Odie;1290124 wrote: and I almost killed a chicken driving today.
To where was the chicken driving?
I reckon the tee box may be too close to the road.
When is killing necessary?
When is killing necessary?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When is killing necessary?
To answer the question,
In my experience, if you had time to think about it, it wasn't necessary.
In my experience, if you had time to think about it, it wasn't necessary.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When is killing necessary?
Clodhopper;1290592 wrote: In the sense of putting morality aside, I already had. Humans will eat other people's children if it really comes down to it: Siege of Leningrad. Happened almost certainly. There are no figures.
I don't take bugs as an excuse. When it comes down to it, humans will do pretty much anything. Eating Grandad appears to have been a religious experience about 4,000 years ago in Cheddar Gorge.
We are human. We'll kill and eat pretty much anything, if it comes down to it.
But we have the great world religions telling us that we are all each other's brothers.
And they tell us truth, if we have eyes to see.I don't understand your last two line.
I don't take bugs as an excuse. When it comes down to it, humans will do pretty much anything. Eating Grandad appears to have been a religious experience about 4,000 years ago in Cheddar Gorge.
We are human. We'll kill and eat pretty much anything, if it comes down to it.
But we have the great world religions telling us that we are all each other's brothers.
And they tell us truth, if we have eyes to see.I don't understand your last two line.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
When is killing necessary?
LarsMac;1290608 wrote: To answer the question,
In my experience, if you had time to think about it, it wasn't necessary.I can go along with that statement. I think ncessity would be instinctive as I attempted to illustrate in the example of the burying beetle.
In my experience, if you had time to think about it, it wasn't necessary.I can go along with that statement. I think ncessity would be instinctive as I attempted to illustrate in the example of the burying beetle.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
When is killing necessary?
The Fox Is one of the most Instinctive Species on the planet. From the moment her cubs are born, the Vixen will know of any Imperfections born to her young. She will not waste her energy rearing them and will abandon them.
Perhaps we should take her Instinct and abandon Child Molesters... preferably at the end of a rope.
Perhaps we should take her Instinct and abandon Child Molesters... preferably at the end of a rope.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
When is killing necessary?
oscar;1290952 wrote: The Fox Is one of the most Instinctive Species on the planet. From the moment her cubs are born, the Vixen will know of any Imperfections born to her young. She will not waste her energy rearing them and will abandon them.Thats a good point and its true. Humans practice infanticide through a kind of abandonment as well if they don't perceive their children as normal (perfect).
What we do is hand them over to experts to cure them or train them in sports or something else, and of course we dress them up like dolls and hide their physical imperfection with make up. Thats a form of abandonment.
Its interesting to note that primate species such as chimps and monkeys do not so much as loose contact with their young for the first six months of life. That six months is dedicated to teaching survival skills. We humans have others (experts) such as schools do the work we ourselves should be doing.
What we do is hand them over to experts to cure them or train them in sports or something else, and of course we dress them up like dolls and hide their physical imperfection with make up. Thats a form of abandonment.
Its interesting to note that primate species such as chimps and monkeys do not so much as loose contact with their young for the first six months of life. That six months is dedicated to teaching survival skills. We humans have others (experts) such as schools do the work we ourselves should be doing.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
When is killing necessary?
LarsMac;1290607 wrote: To where was the chicken driving?
I reckon the tee box may be too close to the road.
:yh_rotfl
I reckon the tee box may be too close to the road.
:yh_rotfl
Life is just to short for drama.
When is killing necessary?
IMO, kill or be killed is the only situation when killing is necessary. Or, kill a thread that's gone way off track due to "bashing" and personal attacks 
When is killing necessary?
Jazzy;1291010 wrote: IMO, kill or be killed is the only situation when killing is necessary. Or, kill a thread that's gone way off track due to "bashing" and personal attacks I'm way ahead of you!
I'm well aware I was the target of your "Bashing" thread.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1290882-post33.html
I'm way ahead of you!I'm well aware I was the target of your "Bashing" thread.
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/1290882-post33.html
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
When is killing necessary?
Ahso!;1290675 wrote: I don't understand your last two line.
He's a Liberal Democrat Ahso. The majority of Great Britian doesn't understand a word they say. You did well to grasp all but the last two lines.
He's a Liberal Democrat Ahso. The majority of Great Britian doesn't understand a word they say. You did well to grasp all but the last two lines.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
When is killing necessary?
