Resolutions

[Accname]

how can going to war be better than not going to war, if we're talking about keeping people alive? as far as I know, more people generally die during war than peace. if you don't go, you're not supporting what kills people. if you go, you are. there is no likeness between your arguments and mine.

I never said anything about going to war. Where did you read that?

I said you should go, go and make peace.
What are you doing? Staying at home? Eating nice dishes, playing video games? Surfing the internet?
What makes you a good person if you let all those people die?
You have been there? Taken bullets for others? Been studying medicine and helping those in need?
You doing jack squat to protect those in need.
You are a murderer as well.

But at least I dont care about that.

 

[Zakyath]

text.

I thought it was war that we were talking about. I didn't realise you wanted to change the subject.

But as you wish. How is doing nothing equal to doing something?

 

[Accname]

I thought it was war that we were talking about. I didn't realise you wanted to change the subject.

But as you wish. How is doing nothing equal to doing something?

Thats not changing the subject, we are talking about what is "passive murder".
And i never said they are equal, exactly the opposite. Doing something is always better then doing nothing.

 

[FireCat]

Doing something is always better then doing nothing.

But "something" Is NOT always better than nothing. In fact, many activities people perform for health reasons etc.. do more "harm" than good.

 

[Zakyath]

Thats not changing the subject, we are talking about what is "passive murder".
And i never said they are equal, exactly the opposite. Doing something is always better then doing nothing.

I feel as if we're on different pages. I have been saying since my first post:

If you're doing something, or assisting someone doing something, which puts another person in a situation where they will die, and you realize that is the case but you do it anyway, even though you have the option not to, you're to a certain extent responsible for them dying.

Now. What are you trying to say?

 

[Slapshot136]

Yes, doing something is always better.

I have to disagree with this (and in doing so agree with FC) - often people do stuff they don't quite understand, which makes it worse that what it initially was - especially when they overreact to something

If you're doing something, or assisting someone doing something, which puts another person in a situation where they will die, and you realize that is the case but you do it anyway, even though you have the option not to, you're to a certain extent responsible for them dying.

the "you realize that is the case" part - you seem to be assuming that people are going to kill people, which while it may be a likely scenario, are you going to use it as an excuse to not save a person, because they might turn out bad? if that is the case, why not just kill all babies and be done with it - chances are they will grow up and do bad things, right?

 

[Varine]

If you saw a woman getting raped, would it best to leave the assailant alone, or attack them and possibly kill them in the process to stop the act?

 

[Zakyath]

the "you realize that is the case" part - you seem to be assuming that people are going to kill people, which while it may be a likely scenario, are you going to use it as an excuse to not save a person, because they might turn out bad? if that is the case, why not just kill all babies and be done with it - chances are they will grow up and do bad things, right?

In war people die, it's not a likely scenario, it's a certain scenario. Very few of all babies will grow up to murder others. I don't really follow your logic.

If you saw a woman getting raped, would it best to leave the assailant alone, or attack them and possibly kill them in the process to stop the act?

I don't see what that has to do with anything I've said.

 

[Varine]

I didn't say it did. Are you going to answer it?

 

[Zakyath]

Well, why not. I would try to stop the rapist.

 

[Varine]

Even if that would lead to their death?

 

[Zakyath]

If the only possible solution was to shoot him in the head, I'm not so sure I would. It's a tough question.

 

[Varine]

Of course it is, I understand.

And, on a side note, I believe I have figured out where Cheshire is from.

 

[Zakyath]

are you refering to FC?

 

[Varine]

His name is Cheshire, but yes.

 

[Slapshot136]

In war people die, it's not a likely scenario, it's a certain scenario.

really? how many people? relative to say.. people who die outside of a war? how about compared to the chance of killing another in a car accident as opposed to shooting them in a war? now add in gang violence, drugs, and all the other ways people kill each other, and tell me what difference does joining the army do in terms of people dying/getting killed, are you 10% more likely to kill a person in your lifetime if you join the army? 20%? or would you just say 100% since joining the army = killing a minimum of 1 person?

and my point still stands, why bother waiting until the soldier is fatally wounded, why not just kill off the entire army if you think they deserve to die for being soldiers? or is it better to kill off the entire army only when there is a war going on and people dying?

 

[Varine]

It's like maybe 20 percent on average of soldiers who even fire their weapon. The median is somewhere like 5 percent, but I can't find a poll on it.

 

[FireCat]

Snowballvarine "How many times must I say, "I'm from nowhere."

Btw You could try to scare him away!

 

[Varine]

Nowhere, Norway. See the similarity?

 

[FireCat]

Oh dear. lol Nope I don't see anything. But go ahead and guess
Or stop trying Varine LOLLOL