Ya know something... I've read through this thread and quite frankly... I don't understand anyone not willing to fight for their country.

We don't have a registration system here, but if someone were to invade my country, I'd be there with gun in hand willing to fight for my country immediately. No question about it. And I certainly would not feel as if I was being forced to protect the country, or my way of life.

Forgive my stupidity here but I really don't get the "fight for your country" bit. War is to protect our country? Look at the war on Iraq. Was that to protect our country? I don't think so. If someone violently invaded New York would I take out a gun and start shooting people? No. How would that make me different from the people invading? Maybe I'm using fifth grade "violence is bad" logic but I don't see the point of it and can't imagine being forced to serve.

Forgive my stupidity here but I really don't get the "fight for your country" bit.

You are forgiven. Thanks for asking nicely!

War is to protect our country? Look at the war on Iraq. Was that to protect our country? I don't think so.
First, there was no draft for the war in Iraq.
Second, was it to protect our country? Depends upon how you look at it. I would say, in the long run, yes.


If someone violently invaded New York would I take out a gun and start shooting people? No. How would that make me different from the people invading?
I may revoke my forgiveness after that comment.
So, if I find someone murdering my children, I am just as bad if I kill them to stop them? WTF? That is just too bizarre to be serious.

Maybe I'm using fifth grade "violence is bad" logic but I don't see the point of it and can't imagine being forced to serve.

"Violence is bad" is too simplistic even for the 5th grade level. Depends on the purpose of the violence. I walk in my house and someone is raping my wife, is the "violence" used to stop that act "bad"? A rational person would think not.

You are forgiven. Thanks for asking nicely!


First, there was no draft for the war in Iraq.

Duh. But we still sent people to fight there didn't we?


Second, was it to protect our country? Depends upon how you look at it. I would say, in the long run, yes.

You are entitled to your opinion.



I may revoke my forgiveness after that comment.
So, if I find someone murdering my children, I am just as bad if I kill them to stop them? WTF? That is just too bizarre to be serious.

Yes you are. You still killed them didn't you? Mind you you probably wouldn't go to get a big sentence since I suppose it was defense but either way you killed someone. Doesn't matter if you're killing a murderer or your mother you're still killing a life that wasn't yours to kill...



"Violence is bad" is too simplistic even for the 5th grade level. Depends on the purpose of the violence. I walk in my house and someone is raping my wife, is the "violence" used to stop that act "bad"? A rational person would think not.

A rational person would excuse the fact you killed someone but that doesn't take away the fact you killed them or used violence on them. Surely I can understand the reason you'd kill or hurt someone attacking your wife but it's still the same thing. Yes I do fundamentally believe all violence is "bad". If someone killed your wife you'd be upset, no? If you killed the person that killed your wife their wife would be sad, no? To me it's all the same ****. Violence leads to more violence and it doesn't need to.

Yes you are. You still killed them didn't you? Mind you you probably wouldn't go to get a big sentence since I suppose it was defense but either way you killed someone. Doesn't matter if you're killing a murderer or your mother you're still killing a life that wasn't yours to kill...

I hereby formally revoke my earlier forgiveness. Legalities aside, do you seriously contend that my killing someone to protect myself or a family member is the same as the person who chose to attack them? Did they not forfeit any "right" not to be killed when they attacked another? (BTW, the legal defense of self-defense is based on that very premise.)
See, your argument is why I just can't take pacifists seriously.
"You vile man! How dare you kill the person raping your child! His life was not yours to take!" Seriously, WTF?





A rational person would excuse the fact you killed someone but that doesn't take away the fact you killed them or used violence on them. Surely I can understand the reason you'd kill or hurt someone attacking your wife but it's still the same thing. Yes I do fundamentally believe all violence is "bad". If someone killed your wife you'd be upset, no? If you killed the person that killed your wife their wife would be sad, no? To me it's all the same ****. Violence leads to more violence and it doesn't need to.