But we have the great world religions telling us that we are all each other's brothers.
And they tell us truth, if we have eyes to see.
There's all of us here on this little blue planet and we now know that what happens in one part of the world affects the rest of the world: What china does (eg pollution) directly affects me. What I do (staying with pollution as an example) affects unknown tribes in the Amazon rainforest.
That's one level of it.
Another is that the personal morality by which I live my life affects those around me. If I do something bad, the effects ripple out and affect other people's mood - and because I'm on the internet, those effects can ripple round the globe in seconds. Same if I do something good. Hence, we are all eachother's brothers. (Sorry, it was a bit shorthand)
And they tell us truth, if we have eyes to see.
There's all of us here on this little blue planet and we now know that what happens in one part of the world affects the rest of the world: What china does (eg pollution) directly affects me. What I do (staying with pollution as an example) affects unknown tribes in the Amazon rainforest.
That's one level of it.
Another is that the personal morality by which I live my life affects those around me. If I do something bad, the effects ripple out and affect other people's mood - and because I'm on the internet, those effects can ripple round the globe in seconds. Same if I do something good. Hence, we are all eachother's brothers. (Sorry, it was a bit shorthand)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
When is killing necessary?
Clodhopper;1290578 wrote: Definitely the result of uncertainty. Don't agree with your idea of proof that I'm uncertain about protecting killer or victim. I am/ would be more concerned that I might by my action manage to create the situation that I'm trying to prevent. If I could be certain in the moment that I would save the baby's life, the trigger would be squeezed no question. But I might miss. And a bullet is going to hit something. Or the "killer" might be banging the back of a choking child.
Certainty? Oh, Lord, give me "certainty" about anything!
Sometimes you have to act, and act NOW. But if the act is to kill, unless I was certain...
...and I fear my potential for violence.
That's what I cannot understand...One would either be certain that killing someone were necessary or not...
It's entirely what the OP asks...
The only way to be "certain" by the definition in which you use it you'd have to wait for the child to die to prove it...
I personally find physical aggression in any form to be a percentage of attempted murder. All one need do is be morally wrong with any percentage above a 50% likelihood in ones potential to murder in order for me to feel it's "necessary to kill".
What's left is for anyone to suggest a grown male ape resembling that of a human being physically beating a two year old girl to be less than a 50% chance of her dying as a result and that my dear friend is something I'll NEVER be uncertain of
Certainty? Oh, Lord, give me "certainty" about anything!
Sometimes you have to act, and act NOW. But if the act is to kill, unless I was certain...
...and I fear my potential for violence.
That's what I cannot understand...One would either be certain that killing someone were necessary or not...
It's entirely what the OP asks...
The only way to be "certain" by the definition in which you use it you'd have to wait for the child to die to prove it...
I personally find physical aggression in any form to be a percentage of attempted murder. All one need do is be morally wrong with any percentage above a 50% likelihood in ones potential to murder in order for me to feel it's "necessary to kill".
What's left is for anyone to suggest a grown male ape resembling that of a human being physically beating a two year old girl to be less than a 50% chance of her dying as a result and that my dear friend is something I'll NEVER be uncertain of
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
When is killing necessary?
That's what I cannot understand...One would either be certain that killing someone were necessary or not...
It's entirely what the OP asks...
The only way to be "certain" by the definition in which you use it you'd have to wait for the child to die to prove it...
The OP doesn't mention certainty. Just necessity. And taking the original case, if I were close enough to physically intervene, then killing is not necessary, however desirable it may or may not be.
I personally find physical aggression in any form to be a percentage of attempted murder. All one need do is be morally wrong with any percentage above a 50% likelihood in ones potential to murder in order for me to feel it's "necessary to kill".
What's left is for anyone to suggest a grown male ape resembling that of a human being physically beating a two year old girl to be less than a 50% chance of her dying as a result and that my dear friend is something I'll NEVER be uncertain of
I then continued to think about the original case and wondered how I'd feel if asked to make the decision when further away and only able to shoot. I'm absolutely certain I couldn't run a mental algorithm of the sort you describe in the stress of the moment. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do. I've done a bit of target shooting with a .22 rifle and with a bow, in a range, under very controlled conditions. It's easy to shoot at a piece of paper; but I'm not used to handguns or the idea of shooting people in everyday life. I can imagine cases where I hope I would shoot. I won't know unless it happens. At least, as long as it was with a bolt action rifle, I'd probably know how to. With a pistol, I'd probably be lucky not to shoot myself.
