What, if anything, would you kill for?

[imperialwar]

Im with the self defense crew here, and defense of my wife.
But I'm also going to have to say to send a message. I'm tired of people doing shady stuff just because they get away with it 99% of the time. There's these guys who ride dirt bikes on the school oval across the road from where I live. They do it every few weeks for hours on end. I feel like getting a rifle with a decent scope and picking one off his bike as he riding around. Cause and consequence asshole. Same for hoons that do burnouts in the schools car park. A bullet through the drivers side of the windshield, problem solved.
I guess I'm just an angry violent person. When the world finally does go to hell in a hand basket, I'm just going to smile.

 

[Bill Nye the Zombie]

Self Defense or my family most defiantly.
I'd also kill for a GOOD Republic Commando sequel (we all know what Lucasarts would do to it) or World in Conflict 2.

how about a Battle Front 3 game?

I don't really like Battlefront enough to kill for it. Maybe hurt someone for it, but not kill them.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I'd murder anyone if it meant I would be granted immunity from normal human laws.

 

[ninjaRiv]

I'd kill for some peace and quiet. Or a new cd. Ooh! The new Max Payne game! No, wait a minute... Do I get something for each person I kill? Because I don't mind putting in the extra work.

 

[Guffe]

On a big scale war as thread creators also mentioned.
But let's say I stand at a roof top for a random reason.
A guy comes up to me with a sniper rifle and says take a look through that window.
There's a guy with a time placed on 20 seconds (and counting down) holding a gun to my brothers head.
No hesitation, aim, and pull the trigger.
In other words my own blood, I would defend my family with my life.

 

[Zanderinfal]

Self defense.
Defense of someone I love.
Commision (maybe).
Pity.
Anger.
Revenge.

Jesus, how do you do that?! Those were all the things I had listed!

 

[bluedoom]

If someone dies in my path for HL3, then so be it...

On a more serious note, I don't think there would be anything I would kill for. I might have to kill someone to defend someone I care about, but I wouldn't activly try to kill someone.

Hmmm...

 

[smithy_2045]

There is nothing that I'd kill for in cold blood. In the heat of the moment however, I have no idea what I'd be capable of.

 

[cswurt]

I'd kill everyone here for a single drop of sweet, sweet Duff...

 

[Old Father Eternity]

The term *practical pacifism* comes to mind in relation to most things. Defending Ones country from a foreign attack? ... still needs more contemplation, while we have lived through several foreign reigns, I would rather not see another, especially considering the last one and that there are still people there who twitch about loosing their occupied territories.

 

[Treblaine]

I'd use lethal force against a human if it was the only practical way prevent them unjustly and severely harming another human being in an irreversible way such as sexual assault, dismemberment, disfigurement, disabling... or death. Someone being slapped or punched, the results of that can be reversed but not those other things.

I'd kill an animal for food if I needed to eat. But not another human. Call that species-ist, but I'll make an exception.

That's about it.

I'm not sure about war, which is not about killing immediate threats, but where to varying extents you are being equally unjust in declaring open hostilities to each other the default is to kill them unless they surrender. I suppose I'd have to be convinced that the threat of this armed force was so great that they had to be killed before they opened fire, but even considering that possibility justifies them to fire on me without provocation. But whether I actually think that or not they may assume that of me simply because they assume it.

Now we are getting into Game Theory.

Now my objective out of all of this is being a net benefit to the world. Is the world a better place if a serial killer is shot dead to stop him going all Ted Bundy on another victim. Reasonable to assume so, if it's the only way to prevent another victim. But I wouldn't kill him if he was a prisoner and couldn't hurt anyone any more, there is no need for the death penalty if he is incarcerated forever. However, I do think that prison guards in watch towers should have special right to use lethal force against violent prisoners who they catch escaping. If there is no way of stopping them and their convictions are safe then everything up to lethal force is justified in preventing him committing unjust harm.

