THE MORALITY OF ANTICIPATORY DEFENSE

Gotta love the way David starts out talking about travelling into the past to kill murderers before they can murder and then mutates into talking about killing people whose ideas he dislikes, like killing Marx and Engels "b4 they can cause any trouble".

Kind of a slippery slope you're on here, David. What if someone who doesn't like your politics decides to start killing people preemptively who think like you? I think W. Bush and Cheney screwed our country so badly it's gonna take us decades to recover. Is it okay for me to time travel and kill them in the cradle, "b4 they can cause any trouble?"

How about the subprime mortgage sharks, or the AIG honchos with the multimillion dollar payouts? Can I kill them preemptively?

One of your dumber ideas.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
aidan wrote:

Quote:
And why would everybody have to be put to death at birth?
Not everyone who's born goes on to murder someone.

Well, djjd put that there to mock the idea
(which is helpful in answering my question about liberal origins)

contrary to what you believe, i wasn't mocking the idea

if, starting tomorrow, everybody was killed at birth,
in about a hundred years the world would be a beautiful place

I disagree

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

This case just gets sadder and sadder- here are the trio to whom this child was entrusted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8196143.stm

and now the baby's biological father who totally ignored the evidence that his son was being abused and tortured has decided to sue the council for not protecting the child, as if he did anything to protect the child.
The social workers who visited 35 times are suing for damages for wrongful termination.
Could anyone wring anything else out of this little boy and his death?
http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelondonpaper/news/london/baby-ps-father-to-sue-haringey-council

Quote:

I can 't quantify it on a logical basis -- not yet, anyway.
Its a gut feeling.
I believe that liberal writers put those words
in the mouth of the star of the show last nite, Patricia Arquette.

Well you better not label it imprecisely...

Quote:

Well, someone with a good time travel machine who is less lazy than I am coud go to Colorado and kill them before their massacre.

Too lazy to take the opportunity to use one of your beloved guns?
For me, it wouldn't be laziness that'd be the deterrent. I don't know that I could bring myself to do anything to anyone, unless I caught them in the act. Even knowing my son might grow up to mow down a bicyclist when he was driving drunk or take a gun to school and kill his classmates - I can't picture harming him.
Is that being liberal or cowardly (or a mother)?

Quote:

She gets supported ?
What will her salary be ?
Enuf to justify . . . . no, not worth it.

Well, I don't think she gets paid for being her - but it does sound like she'll always be given a place to live and protection and the means to live there.
That's more than most of us are given, isn't it?
And god forbid some sicko reads of this and decides - hey- this kid is driving me nuts and that Tracy Connelly - she watched someone kill her kid and she gets five years in jail and a house for the rest of her life...maybe I should go that route too.'
You know - there are people in the world who are sick enough to think that way.
A lot of children are used as a means to an end every single day.

Quote:

I wonder whether she is still fertil.

She is - she's only 28. She produced a child with the man who participated in the torture of her son Peter, sometime after they killed him.

Quote:

My earnest congratulations on your prosperity
and enjoyment of life; that 's what counts !
If u r getting so many new friends, then I guess
that tells us something about your culinary skills.

Thanks. I think it's a nice atmosphere for making friends, people come in from all over the world and I find them interesting to talk to. They also like the pictures I have on the wall. It seems the favorite is the one of my grandfather's family taken when he was 10 years old in Texas circa 1905. It's sort of an amazing scene with my grandfather, his mother and father, four siblings and my great- great grandmother- who was 50% native Cherokee.
That picture generates a lot of interest and starts a lot of interesting conversations.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

Gotta love the way David starts out talking about travelling into the past
to kill murderers before they can murder and then mutates into talking about
killing people whose ideas he dislikes, like killing Marx and Engels
"b4 they can cause any trouble".

Yeah.
I got that idea when I was 9 years old.
I 'd start with THEM, if I coud.
Thay were the lowest and the worst.
More people have been enslaved, tortured and murdered
by their followers than any other murderer.
The problem with that is that in doing so,
thay scared us into very beneficial research and development.
We got to the moon because Kennedy sought to distract attention
from his betrayal of the Cuban Freedom Fighters,
whom he stabbed in the back during combat with the commies.

I might not have my High Definition TV and this computer
if we had not been scared into the underlying R & D.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

Kind of a slippery slope you're on here, David.
What if someone who doesn't like your politics decides
to start killing people preemptively who think like you?

If he had both the means and the will to do it,
and if countermeasures were insufficient, then it woud be done.
I think that 's obvious.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

I think W. Bush and Cheney screwed our country so badly it's gonna
take us decades to recover. Is it okay for me to time travel and kill
them in the cradle, "b4 they can cause any trouble?"