I wonder if part of the way - perhaps most of the way - I am reacting differently is down to the fact that guns are not part of everyday society and I simply don't have the awareness and confidence about them. I know they can kill people, and I've got strong inhibitions and range discipline stopping me doing that.
After that it's a case of needing to define more precisely what we mean by the word "necessary", or we'll probably find we're talking at slight cross-purposes.
It's entirely what the OP asks...
The only way to be "certain" by the definition in which you use it you'd have to wait for the child to die to prove it...
The OP doesn't mention certainty. Just necessity. And taking the original case, if I were close enough to physically intervene, then killing is not necessary, however desirable it may or may not be.
I personally find physical aggression in any form to be a percentage of attempted murder. All one need do is be morally wrong with any percentage above a 50% likelihood in ones potential to murder in order for me to feel it's "necessary to kill".
What's left is for anyone to suggest a grown male ape resembling that of a human being physically beating a two year old girl to be less than a 50% chance of her dying as a result and that my dear friend is something I'll NEVER be uncertain of
I then continued to think about the original case and wondered how I'd feel if asked to make the decision when further away and only able to shoot. I'm absolutely certain I couldn't run a mental algorithm of the sort you describe in the stress of the moment. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do. I've done a bit of target shooting with a .22 rifle and with a bow, in a range, under very controlled conditions. It's easy to shoot at a piece of paper; but I'm not used to handguns or the idea of shooting people in everyday life. I can imagine cases where I hope I would shoot. I won't know unless it happens. At least, as long as it was with a bolt action rifle, I'd probably know how to. With a pistol, I'd probably be lucky not to shoot myself.
I wonder if part of the way - perhaps most of the way - I am reacting differently is down to the fact that guns are not part of everyday society and I simply don't have the awareness and confidence about them. I know they can kill people, and I've got strong inhibitions and range discipline stopping me doing that.
After that it's a case of needing to define more precisely what we mean by the word "necessary", or we'll probably find we're talking at slight cross-purposes.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
When is killing necessary?
Clodhopper;1292109 wrote: The OP doesn't mention certainty. Just necessity. And taking the original case, if I were close enough to physically intervene, then killing is not necessary, however desirable it may or may not be.
I then continued to think about the original case and wondered how I'd feel if asked to make the decision when further away and only able to shoot. I'm absolutely certain I couldn't run a mental algorithm of the sort you describe in the stress of the moment. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do. I've done a bit of target shooting with a .22 rifle and with a bow, in a range, under very controlled conditions. It's easy to shoot at a piece of paper; but I'm not used to handguns or the idea of shooting people in everyday life. I can imagine cases where I hope I would shoot. I won't know unless it happens. At least, as long as it was with a bolt action rifle, I'd probably know how to. With a pistol, I'd probably be lucky not to shoot myself.
I wonder if part of the way - perhaps most of the way - I am reacting differently is down to the fact that guns are not part of everyday society and I simply don't have the awareness and confidence about them. I know they can kill people, and I've got strong inhibitions and range discipline stopping me doing that.
After that it's a case of needing to define more precisely what we mean by the word "necessary", or we'll probably find we're talking at slight cross-purposes.
Allow me to clarify the point having brought up about "I am reacting differently is down to the fact that guns are not part of everyday society" purely to eliminate confusion...
I've personally used a handgun once in my life and shot a total of about 6 rounds with it. I've also fired a shotgun once and a 30-30 rifle a few times on average of about 7 rounds each. Therefore, it must be concluded that "guns are not part of everyday society" is completely irrelevant to our discussion...Good...
Besides, I'd prefer to use a baseball bat anyway considering my above statement. Hell of an average in high school!
On that I must say where we differentiate, given my original post, is that an adult male animal beating a two year old child doesn't give much time to think about how poor one is at stopping a murder in progress. The obvious being that I do not differentiate the piece of garbage that did this from a piece of paper.
The difference is contemplating killing someone to stop an attempted murder, whether the offender intends to murder or not, is far less effective as you've said. Of course I'm angered over the situation but it's much easier for me to say I'd kill the thing knowing the end result. People don't learn past the point of "sanity". They only may never be faced with the same circumstances.
