Would you?

[Antoninus Verus]

If you had the opportunity to go back in history and prevent murderers like Charles Whitman, Ted Bundy, Theodore Kazynschy(sp), and others like those men from committing your crimes by killing them, would you?

I most definately would. These were some of the most evil men in memory who caused many people much pain and destroyed lives. It would definately be worth it, in my mind, to prevent those men from inflicting that harm on people by one death.

 

[kedaman]

What is done is done.

 

[Angel4Truth]

If you had the opportunity to go back in history and prevent murderers like Charles Whitman, Ted Bundy, Theodore Kazynschy(sp), and others like those men from committing your crimes by killing them, would you?

I most definately would. These were some of the most evil men in memory who caused many people much pain and destroyed lives. It would definately be worth it, in my mind, to prevent those men from inflicting that harm on people by one death.

No , i would not prevent it by killing them , instead of that , I would prevent their crimes by preventing what caused them to become what they became instead , i mean hey , i can go back and cause changes , why not change things that caused the problem to begin with .

 

[Antoninus Verus]

No , i would not prevent it by killing them , instead of that , I would prevent their crimes by preventing what caused them to become what they became instead , i mean hey , i can go back and cause changes , why not change things that caused the problem to begin with .

Most of these men's crimes were caused by a lifetime of multiple stressors and events compounding, Charles Whitman is an excelent example. His father beat him and his mother incessantly when he was younger and pushed him to excell in everything. These men also shared some common personality and mental traits. Which is probably indicitive of a person who is probably going to deal with anger, frustration, and stress in negative ways.

You couldnt prevent what they did by doing just one thing, like preventing them from tripping and falling one day or telling them not to go out with thier friends one night.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

What follows is what's known as a 'hypothetical'. It's not meant to be a real situation (so please don't bother with posts saying it's not realistic or could never happen - it's not supposed to be realistic). It has two possible outcomes, and only two - this is a condition of the hypothetical (again, please don't bother with posts saying "I'd do this instead..." You only have the two choices outlined below, and that's it).

If you don't like the above conditions, then that's fine - just ignore this thread. But please don't waste everyone's time with posts saying it's unrealistic or you'd do something else. Thanks.

Now, for the hypothetical itself:

You encounter a situation where an adult man is about to rape a female child (ie., pre-pubescent). Their bodily positions and state of attire leave no doubt that that is what is going to happen. You are armed, with a very powerful weapon, but the would-be rapist is positioned such that the only part of him which you can possibly shoot is his head. Given the power of your gun, you know that any head shot would kill him instantly. You also know that if you shoot him dead, you will not be penalised for your action - indeed, nobody will ever know who prevented the rape. But shooting him will, definitely, prevent the child being raped.

Do you shoot him dead? Or allow the little girl to be raped?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Most of these men's crimes were caused by a lifetime of multiple stressors and events compounding, Charles Whitman is an excelent example. His father beat him and his mother incessantly when he was younger and pushed him to excell in everything. These men also shared some common personality and mental traits. Which is probably indicitive of a person who is probably going to deal with anger, frustration, and stress in negative ways.

You couldnt prevent what they did by doing just one thing, like preventing them from tripping and falling one day or telling them not to go out with thier friends one night.

You cant prevent growing up being beaten incessantly by removing the child ? Your premise is going back and changing things , I could go back and change what made his Father that way and so on , maybe you need to change your premise a bit to say we could only perform one act .

 

[Antoninus Verus]

You encounter a situation where an adult man is about to rape a female child (ie., pre-pubescent). Their bodily positions and state of attire leave no doubt that that is what is going to happen. You are armed, with a very powerful weapon, but the would-be rapist is positioned such that the only part of him which you can possibly shoot is his head. Given the power of your gun, you know that any head shot would kill him instantly. You also know that if you shoot him dead, you will not be penalised for your action - indeed, nobody will ever know who prevented the rape. But shooting him will, definitely, prevent the child being raped.

Do you shoot him dead? Or allow the little girl to be raped?

Nither, I use the power of that weapon to command the rapist to stop and to surrender to me. Its hard to argue with a loaded weapon. And if he does want to argue, then Ill kill him, simple as that. And I wont shed a tear in doing so.

You cant prevent growing up being beaten incessantly by removing the child ? Your premise is going back and changing things , I could go back and change what made his Father that way and so on , maybe you need to change your premise a bit to say we could only perform one act .

No, the option is to kill that person. If you could, would you go back and dispense with that person?

 

[Angel4Truth]

What follows is what's known as a 'hypothetical'. It's not meant to be a real situation (so please don't bother with posts saying it's not realistic or could never happen - it's not supposed to be realistic). It has two possible outcomes, and only two - this is a condition of the hypothetical (again, please don't bother with posts saying "I'd do this instead..." You only have the two choices outlined below, and that's it).

If you don't like the above conditions, then that's fine - just ignore this thread. But please don't waste everyone's time with posts saying it's unrealistic or you'd do something else. Thanks.

