually be determined by how I would want to be treated.

My adherence to "right and wrong" is a constant. I know when I am doing something wrong and I know what is right. Those things don't change because you removed social structure.

I don't consider it "playing the game."
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:28:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:29:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.

Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?

If I also knew it would mean my OWN child's death if I didn't?

Yes, I would do so absolutely and completely.


Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:30:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
The answer wouldn't be as simple as the two choices given.

Other factors would be taken into context.

If I had to victimize someone, I would select someone that seemee to me to be the sort of person
who SHOULD be victimized.

Like some 20-something punk who wears his hat backwards, his pants falling down, his ass showing,
and his car has a fart can, a loud stereo, expensive rims, and his daddy paid for all of it.

That'd be a prime type of victim. No common sense and very little brain. No loss to the race unless
he survives long enough to breed. Do the race a favor and cap him.


CJ




And they'd do the same to you because you are probably a white racist in their mind. Both of you are simply ratrionalizing what you know is wrong.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:31:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




"the end of the world as we know it" ?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:32:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.

Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?

If I also knew it would mean my OWN child's death if I didn't?

Yes, I would do so absolutely and completely.





Would that not be YOUR failing for not providing for YOUR child as this childs father apparantly did?

Would you by the same logic accept the fact that some POS gang banger stole your childs food to feed their baby and it meant YOUR childs death?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:32:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
The answer wouldn't be as simple as the two choices given.

Other factors would be taken into context.

If I had to victimize someone, I would select someone that seemee to me to be the sort of person
who SHOULD be victimized.

Like some 20-something punk who wears his hat backwards, his pants falling down, his ass showing,
and his car has a fart can, a loud stereo, expensive rims, and his daddy paid for all of it.

That'd be a prime type of victim. No common sense and very little brain. No loss to the race unless
he survives long enough to breed. Do the race a favor and cap him.


CJ




And they'd do the same to you because you are probably a white racist in their mind. Both of you are simply ratrionalizing what you know is wrong.




If they didn;t mess with you or anyone else then you have no right to mess with them. Its all wrong. Especcially based on looks.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:33:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By distributor_of_pain:
Russians, living under Stalin's rule, starved to the point that they ate their own children.

None of us know the lengths we would go to.

Although I could NEVER imagine doing that.




Didn't know about that.

I knew during the seige of Stalingrad children were kidnapped for food.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:34:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




+1.

If it were riots like "Rodney King II" or something like a hurricane aftermath, I'd sit it out.


Dissolution of the gubmint and utter chaos with no end in sight - *BANG*
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:36:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?





"Morality" is nothing but a mental construct that helps to preserve our social structure.

Once that structure is gone, playing the game is pointless and inefficient.



(Granted - I've had a lot to drink, which brings out my cynicism )




My personal values are not derived from that structure.

I don't refrain from robbing people because I fear jail (socieities penalties).

I don't refrain from killing people because I fear Gods judgement.

I do what I do based upon right and wrong. This can usually be determined by how I would want to be treated.

My adherence to "right and wrong" is a constant. I know when I am doing something wrong and I know what is right. Those things don't change because you removed social structure.




In the PRESENCE of society, I agree with all of those statements. In the ABSENCE of society, none of those principles hold true.



No offense to you personally, but if those stsatements are ABSOLUTE and UNCONDITIONAL they just demonstrate how well socialized into society you are, as you have completely "bought into" the kind of thinking that helps preserve social systems.

However, when those systems disappear, the human animal has one drive, and one drive only - to propage it's own survival, and the survival of its genetic code. Things like philosophy, morality, etc - are mere artifacts that have been developed (and socialized into children) to allow us to function together in large numbers.



In the final analysis, I woudl sacrifice the entire world to save my wife and myself.


If the choice was to sacrifice 10 "innocent" lives, or let your WIFE and CHILD die, which would you choose? Evolutionary psychology tells me that the answer is the former, not the latter.


Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:38:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?





"Morality" is nothing but a mental construct that helps to preserve our social structure.

Once that structure is gone, playing the game is pointless and inefficient.



(Granted - I've had a lot to drink, which brings out my cynicism )




My personal values are not derived from that structure.