The same cannot be done with all suspects as their threat is so uncertain. But in a maximum security prison where all are held for their repeated violent crimes, then lethal force is justified in preventing them escaping.

But in war, the realisation must be that taking up arms to prevent an armed force doing harm or being unjust, may provoke them to take up arms themselves. I haven't looked much into the theory of force there.

Though, I suppose if the enemy is absolutely committed to their cause of unjust destruction at every opportunity, then taking up arms against them would not be provocative, if anything it will deter them from targeting innocents and will certainly deter those who don't like killing victims who shoot back.

 

[General BrEeZy]

hm.

-Direct threat to my life.
-Drafted into Army.
-Direct threat to someone else with no alternative way to stop them.

i think thats it for me...

 

[Treblaine]

The term *practical pacifism* comes to mind in relation to most things. Defending Ones country from a foreign attack? ... still needs more contemplation, while we have lived through several foreign reigns, I would rather not see another, especially considering the last one and that there are still people there who twitch about loosing their occupied territories.

Foreign attack is a contentious one, just look to the First World War where millions died in the trenches over what? Neither were seeking territorial conquest or to deny conquest: both sides resorted to such a combative military stance BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE WAS! Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire invaded France out of fear of a French invasion because French forces were so great to prevent and invasion by German forces. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian terrorist who represented no actual national government was just the trigger, any spark could have started the fire.

It's a fine line to draw between having an armed force that prevents invasion and one that provokes invasion by implicit threat of invasion. Then there is the reality that the one who strikes first will have the advantage of surprise and concentration of numbers.

I wonder how Switzerland managed to do it. I has managed to avoid war for almost 500 years on one of the most violent continents in world History: Europe.

Maybe the key is trade. Be more valuable as a trading partner than as a territory to dominate. Invasion and conquest is a zero-sum game, but trade can create more wealth for both sides.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

Staying off the offensive radar via good trading, a possibility, time will tell. Luckily so far there are no indications of imminent hostility.

For the most part throughout history we were little little importance other than landgrab, more or less basis of the crusades, moving on to being a strategic point in the power struggle between east and west Europe - window to Europe for the east and a good spot to draw the line against the east.


As to Switzerland, a good spot for storing various stuff for both sides perhaps and eventually gaining enough dirt on everybody to not be viable target.

 

[Wintermoot]

one of these

in reality only self-defense or defending a friend.

 

[Zersy]

Simple question really. What would drive you or draw you to taking a life?

For me, there are a number of things. I would kill for my country. I would kill if someone threatened me with the same. I would kill if someone threatened the people I love. I would never kill solely for personal gain.

How about you?

Justice or Revenge. they're usually the same thing to me anyway.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

Selfish Alert!

Self defense
Large sums of money
Immortality

Just about anything that'd benefit me in some greater way.

 

[JordanXlord]

Simple Answer to this Question...

I would Kill to get into the Planetside 2 Beta

I would also kill to get my Dream girl

and Finally

I would kill to be able to end any Fad or part of Pop culture i want

 

[Circleseer]

You don't know what the person you killed might have done had they lived. Maybe they would have cured a horrible illness, or maybe give birth to the person that would, saving millions from suffering?

What we see as unsocial, psychopathic or evil are chemical balances and wiring in the brain, and we will soon have the tools to re-write them. Certainly most people would like to be cured of their socially unacceptable urges, if it left the rest of their personality intact?

If Ray Kurzweil and other futurists are to be believed, we will increase human intelligence manyfold within a few decades, and increase lifespans to thousands of years. You definitely can't know how someone would have turned out were they hundreds of times more intelligent and longer lived.

If you think of it that way, a single murder is more like the loss of a thousand minds and a thousand years.

Killing people is killing potential, and it is very hard, if not impossible to justify. Any loss of (intelligent) life is tragic, so possibly the only thing worth killing for is saving other life, and even then it'd be a hefty price to pay.

 

[Sandernista]

What would I kill for?

Nothing. I would never kill for anything, killing is by far the most evil thing you can do.