The person who decides whether it is OK
is he who has the means to do it (as a practical matter).
U r free and welcome to speculate about it on this thread.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

How about the subprime mortgage sharks, or the AIG honchos
with the multimillion dollar payouts? Can I kill them preemptively?

If u have the means, u can.
If u don' t, u can still speculate about it.

I welcome discussion of the morality of your question.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

One of your dumber ideas.

Lemme get this straight:
If I have a good time travelling machine,
and I read of your murder,
I shud do nothing -- maybe have a good chuckle,
instead of come riding it to your rescue, in the past ?

or to your mom 's rescue in similar circumstances?

just so I understand your position

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

djjd62 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
aidan wrote:

Quote:
And why would everybody have to be put to death at birth?
Not everyone who's born goes on to murder someone.

Well, djjd put that there to mock the idea
(which is helpful in answering my question about liberal origins)

contrary to what you believe, i wasn't mocking the idea

if, starting tomorrow, everybody was killed at birth,
in about a hundred years the world would be a beautiful place

I disagree

watch Aftermath - Population Zero or Life After People

2 Replies

@djjd62,

I saw Life After People.

I don 't care for it.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

True or False:

In the future, if David reads in the newspaper
of the horrible abuses and consequent death of djjd,
and if David gets a competent, de lux time machine,
with all the bells n whistles and comforts,
(that also moves appropriately thru space, not just time)
David shoud go back in time and kill the tormentors/murderers of djjd
b4 thay execute their mirthful ministrations upon djjd, to his fatal n final distress ?

WHATAYATHINK, djjd ?

(I like that pallindrome.)

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

i guess that would be your decision to make, don't go out of your way on my account

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Its up to u
to decide whether u want the service, or not.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

True or False:

In the future, if David reads in the newspaper
of the horrible abuses and consequent death of djjd,
and if David gets a competent, de lux time machine,
with all the bells n whistles and comforts,
(that also moves appropriately thru space, not just time)
David shoud go back in time and kill the tormentors/murderers of djjd
b4 thay execute their mirthful ministrations upon djjd, to his fatal n final distress ?

WHATAYATHINK, djjd ?

(I like that pallindrome.)

David

I'm rather skeptical that you would be able to change anything in the past, even if you had a functional space/time machine. Causal loops should prevent you from doing that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

True or False:

In the future, if David reads in the newspaper
of the horrible abuses and consequent death of djjd,
and if David gets a competent, de lux time machine,
with all the bells n whistles and comforts,
(that also moves appropriately thru space, not just time)
David shoud go back in time and kill the tormentors/murderers of djjd
b4 thay execute their mirthful ministrations upon djjd, to his fatal n final distress ?

WHATAYATHINK, djjd ?

(I like that pallindrome.)

David

I'm rather skeptical that you would be able to change anything in the past,
even if you had a functional space/time machine. Causal loops should prevent you from doing that.

Cycloptichorn

HOW ?

1 Reply

I think you have reached the crux of the argument. Not only do you want to go back in time and kill murderers, you want to go back in time and kill those whose political thought you don't approve of. Marx didn't kill anyone. He thought up some ideas that someone else used as cover to install totalitarian governments. That qualifies him for death? Maybe Catholics would off Martin Luther to prevent all those sectarian wars. Kill Jesus to stop the crusades? You are at the point where you can justify killing anyone. I don't think it is liberal vs conservative thing. It is more an authoritarian thing where you have to defeat an idea by refusing to allow it exist rather than developing a better idea. My guess is that if you would have to do a lot of killing to prevent the idea from taking root elsewhere... and in the process become a mass killer yourself! That is great sci fi storyline. Kind of like the "I am Legend" ending.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

HOW ?

Because you already would have done it. You can't change the past without changing the present, which then precludes your ability to change the past; it has already been changed.

Unless you are a proponent of the 'infinite, parallel dimension' theory, it's really hard to describe a way to change the past which doesn't violate causality.

It sounds funny to say, but from a logical standpoint, the only things you can do in the past are things that you have already done.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

About 100 years ago, my mother was injured defending her sister
from a violent crime. Her sister was being criminally defenestrated.
Unfortunately, my mother was unarmed (which is seldom wise).
In consequence, she suffered severe personal injuries.

After I found out about it, I entertained thawts of violent vengeance, or of wishing
to kill the malicious offender pre-emptively, if travel thru time were possible.