I don't refrain from robbing people because I fear jail (socieities penalties).

I don't refrain from killing people because I fear Gods judgement.

I do what I do based upon right and wrong. This can usually be determined by how I would want to be treated.

My adherence to "right and wrong" is a constant. I know when I am doing something wrong and I know what is right. Those things don't change because you removed social structure.




In the PRESENCE of society, I agree with all of those statements. In the ABSENCE of society, none of those principles hold true.



No offense to you personally, but if those stsatements are ABSOLUTE and UNCONDITIONAL they just demonstrate how well socialized into society you are, as you have completely "bought into" the kind of thinking that helps preserve social systems.

However, when those systems disappear, the human animal has one drive, and one drive only - to propage it's own survival, and the survival of its genetic code. Things like philosophy, morality, etc - are mere artifacts that have been developed (and socialized into children) to allow us to function together in large numbers.



In the final analysis, I woudl sacrifice the entire world to save my wife and myself.


If the choice was to sacrifice 10 "innocent" lives, or let your WIFE and CHILD die, which would you choose? Evolutionary psychology tells me that the answer is the former, not the latter.





Do you really think humans will ever eradicate all society?

Won't acing the way you said you would after a society falls prolong the problem and the inevitable forimg of a new society?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:38:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?





"Morality" is nothing but a mental construct that helps to preserve our social structure.

Once that structure is gone, playing the game is pointless and inefficient.



(Granted - I've had a lot to drink, which brings out my cynicism )




My personal values are not derived from that structure.

I don't refrain from robbing people because I fear jail (socieities penalties).

I don't refrain from killing people because I fear Gods judgement.

I do what I do based upon right and wrong. This can usually be determined by how I would want to be treated.

My adherence to "right and wrong" is a constant. I know when I am doing something wrong and I know what is right. Those things don't change because you removed social structure.

I don't consider it "playing the game."




If your values are not derived from structure, where do they come from?

Do you believe morals are a learned act and thought or are they instinctual?


I believe everything to do with morals is learned. I will do whatever possible to uphold the current or best set of morals and laws avilable, but I certainly will not sacrifice my life or the lives of my family/tribe to uphold a certain set of ideals. In a true TEOTWAWKI situation, I will do whatever is necessary, though I will try to maintain the most ideal mindset and moral beliefs possible under the circumstances.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:40:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.




Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?





"Morality" is nothing but a mental construct that helps to preserve our social structure.

Once that structure is gone, playing the game is pointless and inefficient.



(Granted - I've had a lot to drink, which brings out my cynicism )




My personal values are not derived from that structure.

I don't refrain from robbing people because I fear jail (socieities penalties).

I don't refrain from killing people because I fear Gods judgement.

I do what I do based upon right and wrong. This can usually be determined by how I would want to be treated.

My adherence to "right and wrong" is a constant. I know when I am doing something wrong and I know what is right. Those things don't change because you removed social structure.




In the PRESENCE of society, I agree with all of those statements. In the ABSENCE of society, none of those principles hold true.



No offense to you personally, but if those stsatements are ABSOLUTE and UNCONDITIONAL they just demonstrate how well socialized into society you are, as you have completely "bought into" the kind of thinking that helps preserve social systems.

However, when those systems disappear, the human animal has one drive, and one drive only - to propage it's own survival, and the survival of its genetic code. Things like philosophy, morality, etc - are mere artifacts that have been developed (and socialized into children) to allow us to function together in large numbers.



In the final analysis, I would sacrifice the entire world to save my wife and myself.


If the choice was to sacrifice 10 "innocent" lives, or let your WIFE and CHILD die, which would you choose? Evolutionary psychology tells me that the answer is the former, not the latter.





The Dutchman said it better than I.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:46:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 9:50:07 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
SHTF, no.
TEOTWAWKI, yes.

Would you take food from a child knowing it would mean their death?

If I also knew it would mean my OWN child's death if I didn't?

Yes, I would do so absolutely and completely.

Would that not be YOUR failing for not providing for YOUR child as this childs father apparantly did?

Would you by the same logic accept the fact that some POS gang banger stole your childs food to feed their baby and it meant YOUR childs death?