Spare me. You really want me to feel bad for the family of the person i kill to keep him from killing my family? Are you for real?
Here is what I would say:"Yes, I killed your piece of **** father/brother/husband/son and I would do it again. If he hadn't been such a piece of repugnant filth, he wouldn't have died." I would then sing a chorus of "Cry Me A River" and then urinate on his grave.

Violence doesn't always lead to more violence. Killing in self-defense is more than legal, it is reasonable.

I hereby formally revoke my earlier forgiveness. Legalities aside, do you seriously contend that my killing someone to protect myself or a family member is the same as the person who chose to attack them?

Um Yep, that's what I said.

Did they not forfeit any "right" not to be killed when they attacked another? (BTW, the legal defense of self-defense is based on that very premise.)

If I attack you does that really mean I deserve to die?


See, your argument is why I just can't take pacifists seriously.

I don't remember saying I was a pacifist.


"You veil man! How dare you kill the person raping your child! His life was not yours to take!" Seriously, WTF

I'm assuming you meant 'vile'?
Yeah exactly. No one's life is ours to take. Like I said before I understand why you would attack and/or kill someone who was harming your children or significant other. I've never been in that situation but perhaps I would too. Would that make me a good person if I killed someone to defend, lets say, my brother? No. I still killed someone.

Spare me. You really want me to feel bad for the family of the person i kill to keep him from killing my family? Are you for real?
Here is what I would say:"Yes, I killed your piece of **** father/brother/husband/son and I would do it again. If he hadn't been such a piece of repugnant filth, he wouldn't have died." I would then sing a chorus of "Cry Me A River" and then urinate on his grave.

I just assume anyone would mourn human suffering but I suppose not all people are like that. If that's what you would do then that's fine.

Violence doesn't always lead to more violence. Killing in self-defense is more than legal, it is reasonable.

Violence does not lead to peace therefore it leads to more violence whether it's in an act of retaliation, a copycat crime, hate, etc. I know perfectly well self-defense is legal and whether or not it is reasonable is up to an individual person.

If I attack you does that really mean I deserve to die?
Yes. Them's the breaks for trying to kill someone else. Sucks, doesn't it? That's the point - to discourage others from trying it.


I don't remember saying I was a pacifist.
With those beliefs, you can't be anything but...




I'm assuming you meant 'vile'?
I edited that already.


Yeah exactly. No one's life is ours to take. Like I said before I understand why you would attack and/or kill someone who was harming your children or significant other. I've never been in that situation but perhaps I would too. Would that make me a good person if I killed someone to defend, lets say, my brother? No. I still killed someone.

Personally, I would think much better of someone who kills to protect a brother, than someone who stands by to watch them die.



I just assume anyone would mourn human suffering but I suppose not all people are like that. If that's what you would do then that's fine.
hey, I'm not the cause of their suffering. Their scumbag relative brought on it on himself (hypothetically.)



Violence does not lead to peace therefore it leads to more violence whether it's in an act of retaliation, a copycat crime, hate, etc. I know perfectly well self-defense is legal and whether or not it is reasonable is up to an individual person.
Violence can lead to peace. The Germans have been mighty quiet since 1945. See, we established peace with Germany.

Tame, pacifists are cowards? That's interesting. Jesus, coward, Gandhi, coward, Martin Luther King Jr, coward, Buddha, coward... who am I forgetting? Oh, the Dalai Lama, big coward! His whole country was taken over, its people torured, its history erased, it's culture and architecture destroyed, and not only did he refuse to fight, but he's taken refuge in another country and forgiven his aggressor. What cowardice indeed!

I'll have to write your equation down (pacifism=cowardice), because I'm sure to forget it.

Let's see...Jesus was a pacifist. He threw the moneylenders out of the temple. He did preach turn the other cheek, but only to a point. You might want to read up on this more.

MLK a pacifist? Nope. He saw non-violent resistance as a means to achieve victory, because we live in a society where it can work. Put MLK up against the Nazis, and I betcha his tactics would change.