Is it not the same way with God , you have two choices - you can either follow Christ or you can spend eternity seperated from God . Do you feel you are wasting everyones time when you say its unrealitstic or what you would do if you were God?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Is it not the same way with God , you have two choices - you can either follow Christ or you can spend eternity seperated from God . Do you feel you are wasting everyones time when you say its unrealitstic or what you would do if you were God?

Why did you make this post, since it has absolutely nothing to do with either the OP or the post it's supposedly in response to?

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Is it not the same way with God , you have two choices - you can either follow Christ or you can spend eternity seperated from God . Do you feel you are wasting everyones time when you say its unrealitstic or what you would do if you were God?

Angel, this is not about religion, your religious and devoted, fabulous. But the OT did not mention religion at all

 

[MoonlessNight]

In my view of things to say "yes" I would have to think that these people did not have quite a human nature, that is to say we cannot consider them human in the same sense that we consider other people human. And it is not through their actions that they have gained this label, indeed before they did anything wrong their very being caused this. To say yes I would have to say that these people, by virture of simply being who they were, were not worthy of being alive.

I am already having problems, I have trouble saying that about any human being.

Now you might say to me, "but MN, by allowing these people to kill others, you are implicitly saying that the killer is more valuble than the victim!" And it is not an easy objection to deal with. But the fact is, I never had any opportunity to help those victims except this one. And the opportunity I am given entails something I find morally reprehensible. I lament what happened to those victims, if I was really given this choice I would curse fate for not giving me any way to help them free from morally wrong. But ultimately I have a choice between an action I believe is morally wrong, and an inaction that will bring about tragic consequences. I choose the inaction, I am not a consequentialist.

I know that sounds heartless, but one of the rules I live by is "do nothing contrary to human dignity" and by which I mean "do not deny the personhood of a human being." I cannot violate it. But inaction is a different manner. Though it is a bad thing to allow another to suffer through inaction, it is not as reprehensible as denying a human's personhood, at least in my view of things. As a clarification I mean that instead of saying "it is wrong to allow another to suffer through inaction", it should be said "if it is possible to take help someone out through a reasoned, moral action, then to allow them to continue to suffer is immoral."

So, no I would not kill them.

 

[]RiSeN[]

You are on a christian forum, therefore expect christians to answer in a christian manner, dont like it? go skepticise your hypothetics on another website.

"Thankyou, and please come again!" -Apu

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why did you make this post, since it has absolutely nothing to do with either the OP or the post it's supposedly in response to?

I made the point because its in direct relevance to what most skeptics like yourself argue here at CF and wondered if you really feel as if its a waste of time arguing the "middle" or alternate views of something that only has 2 choices , so it was very relevant to what YOU said even though it didnt adress the OP.

What you said again for reference and my response to it :

If you don't like the above conditions, then that's fine - just ignore this thread. But please don't waste everyone's time with posts saying it's unrealistic or you'd do something else. Thanks.

and i said in response :

Is it not the same way with God , you have two choices - you can either follow Christ or you can spend eternity seperated from God . Do you feel you are wasting everyones time when you say its unrealitstic or what you would do if you were God?

This is a christian forum , so my post adressing your comment most certainly applies

 

[Angel4Truth]

You are on a christian forum, therefore expect christians to answer in a christian manner, dont like it? go skepticise your hypothetics on another website.

"Thankyou, and please come again!" -Apu

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You are on a christian forum, therefore expect christians to answer in a christian manner, dont like it? go skepticise your hypothetics on another website.

I do expect christians to answer in a christian manner. The answer she gave wasn't an answer at all...it was completely unrelated. I expect christians who post in response to threads or particular posts to address that thread or post, not make some completely unrelated point aobut their reloigious belef.

 

[]RiSeN[]

Angel4Truth,

"There are many daughters that have shown capableness, but you—you have ascended above them all."-Proverbs 31:29


"Her mouth she has opened in wisdom, and the law of loving-kindness is upon her tongue"- Proverbs 31:26

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I made the point because its in direct relevance to what most skeptics like yourself argue here at CF and wondered if you really feel as if its a waste of time arguing the "middle" or alternate views of something that only has 2 choices , so it was very relevant to what YOU said even though it
didnt adress the OP.

It was in no way relevant to either the OP or what I said.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It was in no way relevant to either the OP or what I said.

Actually you said in a moral hypothetical , there were only two choices , and one either needed to choose one or the other or not waste anyones time debating anything else basically . To that end , I responded that its pretty much the same way with God , you can either do things His way or your own , there isnt another option , so do you believe that when you post other veiws than those 2 on this forum that you waste peoples time? I dont get what you arent getting about relevance to what YOU stated .

 

[Ninja Turtles]

It was in no way relevant to either the OP or what I said.

Your right it wasn't.

Answering a question in a Christian doesn't involve questioning of the non-believers. The question was going back in time, or is the rapist one?

I answered the rapist question. As to the stopping a violent figure in history, that's a bit of a Minority Report for me. If I could go back in time, I could go as far back as when they're a kid and change the influence in their life. Of course I could also go back in time and show some schoolyard justice.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Fallen , thank you , that was very kind , God bless you - to the King of Glory the praise and blessing from which all wisdom comes through His Spirit.