Such is the nature of being plopped right down in the middle of an artificial hypothetical situation with no preceding information about how I came to be in such a situation to begin with.

You're erroneously assuming that I failed to provide for my child and are looking outside the proposed situation into the "root cause" of this hypothetical predicament with a prejudiced assumption of my antecedent actions whereas I'm simply accepting the premise as-is and stepping right in with a response for which the events leading up to it are notwithstanding.

So there.

But to answer your question - no, I would not "accept" anyone stealing food from my child, nor would I "accept" watching my child starve to death for the sake of a stranger's child.


Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:48:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


In the PRESENCE of society, I agree with all of those statements. In the ABSENCE of society, none of those principles hold true.



But that's just it. Those stated values are not based upon the presence of a society. Those are personal values. Right is right no matter what. It is a constant.

There is NO scenario where it is right and correct for me to kill YOUR innocent child. None.

There are only situations where I may attempt to justify or rationalize such an action.


Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

No offense to you personally, but if those stsatements are ABSOLUTE and UNCONDITIONAL they just demonstrate how well socialized into society you are, as you have completely "bought into" the kind of thinking that helps preserve social systems.



Again, those values of mine are not even based upon society. That is how "I" as an evolved, self aware human with a knowledge of right and wrong live with myself. If society dissapeared tommarow NOTHING would change except things like property rights for territory.

But your things would still be your things. The fact that I may get away with taking them doesn't make it ok.


Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
However, when those systems disappear, the human animal has one drive, and one drive only - to propage it's own survival, and the survival of its genetic code. Things like philosophy, morality, etc - are mere artifacts that have been developed (and socialized into children) to allow us to function together in large numbers.



In the final analysis, I woudl sacrifice the entire world to save my wife and myself.


If the choice was to sacrifice 10 "innocent" lives, or let your WIFE and CHILD die, which would you choose? Evolutionary psychology tells me that the answer is the former, not the latter.





I guess I'm glad I'm not an animal. There are worse things than death.

I would of course try and preserve my life and that of my family. But sometimes that just isn't possible, some fates cannot be defeated. And I would not live by any costs because that means I would have to accept that possible scenario as it related to my family.

I KNOW it is wrong for you to condemn my child to death by taking his only food. And that ALONE is reason enough for me to NOT take it from your child.

The real question for me would be how long I'd want to live in such a world and would I want my family to suffer such an existence.

I might just have to find a painless way to bow out gracefully and leave the attrocities to the ghouls who will inherit such a world.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:52:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 9:53:06 PM EDT by NimmerMehr]

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

I might just have to find a painless way to bow out gracefully and leave the attrocities to the ghouls who will inherit such a world.



...much more fortunate than the millions who will wander sightless thru the smoldering aftermath. We'll be be spared the horror of survival.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:53:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


In the PRESENCE of society, I agree with all of those statements. In the ABSENCE of society, none of those principles hold true.



But that's just it. Those stated values are not based upon the presence of a society. Those are personal values. Right is right no matter what. It is a constant.

There is NO scenario where it is right and correct for me to kill YOUR innocent child. None.

There are only situations where I may attempt to justify or rationalize such an action.


Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

No offense to you personally, but if those stsatements are ABSOLUTE and UNCONDITIONAL they just demonstrate how well socialized into society you are, as you have completely "bought into" the kind of thinking that helps preserve social systems.



Again, those values of mine are not even based upon society. That is how "I" as an evolved, self aware human with a knowledge of right and wrong live with myself. If society dissapeared tommarow NOTHING would change except things like property rights for territory.

But your things would still be your things. The fact that I may get away with taking them doesn't make it ok.


Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
However, when those systems disappear, the human animal has one drive, and one drive only - to propage it's own survival, and the survival of its genetic code. Things like philosophy, morality, etc - are mere artifacts that have been developed (and socialized into children) to allow us to function together in large numbers.



In the final analysis, I woudl sacrifice the entire world to save my wife and myself.


If the choice was to sacrifice 10 "innocent" lives, or let your WIFE and CHILD die, which would you choose? Evolutionary psychology tells me that the answer is the former, not the latter.





I guess I'm glad I'm not an animal. There are worse things than death.