Gandhi? Again, using him as an example is poor. Passive resistance worked, because he didn't face an enemy willing to go to any length to stop his movement. I wonder how effective he would have been against the Imperial Japanese Army?

The Dalai Lama? LMAO. Let's see, he runs from the country, forgives the oppressor, and lets his people suffer. Yep. He is a coward. I'm sure those killed in Tibet really appreciate his sacrifice. Oops. He hasn't made one, has he?

Yeah, you better write that equation down.

Yes. Them's the breaks for trying to kill someone else. Sucks, doesn't it? That's the point - to discourage others from trying it.

The point of killing is to stop other people from killing?

I edited that already.
I only brought it up to make sure you didn't mean veiled.

Personally, I would think much better of someone who kills to protect a brother, than someone who stands by to watch them die.

Apparently protection equals killing? I'd slug someone for my brother, sure. And quite possibly I'd kill for my brother, yeah. But it still doesn't make me better than the other person. I'm not saying that everyone should stand by and watch people around them die but I do think that once you kill someone you are a killer no matter what the circumstance. Which is why you won't see me fighting a war anytime soon even if I was required to.



Hey, I'm not the cause of their suffering.

Even if you pulled the trigger?

Their scumbag relative brought on it on himself (hypothetically.)

Yes but you still killed him thus you are the cause of their suffering as well. Whether or not you give a **** is not necessary. Someone will be dead because of you.


Violence can lead to peace. The Germans have been mighty quiet since 1945. See, we established peace with Germany.

We didn't establish a peace treaty with germany until 1991 didn't we? I don't know if war brought peace with germany. It did not lead to any more immediate violence that I know of but one example cannot hold it's own to the billions of acts of violence carried out in recent years and it certainly does not make me want to go kill someone even if it is for protection.

It's quite obvious we have different views and I'm not questioning anyones' actions or thoughts on violence...not directly anyway. But it's these morals I hold that prevent me from ever joining the armed forces whether voluntarily or under requirement.

The point of killing is to stop other people from killing?

In certain cases, yes.


Apparently protection equals killing? I'd slug someone for my brother, sure. And quite possibly I'd kill for my brother, yeah. But it still doesn't make me better than the other person. I'm not saying that everyone should stand by and watch people around them die but I do think that once you kill someone you are a killer no matter what the circumstance. Which is why you won't see me fighting a war anytime soon even if I was required to.

Whatever. There is a major disticntion between attacking someone else for no reason, and killing someone in self-defense. Again, if you try to kill me, you have forfeited your "right" to life.



Even if you pulled the trigger?
Yep. The underlying cause of the suffering is the act of the person who attacked my family. My pulling the trigger is just the consequences of his actions.

Yes but you still killed him thus you are the cause of their suffering as well. Whether or not you give a **** is not necessary. Someone will be dead because of you.

No, that someone would be dead because they tried to harm someone else, and got served the eternal dirt nap as a result.




We didn't establish a peace treaty with germany until 1991 didn't we?
Uh, no.

I don't know if war brought peace with germany. It did not lead to any more immediate violence that I know of but one example cannot hold it's own to the billions of acts of violence carried out in recent years and it certainly does not make me want to go kill someone even if it is for protection.

How 'bout Japan? I can name others.
You can't cite the cause of a single violent event to be all violent acts prior to its occurrence.
I wouldn't want to kill someone for protection, I see it as something that would just need to be done.

It's quite obvious we have different views and I'm not questioning anyones' actions or thoughts on violence...not directly anyway. But it's these morals I hold that prevent me from ever joining the armed forces whether voluntarily or under requirement.

I'm questioning yours. You can hold those views and reasonably expect to never have to protect yourself because others do it for you. I don't respect that.

If someone attempts to attack and harm me, my family, or my property, then they better be sure that I am dead, or that the police get to them first, because I'll most certainly shoot. Without hesitation, I will protect myself, my family, and my property, from scumbags.