I then continued to think about the original case and wondered how I'd feel if asked to make the decision when further away and only able to shoot. I'm absolutely certain I couldn't run a mental algorithm of the sort you describe in the stress of the moment. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do. I've done a bit of target shooting with a .22 rifle and with a bow, in a range, under very controlled conditions. It's easy to shoot at a piece of paper; but I'm not used to handguns or the idea of shooting people in everyday life. I can imagine cases where I hope I would shoot. I won't know unless it happens. At least, as long as it was with a bolt action rifle, I'd probably know how to. With a pistol, I'd probably be lucky not to shoot myself.
I wonder if part of the way - perhaps most of the way - I am reacting differently is down to the fact that guns are not part of everyday society and I simply don't have the awareness and confidence about them. I know they can kill people, and I've got strong inhibitions and range discipline stopping me doing that.
After that it's a case of needing to define more precisely what we mean by the word "necessary", or we'll probably find we're talking at slight cross-purposes.
Allow me to clarify the point having brought up about "I am reacting differently is down to the fact that guns are not part of everyday society" purely to eliminate confusion...
I've personally used a handgun once in my life and shot a total of about 6 rounds with it. I've also fired a shotgun once and a 30-30 rifle a few times on average of about 7 rounds each. Therefore, it must be concluded that "guns are not part of everyday society" is completely irrelevant to our discussion...Good...
Besides, I'd prefer to use a baseball bat anyway considering my above statement. Hell of an average in high school!
On that I must say where we differentiate, given my original post, is that an adult male animal beating a two year old child doesn't give much time to think about how poor one is at stopping a murder in progress. The obvious being that I do not differentiate the piece of garbage that did this from a piece of paper.
The difference is contemplating killing someone to stop an attempted murder, whether the offender intends to murder or not, is far less effective as you've said. Of course I'm angered over the situation but it's much easier for me to say I'd kill the thing knowing the end result. People don't learn past the point of "sanity". They only may never be faced with the same circumstances.
When is killing necessary?
Being uncertain about what one should do is no different than assisting in the murder of the victim. In the same way believing one is certain they should shoot to kill, missing, and hitting the victim resulting in the victims death is assisted murder.
What's left is to ponder the idea of incarcerating an individual and when detaining offenders is not an option the people are asked to decide for themselves what's worth more to society. A convicted serial murderer living their life freely or to end the waste of life? If you allow the convicted murderer to walk freely every instance they re-offend you've helped to assist in the murder of individuals whether innocent or not. The conclusion being who, on God's Earth, can live with such a decision?
What's left is to ponder the idea of incarcerating an individual and when detaining offenders is not an option the people are asked to decide for themselves what's worth more to society. A convicted serial murderer living their life freely or to end the waste of life? If you allow the convicted murderer to walk freely every instance they re-offend you've helped to assist in the murder of individuals whether innocent or not. The conclusion being who, on God's Earth, can live with such a decision?
When is killing necessary?
K.Snyder;1292702 wrote: Being uncertain about what one should do is no different than assisting in the murder of the victim. In the same way believing one is certain they should shoot to kill, missing, and hitting the victim resulting in the victims death is assisted murder.
What's left is to ponder the idea of incarcerating an individual and when detaining offenders is not an option the people are asked to decide for themselves what's worth more to society. A convicted serial murderer living their life freely or to end the waste of life? If you allow the convicted murderer to walk freely every instance they re-offend you've helped to assist in the murder of individuals whether innocent or not. The conclusion being who, on God's Earth, can live with such a decision?So for you killing is necessary when you become angry or fearful enough?
In your scenario killing is not necessary to stop a murder, but its desirable for you.
What's left is to ponder the idea of incarcerating an individual and when detaining offenders is not an option the people are asked to decide for themselves what's worth more to society. A convicted serial murderer living their life freely or to end the waste of life? If you allow the convicted murderer to walk freely every instance they re-offend you've helped to assist in the murder of individuals whether innocent or not. The conclusion being who, on God's Earth, can live with such a decision?So for you killing is necessary when you become angry or fearful enough?
In your scenario killing is not necessary to stop a murder, but its desirable for you.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
When is killing necessary?
Ahso!;1292703 wrote: So for you killing is necessary when you become angry or fearful enough?
In your scenario killing is not necessary to stop a murder, but its desirable for you.
:wah:
No, killing is neither desirable nor uncomfortable for me because I don't hesitate long enough to contemplate any end result other than immediately halting what I deem to be worth more than the life of the offender. It's incredibly easy to understand. I've exclaimed killing one or more becomes necessary and/or desirable/uncomfortable after the fact.
