When should it be acceptable to kill a human?

Never have I served drinks. Guys get paid for doing that.

Guns have a way of selling themselves. Their sale does not require propagation.





David

I was hoping you were polite enough to serve people around you...
Putting up with your bull even if in the 80's is no easy task...

I HAVE ALREADY SAID that guys get paid to DO that.
Its not my job, any more than taking out the garbage.
Is there a REASON that I shud compete with the waiters????
Is that what the English do???



(When I was a kid, I may have had a horse,
but I never had a bull.)
U falsely imply that my opinions were in the minority.
U project your own sentiments onto them.
We had a lot of gun-lovers in NY Mensa in addition to myself.
To give credit where it is due:
Mensa was born of the union of 2 English barristers in 1945.





David

Are you saying that waiters get paid to be polite in your place ?
...very "murican" indeed...

Kiddest thou me???
Where do u think their tips come from???

Om: (When I was a kid, I may have had a horse,
but I never had a bull.)
-----------

"may have", you're not sure, Om??!!

Your elevator doesn't service the top floor, does it?

Its the old argument of when is murder acceptable. Thou shalt not murder. I believe the original argument was "When is it acceptable to murder" is the question that been around for thousands of years.
Is it theft? Can you murder someone if they stole bread? a brilliant necklace?
When can we murder? If we are armed do we aim for the knees or arms? when do we aim for heart or head?
When do we give the license to murder. Who do we give the license to? How many can you murder under such a license? Is war a license?

Should never be done. Pjc.

Jtt Is psychotic refusing to change his way of thinking. He needs to seek the Lord, get his life right then search for his true love. It is so beautiful once you seek the Lord.

acceptable by whom deems it so

http://youtu.be/TS0dVo6B9zc

I think that it is unacceptable, but we live in Hell, and that's where it is acceptable. I wouldn't do it, and I'm not a hypocrite, and I still wouldn't condemn it on moral grounds ...I don't know. That's a hard question. I think I wouldn't judge. Suffering and horror though-I think I fear that, but it's almost like saying, won't I be able to think at all, why would I be in sorrows, that's my question, as long as I can think I will never feel the sort of deep sorrows that other people feel; Anyway I write that because I"m trying not to be a hypocrite for I never want to feel these things, and these things murder victims feel-i don't think I would feel it, I had deaths already, and this is a place of madness, not necessarily of sorrows, so futility too. No I do not think I would judge a murderer, not necessarily.

It's supposed to be murder here: why does it pretend?

This opinion comes from in depth studies. We are not in Heaven. This is a place of evil torment, there are so many mysteries there is really no way to tell what the impetus is, that maybe killing people saves them, that if people "knew better' thats the thing if people, I hear, say there's a knowing better about this place, then killing is saving. So maybe people get blinded by a feeling that comes from somewhere else, because it's meant to happen. Suffer anyone to live, maybe it's a riddle. But, it seems contrary to morals, taught. So does suffering.

I mean, how do we get out of here? There's too many mysteries to say for real, what is good and what is evil. Say impetus matters,why do serial killers have one? They might be popular fiction though, don't really exist.

I cannot judge. That's my view, so I don't, rarely, I think.

The most dangerous things are people who make you hate, and ignorance. Total loss of justice while haters walk.

By acceptable, I personallywould think either necessary or desirable.
Desirable for me tends to be less rational, and so therefore less acceptable out of the two - as out of the two definitions this one is much more likely to be swayed by the emotions (desire itself is an emotional drive). E.g., someone walking very slowly in front of you in a narrow corridor, totally oblivious to the fact that you're there - this results (for many people, I'm sure!) in an annoyance that reaches 'rage' levels. In this sense, killing someone joking aside, is acceptable on the terms of your own morality, however not according to British law, for example.
When it is both necessary and desirable however - e.g., you want to and must defend yourself from an axe murderer to save your own life - this is acceptable. It combines the two criteria of acceptability very well.
So in short, it should be acceptable to kill a human when it can be justified in as many different ways as possible regarding relatively reasonable moral systems.
But what number of ways/systems is the cut off point between acceptability and unacceptability??? (similar to the major problem of act utilitarianism!)

1. When you're flying for over 10 hours, and the baby in the next row is crying all the time.
2. The person sitting next to you on a flight in Economy weighs 500 lbs.
3. You're watching a great movie in a theater that you paid $15 to see, and the person close by is commenting every few minutes loud enough f0r everybody to hear.
4. You're in a restaurant reading a good book, and the person at the next table is talking so loud on the cellphone, the whole restaurant can hear it.
5. Your friends are showing you the pictures of their 22 grandchildren.

Tricky one but here's food for thought-
When they came to arrest Jesus, Peter whipped out his sword and whacked the high priest's lackey across the head with it, slicing off his ear.
Jesus told him off, but the fact remains he allowed him to carry the sword in the first place (probably as a deterrent to muggers on their travels).
We don't know if Peter was trying to kill him, but the blade probably glanced off the lackey's thick skull and took off his ear.

Peter in action-

Jesus said that if u dont have a sword,
then u better buy one. Luke 22:36
Guns had not yet been invented.

It's not the passive way. If you let nature be happy the bad guys won't exist. You don't need to kill anyone.

just to let you know most of you all are intellectually degenerate,

Capital punishment but when would you have the right to kill someone else who has killed someone?