I would of course try and preserve my life and that of my family. But sometimes that just isn't possible, some fates cannot be defeated. And I would not live by any costs because that means I would have to accept that possible scenario as it related to my family.

I KNOW it is wrong for you to condemn my child to death by taking his only food. And that ALONE is reason enough for me to NOT take it from your child.

The real question for me would be how long I'd want to live in such a world and would I want my family to suffer such an existence.

I might just have to find a painless way to bow out gracefully and leave the attrocities to the ghouls who will inherit such a world.



I disagree 100% - and I would bet good money (which would be worthless in a TEOTWAWKI situation ) that your DNA would assert itself and lead to the appropriate behavior, were you ever to be in a situation to have to make such a terrible choice.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:53:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 10:00:06 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

There is NO scenario where it is right and correct for me to kill YOUR innocent child. None.

SteyrAUG, a great many innocent German and Japanese children were killed for your freedom to collect firearms, wax philosophically and eat nachos and bean dip.

In fact, we call people who did that "heroes" and give them parades and medals and high honors.



Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:56:18 PM EDT
Err hold on. Was the question"If your staving, and found some people with food, and they refused to give you some, would you murder them?" Just checking....
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 9:59:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

SteyrAUG, a great many innocent German and Japanese children were killed for your freedom to collect firearms, wax philosophically and eat nachos and bean dip. because of power hungry idiots who gambled with people's lives for their own glory

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:00:33 PM EDT
If it was my kid, its my kid. I think I would probably do anything.

If it was just me I think I'd probably boil grass and eat ants first.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:00:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:


If your values are not derived from structure, where do they come from?

Do you believe morals are a learned act and thought or are they instinctual?



A combination. And "some" things are societal or cultural.

However the basic important ones are easy. And again they come from badic right and wrong based upon what I know to be right and wrong.

We all know it is wrong to kill someone because WE don't want to be killed.

We all know it is wrong to steal because WE don't want to be robbed.

These things really don't need a society to be understood, a society is necessary only to enforce those ideas.


Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
I believe everything to do with morals is learned. I will do whatever possible to uphold the current or best set of morals and laws avilable, but I certainly will not sacrifice my life or the lives of my family/tribe to uphold a certain set of ideals. In a true TEOTWAWKI situation, I will do whatever is necessary, though I will try to maintain the most ideal mindset and moral beliefs possible under the circumstances.



In a sense EVERYTHING that is "humanity" is artificial. It is only the product of our minds recognition and ability to reason.

Animals see the young of other animals as an easy food source. Nature is NOT human hearted.

However being self aware creatures with the capacity to reason we have the unique ability view things as right and wrong. And the most basic things, again are constant.

And most of us could certainly rationalize a LOT of wrong.

In a post nuclear environment if I was looking for food to survive and I came across an abandoned grocery store I would steal food. I know I would. I would know that it is stealing and I may consider possible scenarios to justify it (the store owner is probably dead, someone else will just come along and steal it if I don't, etc.) But that is because this kind of theft is not high on my personal values list.

It is wrong, but it is a low priority wrong. There are certain conditions with an existing society when I could justify such an action. It would still be wrong but justifiable in my mind.

But when you get to the big ones, life and death shit, they tend to remain more constant - at least in my mind.

And again, this is all an artificial creation of the human intellect. But I would NOT kill a innocent child by taking their last food. And the reason for that is I can comprehend that it would be wrong for someone to do that to my child.

And if I'm unwilling to accept that it is permissable to do it to me, it is NOT permissable for me to do it to others. And that is my simple criteria for determining right and wrong.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:03:24 PM EDT
Well the short answer is:

I wouldn't lose my food and water.

Short Bus Survival; Chapter One: Don't lose your food and water stupid!

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:03:40 PM EDT
Moral Philosophy is great.


So many theories so few answers.

Social contract, Hendonism etc.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:03:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:


But to answer your question - no, I would not "accept" anyone stealing food from my child, nor would I "accept" watching my child starve to death for the sake of a stranger's child.






If I'm correct your values have a religious base.

How will you explain to your God why you killed an innocent child to sustain the live of your child?