If killing someone were divinely necessary I'd eat well and be merry after the event. I'd throw a party celebrating the end of needless bloodshed. By any opposed stance "you'd" successfully serve to back "yourselves" into a corner and allow "your" loved ones to be tortured and murdered. The sentiment I gathered from the OP is the suggestion their has never been a war worth fighting for and I despise the mere thought of it
In your scenario killing is not necessary to stop a murder, but its desirable for you.
:wah:
No, killing is neither desirable nor uncomfortable for me because I don't hesitate long enough to contemplate any end result other than immediately halting what I deem to be worth more than the life of the offender. It's incredibly easy to understand. I've exclaimed killing one or more becomes necessary and/or desirable/uncomfortable after the fact.
If killing someone were divinely necessary I'd eat well and be merry after the event. I'd throw a party celebrating the end of needless bloodshed. By any opposed stance "you'd" successfully serve to back "yourselves" into a corner and allow "your" loved ones to be tortured and murdered. The sentiment I gathered from the OP is the suggestion their has never been a war worth fighting for and I despise the mere thought of it
When is killing necessary?
K.Snyder;1292705 wrote: :wah:
No, killing is neither desirable nor uncomfortable for me because I don't hesitate long enough to contemplate any end result other than immediately halting what I deem to be worth more than the life of the offender. It's incredibly easy to understand. I've exclaimed killing one or more becomes necessary and/or desirable/uncomfortable after the fact.
If killing someone were divinely necessary I'd eat well and be merry after the event. I'd throw a party celebrating the end of needless bloodshed. By any opposed stance "you'd" successfully serve to back "yourselves" into a corner and allow "your" loved ones to be tortured and murdered. The sentiment I gathered from the OP is the suggestion their has never been a war worth fighting for and I despise the mere thought of itThen you read way more than is "necessary" into the OP.
No, killing is neither desirable nor uncomfortable for me because I don't hesitate long enough to contemplate any end result other than immediately halting what I deem to be worth more than the life of the offender. It's incredibly easy to understand. I've exclaimed killing one or more becomes necessary and/or desirable/uncomfortable after the fact.
If killing someone were divinely necessary I'd eat well and be merry after the event. I'd throw a party celebrating the end of needless bloodshed. By any opposed stance "you'd" successfully serve to back "yourselves" into a corner and allow "your" loved ones to be tortured and murdered. The sentiment I gathered from the OP is the suggestion their has never been a war worth fighting for and I despise the mere thought of itThen you read way more than is "necessary" into the OP.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
When is killing necessary?
Ahso!;1292707 wrote: Then you read way more than is "necessary" into the OP.
What answer did you expect when you'd asked "When is killing necassary?"?
Perhaps "I'm too tired Monday-Friday, but Saturday and Sunday I getto shootin ****!!!!!!!"
What answer did you expect when you'd asked "When is killing necassary?"?
Perhaps "I'm too tired Monday-Friday, but Saturday and Sunday I getto shootin ****!!!!!!!"
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
When is killing necessary?
Besides, I'd prefer to use a baseball bat anyway considering my above statement. Hell of an average in high school!
Dear Mr Snyder. :-4. (and I'm just being straight. There are no hidden meanings in this post)
Your feelings do you credit.
In how I feel about it, I agree with you.
But the question was, is killing necessary.
And increasingly, I think we need to understand more clearly what we mean by the word necessary.
In order to answer the question, "When is killing necessary?" We do need an understandiong aboput what we mean by the word "necessary", especially when we are talking across the Atlantic, which leads to quite enough problems of communication anyway!
As an opening position, I am using it as meaning, in the case of the OP, as "required, there is no alternative".
Dear Mr Snyder. :-4. (and I'm just being straight. There are no hidden meanings in this post)
Your feelings do you credit.
In how I feel about it, I agree with you.
But the question was, is killing necessary.
And increasingly, I think we need to understand more clearly what we mean by the word necessary.
In order to answer the question, "When is killing necessary?" We do need an understandiong aboput what we mean by the word "necessary", especially when we are talking across the Atlantic, which leads to quite enough problems of communication anyway!
As an opening position, I am using it as meaning, in the case of the OP, as "required, there is no alternative".
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
When is killing necessary?
Clodhopper;1292837 wrote: Dear Mr Snyder. :-4. (and I'm just being straight. There are no hidden meanings in this post)
Your feelings do you credit.
