Moral values of Apolyton

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kill another person, not in self defense: Yes, but only if defending the life of another.

GOOD POINT! A police officer that kills someone that is about to kill someone else isn't doing that act in self-defense!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Curse and/or Swear - I try not to
Tell a Lie - I try not to

And No for all the rest, except the organ transplant one, but only if my life depended on it, and I didn't kill anyone to get the organ.

Um...you don't think it's ok to kill someone in self defense or the defense of another?

And what's wrong with other's having same sex relations, as long as you're not involved?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Who are the 4 freaks (out of 45) who don't think reading / watching pornography is ok?


STYOM

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Kill another person, not in self defense: Yes, but only if defending the life of another.

GOOD POINT! A police officer that kills someone that is about to kill someone else isn't doing that act in self-defense!

Not just police...anyone, of course. If someone is trying to kill someone else in front of me, I will use lethal force if I have to in order to stop them. I'd rather aim for the kneecaps, but I have ****ty aim, so I'd probably just go for the torso...

[Winston]

Boris,

Personal ethics and moral standpoints are really hard to argue about - and for the purpose of this survey, no one is required to justify why they feel as they do.

Just thought I'd inform of that.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm still amazed over 15% think drunk driving...is PERFECTLY OK!

[Boris Godunov]

Winston:

I'm not requiring anyone to justify anything, I'm just voicing my own opinions. Since it's anonymous, people can vote however they want and not feel obligated to defend anything.

But you can't expect people not to discuss this on the board. It IS a message board, after all, and the very nature of the poll is going to draw such an exchange. No one is gonna be forced to argue anything, but we shouldn't be prevented from it, either.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Winston:

I'm not requiring anyone to justify anything, I'm just voicing my own opinions. Since it's anonymous, people can vote however they want and not feel obligated to defend anything.

But you can't expect people not to discuss this on the board. It IS a message board, after all, and the very nature of the poll is going to draw such an exchange. No one is gonna be forced to argue anything, but we shouldn't be prevented from it, either.

I disagree. Please refrain from inquiring into the reasons for people's answers to the survey.

You can discuss why people hold certain ethics or morals in a separate thread, clearly disassociated from this poll, if you want.

[Boris Godunov]

Fine, but watch the thread siiiiiiiiiiiink since no one can talk about it.

[Shadowstrike]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Um...you don't think it's ok to kill someone in self defense or the defense of another?

And what's wrong with other's having same sex relations, as long as you're not involved?

No, I don't think its right ot kill another living human being, even if said human being is trying to kill you or another person. Mere incapacitation will do. Why shoot them in the head or heart when you could shoot them in the legs and incapacitate them instead?

As for the second one, its on general grounds. Partly its because that such activities have no tangible result, and are a good method of STD proliferation.

Christian morals probably ties into both points too. I don't believe that any human being is impossible to turn into an upright citizen, and that just killing, even in self defense, makes you in the wrong like the person who attacked you.

Flame away.

[Winston]

No Boris Godunov, you can talk about it all right, just don't investigate - directly or indirectly - into reasons for the personal ethics of specific posters.

[Boris Godunov]

Shhh, Shadowstrike, we're not allowed to discuss it.

(And sometimes, you will just have to be lethal in order to stop someone. And heterosexual couplings have just as much STD risk, and usually result in a more negative thing such as unwanted babies and abortions. And there is certainly a great intangible result to same-sex relationships, as either partner will tell you. It's called love...)

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike


No, I don't think its right ot kill another living human being, even if said human being is trying to kill you or another person. Mere incapacitation will do. Why shoot them in the head or heart when you could shoot them in the legs and incapacitate them instead?

If you're shooting at all, you shoot to kill. There's no half measures, there. You'll see if you try it someday.

[Shadowstrike]

I highly doubt that ther is a scenario where one must be lethal to stop another person, even ifo the other person is on a rampage. Just that its simpler to do so, because it requires less effort and risk.

The difference is that same-sex relationships produce offspring, which is the point of reproduction. I hold that people should try to raise the child, put it up for adoption, or don't have it in the first place. While this may be idealism, our society should try to eliminate the 'need' for abortions with more active programs that encourage kids towards academics, sports or even hobbies, and away from drugs and sex.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
I highly doubt that ther is a scenario where one must be lethal to stop another person, even ifo the other person is on a rampage. Just that its simpler to do so, because it requires less effort and risk.

The risk is that if you aim for a leg, you're quite likely to miss (torso is bigger) and then the other party will have a chance to kill you, possibly with your own gun. Anyone who would risk letting someone on a 'rampage' take a gun from them has no business drawing the gun in the first place.