Yes, but will you shoot to kill? And if you do kill, would you be a murderer?

Yes, but will you shoot to kill? And if you do kill, would you be a murderer?

I betcha I can answer for robert!
1.) Yes.
2.) No.

BTW, you might want to look up the definition of "murder".

Hint:
mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Let's see...Jesus was a pacifist. He threw the moneylenders out of the temple. He did preach turn the other cheek, but only to a point. You might want to read up on this more.

MLK a pacifist? Nope. He saw non-violent resistance as a means to achieve victory, because we live in a society where it can work. Put MLK up against the Nazis, and I betcha his tactics would change.

Gandhi? Again, using him as an example is poor. Passive resistance worked, because he didn't face an enemy willing to go to any length to stop his movement. I wonder how effective he would have been against the Imperial Japanese Army?

The Dalai Lama? LMAO. Let's see, he runs from the country, forgives the oppressor, and lets his people suffer. Yep. He is a coward. I'm sure those killed in Tibet really appreciate his sacrifice. Oops. He hasn't made one, has he?

Yeah, you better write that equation down.
I don't need to read up more on Jesus. It's well documented that he's a pacifist.

Martin Luther King Jr was a pacifist.

Gandhi was pacifist.

The Dalai Lama is a pacifist, and last time I checked Tibetans weren't known for their sadness. Let's do a little check with google's image finder. (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&q=tibetans) Not too many sad photos are there?

I do believe that if the Indians had taken up arms there would have been a long fight with the British to control the land. The Tibetans lost their country with relatively few fights, and now, 2 to 3 generations of pacifism later there are peace talks with the Chinese towards a compromise. I bet that if either the Israelis or Palestinians were strong enough to give up their weapons we'd see an end to a centuries old conflict in just a couple generations as well.

Yes, but will you shoot to kill? And if you do kill, would you be a murderer?
If someone is attempting to harm me or my family, you better believe I would take action. There is a difference between self-defense and pre-meditated harm to another.

I betcha I can answer for robert!
1.) Yes.
2.) No.

BTW, you might want to look up the definition of "murder".

Hint:
mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Well if I break it down killing is against the law, especially does not mean always, and don't all killings (except accidental ones) contain malice? Even if we use the word killer, he would still be...well...a killer. You kill, no matter what reason, you're a killer. Like I said before all i'm trying to do is explain my morals and my opinion and explaining why I would never serve in the armed forces.

I don't need to read up more on Jesus. It's well documented that he's a pacifist.

Uh, no it isn't. See, if you actually read the Bible, you will see he used force toi eject the mobeylenders from the temple. Odd actions for a pacifist.

Martin Luther King Jr was a pacifist.

Again, read my answer. He was a situational pacifist, because he was in a society where his tactic could work.

Gandhi was pacifist.

Again, what would he have done against the Japanese? Let his people be slaughtered? If so, he desreved to die.


The Dalai Lama is a pacifist, and last time I checked Tibetans weren't known for their sadness. Let's do a little check with google's image finder. (http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&q=tibetans) Not too many sad photos are there?

LMAO. Pictures of happy Tibetans proves what? Want me to post the body count of Chinese occupation?


I do believe that if the Indians had taken up arms there would have been a long fight with the British to control the land.

Maybe, maybe not. The British Empire was financially strapped after WWII. I did note that passive resistance worked because of who it was used against. The Jews were passive against the Nazis. That worked real well.

The Tibetans lost their country with relatively few fights, and now, 2 to 3 generations of pacifism later there are peace talks with the Chinese towards a compromise.
Few fights, lots of deaths, years of occupation. Complete loss of freedom. Loss of culture. Gee, the benefits just pile up, don't they? Did they choose pacifism, or was it thrust upon them because they had no choice and were outnumbered/outgunned?

I bet that if either the Israelis or Palestinians were strong enough to give up their weapons we'd see an end to a centuries old conflict in just a couple generations as well.