In how I feel about it, I agree with you.
But the question was, is killing necessary.
And increasingly, I think we need to understand more clearly what we mean by the word necessary.
In order to answer the question, "When is killing necessary?" We do need an understandiong aboput what we mean by the word "necessary", especially when we are talking across the Atlantic, which leads to quite enough problems of communication anyway!
As an opening position, I am using it as meaning, in the case of the OP, as "required, there is no alternative".
Killing is never necessary in the first instance but bears the potential of being commendable in the second.
Hypothetical scenario!!!!!!
A beast of a bear is stalking you something awful that would make Andre the Giant wet himself and whistle Dixie!
You have four options at your disposal in ridding yourself of the "obvious" intent of this rude, fowl smelling, innately annoying mammoth of a beast!
Those four options are as follows...
1. Grenade
2. Grenade
3. Grenade
4. Popsicle stick!
What do you do!??!?!?!? WHAT DO YOU DO!?!??!?
:yh_wink
Your feelings do you credit.
In how I feel about it, I agree with you.
But the question was, is killing necessary.
And increasingly, I think we need to understand more clearly what we mean by the word necessary.
In order to answer the question, "When is killing necessary?" We do need an understandiong aboput what we mean by the word "necessary", especially when we are talking across the Atlantic, which leads to quite enough problems of communication anyway!
As an opening position, I am using it as meaning, in the case of the OP, as "required, there is no alternative".
Killing is never necessary in the first instance but bears the potential of being commendable in the second.
Hypothetical scenario!!!!!!
A beast of a bear is stalking you something awful that would make Andre the Giant wet himself and whistle Dixie!
You have four options at your disposal in ridding yourself of the "obvious" intent of this rude, fowl smelling, innately annoying mammoth of a beast!
Those four options are as follows...
1. Grenade
2. Grenade
3. Grenade
4. Popsicle stick!
What do you do!??!?!?!? WHAT DO YOU DO!?!??!?
:yh_wink
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
When is killing necessary?
I'd kill him with a sharp stick and eat the son-of-a-bear! :wah:
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
When is killing necessary?
K.Snyder;1292880 wrote: Killing is never necessary in the first instance but bears the potential of being commendable in the second.
Hypothetical scenario!!!!!!
A beast of a bear is stalking you something awful that would make Andre the Giant wet himself and whistle Dixie!
You have four options at your disposal in ridding yourself of the "obvious" intent of this rude, fowl smelling, innately annoying mammoth of a beast!
Those four options are as follows...
1. Grenade
2. Grenade
3. Grenade
4. Popsicle stick!
What do you do!??!?!?!? WHAT DO YOU DO!?!??!?
:yh_wink
Simple with those options.
Pull the pins on all three grenades, put my head between my legs and kiss my a$$ goodbye.
The popsicle stick would be stuck in the ground to mark the spot where I became burger for the bear.
Hypothetical scenario!!!!!!
A beast of a bear is stalking you something awful that would make Andre the Giant wet himself and whistle Dixie!
You have four options at your disposal in ridding yourself of the "obvious" intent of this rude, fowl smelling, innately annoying mammoth of a beast!
Those four options are as follows...
1. Grenade
2. Grenade
3. Grenade
4. Popsicle stick!
What do you do!??!?!?!? WHAT DO YOU DO!?!??!?
:yh_wink
Simple with those options.
Pull the pins on all three grenades, put my head between my legs and kiss my a$$ goodbye.
The popsicle stick would be stuck in the ground to mark the spot where I became burger for the bear.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
When is killing necessary?
LarsMac;1293671 wrote: Simple with those options.
Pull the pins on all three grenades, put my head between my legs and kiss my a$$ goodbye.
The popsicle stick would be stuck in the ground to mark the spot where I became burger for the bear.
Was killing yourself "necessary" is the question...
Perhaps you'd have felt it were a more viable option to throw the Popsicle stick, as far as innately possible I presume!,..at the hope the bear would follow it and leave you alone?
Pull the pins on all three grenades, put my head between my legs and kiss my a$$ goodbye.
The popsicle stick would be stuck in the ground to mark the spot where I became burger for the bear.
Was killing yourself "necessary" is the question...
Perhaps you'd have felt it were a more viable option to throw the Popsicle stick, as far as innately possible I presume!,..at the hope the bear would follow it and leave you alone?