Does an acceptable answer exist?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:05:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:


But to answer your question - no, I would not "accept" anyone stealing food from my child, nor would I "accept" watching my child starve to death for the sake of a stranger's child.






If I'm correct your values have a religious base.

How will you explain to your God why you killed an innocent child to sustain the live of your child?

Does an acceptable answer exist?




A christian would have to believe he was being tested. The christian thing to do is follow God's commands.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:06:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:


The real question for me would be how long I'd want to live in such a world and would I want my family to suffer such an existence.

I might just have to find a painless way to bow out gracefully and leave the attrocities to the ghouls who will inherit such a world.



I disagree 100% - and I would bet good money (which would be worthless in a TEOTWAWKI situation ) that your DNA would assert itself and lead to the appropriate behavior, were you ever to be in a situation to have to make such a terrible choice.




Obviously nobody knows until it happens.

But I would hope I wouldn't exist at any cost. I honestly believe there are many things worse than death. I haven't been in a lot of life and death situations but I know I've put myself "at risk" on occassion for nothing more than a sense of right and wrong.

A lot of people didn't understand why I would do such a thing.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:07:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

There is NO scenario where it is right and correct for me to kill YOUR innocent child. None.

SteyrAUG, a great many innocent German and Japanese children were killed for your freedom to collect firearms, wax philosophically and eat nachos and bean dip.

In fact, we call people who did that "heroes" and give them parades and medals and high honors.






right or wrong was irrelevant, necessary or not( in their eyes), is what mattered.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:13:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

There is NO scenario where it is right and correct for me to kill YOUR innocent child. None.

SteyrAUG, a great many innocent German and Japanese children were killed for your freedom to collect firearms, wax philosophically and eat nachos and bean dip.

In fact, we call people who did that "heroes" and give them parades and medals and high honors.







None were killed so that I could collect firearms.

Many were killed to put a stop to countries who were killing the INNOCENTS of others. The innocents of those countries that were killed (ironically enough to stop the killing of innocents in the first place) were not specifically targetted and if they could have been avoided with the same end result certainly would have been.

If Audie Murphy had walked into a German orphanage and began to execute children it would not have been acceptable to anyone nor would such actions be considered "heroic."

Probably not a single American hero exists who doesn't (or didn't) fervently hope that he harmed no innocents (especially children) and many would have (and some did) put themselves in harms way to prevent such a thing.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:16:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

There is NO scenario where it is right and correct for me to kill YOUR innocent child. None.

SteyrAUG, a great many innocent German and Japanese children were killed for your freedom to collect firearms, wax philosophically and eat nachos and bean dip.

In fact, we call people who did that "heroes" and give them parades and medals and high honors.








Probably not a single American hero exists who doesn't (or didn't) fervently hope that he harmed no innocents (especially children) and many would have (and some did) put themselves in harms way to prevent such a thing.




Or give up kills on know enemy to save innocent children.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:16:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
But to answer your question - no, I would not "accept" anyone stealing food from my child, nor would I "accept" watching my child starve to death for the sake of a stranger's child.

If I'm correct your values have a religious base.

How will you explain to your God why you killed an innocent child to sustain the live of your child?

Does an acceptable answer exist?

If that's the case, I won't be alone.

But as far as explaining it - if one child MUST die in that situation, theirs or mine... if it's up to me - it won't be mine.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:16:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
I try not to be the things I hold in contempt.

Generally I try to never harm the innocent. I try to never overlook the guilty.




No better words have been spoken in a great while!
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:17:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 10:18:10 PM EDT by Cold_Warrior]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
OK, you are in an SHTF situation. You have your gun, but you lost your food and water. You come across someone else who has food and water. Do you try and re-appropriate their resources? How far would you go if they decide not to let you take their stuff?


Does she look like this?



If so, then Answer A with exteme prejudice.

CW
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 10:22:39 PM EDT
I would do ANYTHING short of condeming someone else to death that was also just trying to survive. If I had supplies and you got near them, you'd be wasted, no qualms.

But I wouldn't weigh my life over someone else's that has an equal chance as I at that point to survive.

However knowing that others don't feel the same way and that a person with provisions but no protection is a sitting duck... hm I think I would need to be in the situation to come to a concrete conclusion.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top