Yeah, I'm sure the Israelis would find it smart to disarm against an opponent that has vowed to wipe them out. The conflict would end, as soon as a Palestinian bullet went into the skull of the last Jew.

If someone is attempting to harm me or my family, you better believe I would shoot to kill. I am not a murderer. Murder is for a jury to decide, and the lawyers presenting of the case, and, of course, how many bleeding heart jurors are involved. The fact is, I'd do time if necessary if it meant my actions saved the life of a family member.

Yes yes we took care of the "murder" technicalities. Everything you said is fine and dandy but you would still be a killer if you killed the person. Whatever anyone would do in any given situation is fine. I don't care if it's legal or not and to be honest whether you think it's moral or not. I don't think it is which is why I'm not serving if required to.

Well if I break it down killing is against the law, especially does not mean always, and don't all killings (except accidental ones) contain malice?

Killing in self-defense is not unlawful. By definition, someone who kills in self-defense is not a murderer.

Info on those happy, happy Tibetans:

http://www.freetibet.org/info/facts/fact1.html

Gee, if the Dalai Lama was so eager to forgive, uh, why did he run?

Yes yes we took care of the "murder" technicalities. Everything you said is fine and dandy but you would still be a killer if you killed the person. Whatever anyone would do in any given situation is fine. I don't care if it's legal or not and to be honest whether you think it's moral or not. I don't think it is which is why I'm not serving if required to.
Yep, I'd be a killer. A justified killer. And I could live with that and sleep very well each night.

Regarding to your choice of serving if required, you have that choice. I, on the other hand, feel that a big reason why I can enjoy freedom to post here on the Internet, or have a successful career, or have unlimited opportunities and freedoms is because of those who fought to preserve the country in which I live. If my country were under imminent attack from another country such that it needed able bodied citizens to take up arms to protect our country, I'd be there in a second, no hesitation.

Jesus was a pacifist? Not so fast, my friend!

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=1459

http://www.carmical.net/articles/pacifism.html

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_pacifist.html

A nice verse from the Bible:
Matthew 10

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Killing in self-defense is not unlawful. By definition, someone who kills in self-defense is not a murdered.

Yeah, like I wrote in response to Robert, I understand the murder technicalities.

Uh, no it isn't. See, if you actually read the Bible, you will see he used force toi eject the mobeylenders from the temple. Odd actions for a pacifist. I ate a bit of cheese last year on a sandwich, am I no longer vegan?Again, read my answer. He was a situational pacifist, because he was in a society where his tactic could work.Situational, overweight, Dutch, or drunk, was he or was he not a pacifist?Again, what would he have done against the Japanese? Let his people be slaughtered? If so, he desreved to die.I presume he would have been a pacifist.LMAO. Pictures of happy Tibetans proves what? Want me to post the body count of Chinese occupation?It shows that they're not suffering. The Jews were passive against the Nazis.There's a difference between being passive and being an effective pacifist. The latter takes much more courage. Gee, the benefits just pile up, don't they?They're starting to.Yeah, I'm sure the Israelis would find it smart to disarm against an opponent that has vowed to wipe them out. The conflict would end, as soon as a Palestinian bullet went into the skull of the last Jew.The Indians marched across the country to show that salt was a free commodity. Blacks demanded equal treatment by protesting Jim Crow laws. Most Jews complied silently to unfair laws or fled to other countries from what I know. I think that the last Jew would not need to be killed if there was an effecfive pacifist campaign like those led by the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi.

I guess robert, the point of my question is where are you intending to go with this question. If this is just going to be a topic for people to tell each other that they are horrible evil people based on their answer to the question of if it is ever a good idea to kill someone else, then I think we can just close the topic at three pages because there is not much more to be said.

In addition, there are two distinct questions here. Personally, if my loved ones were in clear and immediate danger, I probably would kill but I would not feel particularly good about it. This is a very different question from approving of any of the wars fought in my lifetime, or even any of the wars fought in the foreseeable future.