Would you kill for a better world?

[soulman]

Would you kill for a better world?

 

[Detroit City]

sure

 

[Sweaty Betty]

If i was hungry

 

[invisibleplanet]

No.

 

[bluestreak]

maybe.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Most of the people who killed to make a better world, were pretty fucked up. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

 

[Intastella]

How would killing make it a better world?

 

[derf]

Sort of depends who you killed and why.

If it's political enemies, tends to bring thoughts of extremist governments or political executions as we saw with the murder of Greek cop to mind.
If it's to save people, say killing Noordim Top, I would see a valid reason to get rid of him or his like.

 

[weltweit]

To eat, yes ...

for politics, never

for empire always !

 

[weltweit]

If an executioner was standing behind a machine gun about to gun down a row of civilians women and children, yes, I imagine I could kill without hesitation, assuming I had a suitable gun.

 

[soulman]

Most of the people who killed to make a better world, were pretty fucked up. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

They were the mass killers who killed for a worse world, and got no comeback, yet.

The question is if you would kill for a better world Johnny.

 

[Pickman's model]

They were the mass killers who killed for a worse world, and got no comeback, yet.

i refer you to any standard history of the second world war which should make you reconsider this 'no comeback' for at least the case of hitler

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

They were the mass killers who killed for a worse world, and got no comeback, yet.

The question is if you would kill for a better world Johnny.

My point is that they formed a conception of what a better world would be, then they set about killing in order to achieve it. If they'd succeeded, they'd have gotten their version of a better world. It wouldn't be our conception.

By the same token, if you set about killing to achieve your better world, there's no guarantee that everyone else would agree with your conception of what constitutes a 'better world'.

 

[weltweit]

It is mid WWII, you are a sniper with Adolph Hitler in your sights, would killing him make a better world?

 

[weltweit]

There is an assumption that there are no former or present day soldiers on this thread, because they are required to kill for government policy which we and they hope is "for a better world" in fact in Iraq and now in Afghanistan our soldiers have been required to kill for us.

eta: so even if we are against killing, it is being done in our name.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

well, no they haven't, they've been told to kill people, nothing to do with who I'd like to see shot

 

[soulman]

My point is that they formed a conception of what a better world would be, then they set about killing in order to achieve it. If they'd succeeded, they'd have gotten their version of a better world. It wouldn't be our conception.

By the same token, if you set about killing to achieve your better world, there's no guarantee that everyone else would agree with your conception of what constitutes a 'better world'.

Absolutely. There's a long way to go until we're ready. Frustration and anger are natural, but no reason to give up on people. We have to show how it could be...

 

[maldwyn]

No.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It is mid WWII, you are a sniper with Adolph Hitler in your sights, would killing him make a better world?

Sure. Just like the jewish commandos in Ingluourious Basterds. But I think a distinction can be made between killing an obvious noxious person who is wreaking havoc, and an amorphous, generalized concept of 'killing to make a better world'.

 

[weltweit]

So I guess, all people saying NO are for sure against any form of death penalty.