Eddo36 Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves? All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not.
Gorgon Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Thats impropper use of present progressive. The answer to your question is : 'it depends'. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Eddo36 Posted January 27, 2007 Author Posted January 27, 2007 It depends? So this quote isn't always true then? Basicly the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
Gorgon Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 What if the 100000 were deranged killer clowns, lawyers, or mimes. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Eddo36 Posted January 27, 2007 Author Posted January 27, 2007 It's all relative. They are the majority. What is relative to you may not be relative for others.
Krookie Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 These topics get more and more stupid/confusing.
Laozi Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Yeah, ofcourse those hunded people have the right to defend themselves, especially if they hate those 100,000 people. Lets say there were 100 mes and 100,000 yous, I hope to god that those 100 mes bath in the dumb question asking blood of the 100,000 yous. It would be a massacre. Crushed, empty heads lying around everywhere. People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
Gorgon Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 The greater good seems like a practical rather than moral consideration to me. You need to put an individual in a position to compromise his belief system in order to have a moral dilemma. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Pop Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 I cannot be arsed to take this seriously enough to make sense of it right now. The new insomina treatment is hitting me hard. But I'll softball this, and assume the question is whether or not self-defense is a legitimate rationale for violence. Yeah. Duh, of course it is. The only people I'm aware of who would say no are serious hardc0re Benthamites. **** those guys. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality!
Purgatorio Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves? All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, ofcourse those hunded people have the right to defend themselves, especially if they hate those 100,000 people. Lets say there were 100 mes and 100,000 yous, I hope to god that those 100 mes bath in the dumb question asking blood of the 100,000 yous. It would be a massacre. Crushed, empty heads lying around everywhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with Laozi. But to answer the question... No these 100 people don't have the moral right because you Eddo said that they hate the other 1000, how is hate a moral justification? :crazy: I can't be arsed debating morality. S.A.S.I.S.P.G.M.D.G.S.M.B.
alanschu Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves? All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why wouldn't they?
taks Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 the right of self preservation is sacrosanct. the statement "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is based purely on a socialist viewpoint of life. in general, the needs of the self should always outweigh the needs of anyone else. it seems we've had these "altruism" discussions before, probably initiated by eddoh... sheesh. taks comrade taks... just because.
Pope Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) It's all relative. They are the majority. What is relative to you may not be relative for others. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> majority schmajority democracy - and other such concepts that praise this silly idea of majorities calling the shots - is such a nonsensical thing... every living creature has the right to defend him/herself, though I have reservations calling this a 'right'. the only absolute law in nature is survival of the fittest, not whatever some (mostly retarded) majority comes up with... if 100 can outwit 10.000 they deserve to live morality doesn't even come into play, is just a defense mechanism made up by folks not fit enough to survive not saying I'm one of those fittest, but stuff like morality and democracy is exactly what makes human society a threat to nature. messes up the whole system Edited January 27, 2007 by Pope
alanschu Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 the statement "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" is based purely on a socialist viewpoint of life. in general, the needs of the self should always outweigh the needs of anyone else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think that it is necessarily purely socialist. I've seen the statement used in moral dilemmas and in similar decisions made by people in charge. If, say, a plane fell down behind enemy lines, would you send in a batallion against heavy odds to rescue them? Unlikely, because it'd be wasting the lives of the many in order to preserve the lives of a few. However, if that plane was, say, carrying a data stick that had detailed reconaissance of the enemy troop formations, which would allow you to save the lives of soldiers across multiple army divisions, then maybe a batallion of men is an acceptable cost. A pretty good example would probably be the situation that the soldiers were in in Saving Private Ryan. Did it really make sense to risk the lives of a platoon of men in order to save one soldier?
Pope Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 A pretty good example would probably be the situation that the soldiers were in in Saving Private Ryan. Did it really make sense to risk the lives of a platoon of men in order to save one soldier? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> risking your life to save another's, and fighting to save your own, are two different things
Kalfear Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 It all depends You cant ask a open ended question like this and expect serious answers because the situation is what depicts if its ok or not. If the 100 are pedophiles that have harmed children, then no they have no rights to defend themselves! If the 100 are women oppressed by some religious fanatic then yes they have the right to defend themselves! It all depends on the situation. By asking this question in such a open ended way, you are basically saying you support something you know in your heart that is wrong but are trying to defend it anyways by making vague statements that honestly dont pretain to the situation. Just come out and state what you are talking about and then everyone can answer you honestly and clearly. Simple as that. Dont hide your agenda in the shadows like you currently are doing. Be a man/woman and not a coward and step up to the plate! Kalfear Disco and Dragons Avatar Enlarged
Diamond Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 What's with all Moral Dilemma threads lately?
Pope Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 If the 100 are pedophiles that have harmed children, then no they have no rights to defend themselves! If the 100 are women oppressed by some religious fanatic then yes they have the right to defend themselves! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> may seem perfectly plausible from a moral point of view, but I still disagree thoroughly morality is subjective, survival of the fittest is universal
Oerwinde Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Yes they have the right to defend themselves. It doesn't matter who they are. They could be nazi pedophile terrorists who work in the marketing department of microsoft, they still have the right to defend themselves. Should they be wiped out? Sure, but that doesn't mean they have to sit and take it. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
alanschu Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 A pretty good example would probably be the situation that the soldiers were in in Saving Private Ryan. Did it really make sense to risk the lives of a platoon of men in order to save one soldier? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> risking your life to save another's, and fighting to save your own, are two different things <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you actually read my post?
Pope Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 (edited) A pretty good example would probably be the situation that the soldiers were in in Saving Private Ryan. Did it really make sense to risk the lives of a platoon of men in order to save one soldier? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> risking your life to save another's, and fighting to save your own, are two different things <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did you actually read my post? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes... weren't we discussing the right to defend yourself, though? Edited January 27, 2007 by Pope
Junai Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!
Tale Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Whichever group I'm in, give me lots of ammo, and then something sharp for when I run out. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
thepixiesrock Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Right before battle they'd probably just realize that it was all just a wacky misunderstanding, and then sign a peace treaty or something. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now