On re-consideration, it occurred to me that those injuries
were involved in my mother 's choice of husbands, which
has a bearing upon the character of my being.

My interference therewith, might have negated my existence.

That raises the question of whether a traveller thru time,
shoud suffer the death penalty for rescuing his mother.

That also sets up a time loop.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I think this would be more on the immoral side.

The reason being that in current moral society. killing someone or being responsible for their death is immoral. In my opinion, im not saying this is right. Killing the murderer before they killed would stop others from dying, but what if the murderer thought what they were doing was right?

if they thought what they were doing is right is it then moral to get rid of their life? After all killing someone may mean it is the complete end for them. Im not sure if in any case that is moral at all.

I think overall it is logical to do so but not moral.

1 Reply

Since David has decided it's okay to kill people not only because they might commit murder, but also because they might have ideas he dislikes, it would seem to be all right to take the time machine back and kill the founders of the NRA, its board and its executive staff thru the years, since they have been largely responsible for abetting the mass murder caused by the gun nut wackos who have turned this formerly moderately civilized society into a free-fire zone.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I made a mistake when I began this thread
insofar as I spoke of interceptive actions being done
upon the basis of pre-cognition. There was an element
of speculative uncertainty about whether those
pre-cognitions woud actually prove out.

I withdraw that concept
and substitute travel back thru time
to intercept known acts that had horrible results.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

Since David has decided it's okay to kill people not only
because they might commit murder,

I have amended that
to include only those acts in the past that had KNOWN
ACTUAL horrible results e.g., murders or communist slavery or torture.

Quote:

but also because they might have ideas he dislikes,

I 'd not do it,
if thay only might have ideas,
but rather if thay actually DID cause horrible results,
e.g. murders or torture or slavery etc., as the commies and nazis did.
If Marx n Engels had died before causing any trouble,
then millions of people woud not have been enslaved,
nor tortured, nor murdered and Hitler woud not have been able
to campaign for office against the commies.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

it would seem to be all right to take the time machine back
and kill the founders of the NRA, its board and its executive staff thru the years,

That is only a question of naked predatory power, Jack.
Right or rong, good or bad has nothing to do with it.
What u describe is only a matter of the power to do it.

MontereyJack wrote:

Quote:

since they have been largely responsible for abetting the
mass murder caused by the gun nut wackos who have turned this
formerly moderately civilized society into a free-fire zone.

Your reasoning is factually false, witness the low crime rate in Vermont,
which has never had any gun laws and has none now.
The same applies to Alaska, which repealed all of its anti-gun laws
several years ago, with no "free fire zone", the latter being a delusion of your twisted imagination.

I attribute murders to (unwisely) unarmed victims
who were not prepared to defend their lives.
Its better to HAVE a gun and not NEED it
than it is to NEED a gun and not HAVE it.

David

P.S.:
Point of information,
if I may, Jack:
if u were able to go back in time
and rescue Lincoln and Kennedy from getting shot,
what woud u do ?

Woud u accept that opportunity?

0 Replies

@Ogitoc groe sum,

Ogitoc groe sum wrote:

I think this would be more on the immoral side.

The reason being that in current moral society. killing someone or being responsible for their death is immoral. In my opinion, im not saying this is right. Killing the murderer before they killed would stop others from dying, but what if the murderer thought what they were doing was right?

if they thought what they were doing is right is it then moral to get rid of their life? After all killing someone may mean it is the complete end for them. Im not sure if in any case that is moral at all.

I think overall it is logical to do so but not moral.

It does not matter what a murderer thinks.
What matters is what he DOES.

1 Reply

And far better than either of your alternatives, David, is not to need a gun in the first place, because no one has one. And don't give me any crap about the second amendment. When we get a sensible Suypreme Court back in place, that'll be reinterpreted as it should have been in the first place, as the obvkious intent of the amendment, to apply only to a militia. C onsidering the statistics about people shot and/or killed with legal guns, by accident or on purpose, considering the people killed as innocent bystanders now when bullets start flying, the concept of having a gun to defend yourself is seriously flawed from the very inception. You're very likely to shoot someone innocently sitting on their front porch five buildings down the street if you ever actually pull yours out and fire it. So's the bad guy. Take ALL the guns away, it doesn't happen.

1 Reply

And I might add, David, you still seem to be espousing killing Marx and Engels for their ideas, because the communists used them. So you are STILL apparently advocating killing people whose ideas you dislike. Which of course means you can't in fairness oppose someone else for killing someone whose ideas they dislike, even if it's someone whose ideas you like.

0 Replies

THE MORALITY OF ANTICIPATORY DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know