Its not legalized murder, its allowing the universe to flow exactly how it should.
The universe doesn't know **** because it is an inanimate object! The Mississippi river wants to change course and destroy most of south Louisiana but we put a stop to that and rightfully so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
join off topic IRC at #otter on esper.net, there is cake*
*there may or may not be cake
The universe doesn't know **** because it is an inanimate object! The Mississippi river wants to change course and destroy most of south Louisiana but we put a stop to that and rightfully so.
Murder is only bad because you let your morals cloud your judgement. If you abolish your morals and think how animals think (which we are in case you didnt know we are not any better than other animals) then it is not murder its survival of the fittest.
My morals? HAHAHA if I could get away with it I would walk over to my neighbors and kill them in their sleep right now.
If I hated you for no reason, that doesn't give me the right to put a bullet through your heart.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cave Johnson »
All right i've been thinking.. when life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade, MAKE LIFE TAKE THE LEMONS BACK. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?
If you wanted you could kill serial murderers or suspected terrorists. With anti-murder laws gone, you will be free to carry knives, guns, and other weapons with you at all times. Society would actually become safer once everyone willing to kill becomes sufficiently armed.
Except this doesn't stop them from killing everyone else first. Actually, these people are sure to have weapons way before the normal population does- and probably have worse weapons to use. Not so smart.
Taking justice into your own hands =/= no. I do not want an emotionally charged idiot killing someone else. I want someone detached, cool-headed and not involved in the situation to decide what will happen to who.
I actually agree with this statement and believe that it would indeed be safer. Think about it people would protect themselves and the ones who could not would die off which is exactly how our planet is supposed to be, not the strong protecting the weak.
Social darwinism much? Lmao. Altruism goes a long way.
Anyway, for example- let's take the stereotypical nerd... and...
Well, there goes the brains of the human population.
And guess who's the judge and law of the land? That guy who uses his muscles more than his brains. Yay. Feel totally safe d00dz.
Now, the science-y part. Let's say altruism helps keep a population up/growing. The more people there are, the more of a chance of there being an individual who will drastically help society be it with an invention, etc. Cut off that altruism, and the population falters, with the chances of something coming up that will benefit society. Now, take away the law, and you make the population drop lower still. This is bad for the population.
You do not have to be religious or atheistic to believe that everyone has the right to do whatever they want in their life, as long it does not interfere with anyone else's life- aka, murder, violence, etc. No "soul" part in that.
That, and I highly doubt (and I highly distrust) human's will be able to distinguish a "good" murder from a bad one. Taking justice into your hands is stupid, because you are most likely emotionally charged (revenge kills, etc.), and that clouds judgement. Makes it even scarier since this "would" happen in the US of A, where everyone has an above average IQ and the bestest morality in the world.
I actually thought this was going to be a good devil's advocate thread, but I am disappoint.
Once you accept the scientific conclusion that nothing has value you will realize that "good" and "bad" are labels which are used by unscientific people to apply to things which displease them. Any action becomes okay because it has no real impact on the universe or even things on a planetary scale. From a scientific viewpoint, legislating against murder is equal to legislating against sweeping dust or kicking sand.
Because theres no rightful reason. And don't start up on the "law and moral" ******** again, do you know how many problems legal murder would cause?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cave Johnson »
All right i've been thinking.. when life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade, MAKE LIFE TAKE THE LEMONS BACK. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?
How many problems? Is it all negative or is all you can see is the negative?
It's all negative, some idiot would go kill everyone in the hierarchy above citizens. Then everything would be survival of the fittest, we're not animals. Even killing a supposedly "terrorist" or "threat" to society is wrong, you let the law take care of that.
All right i've been thinking.. when life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade, MAKE LIFE TAKE THE LEMONS BACK. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?
The universe doesn't know **** because it is an inanimate object! The Mississippi river wants to change course and destroy most of south Louisiana but we put a stop to that and rightfully so.
*there may or may not be cake
Yes it does.
How do we decided what is rightfully so?
My morals? HAHAHA if I could get away with it I would walk over to my neighbors and kill them in their sleep right now.
No, it doesn't.
If I hated you for no reason, that doesn't give me the right to put a bullet through your heart.
Fun forum about lamps
Except this doesn't stop them from killing everyone else first. Actually, these people are sure to have weapons way before the normal population does- and probably have worse weapons to use. Not so smart.
Taking justice into your own hands =/= no. I do not want an emotionally charged idiot killing someone else. I want someone detached, cool-headed and not involved in the situation to decide what will happen to who.
If you honestly think this would be safer... ._."
Social darwinism much? Lmao. Altruism goes a long way.
Anyway, for example- let's take the stereotypical nerd... and...
Well, there goes the brains of the human population.
And guess who's the judge and law of the land? That guy who uses his muscles more than his brains. Yay. Feel totally safe d00dz.
Now, the science-y part. Let's say altruism helps keep a population up/growing. The more people there are, the more of a chance of there being an individual who will drastically help society be it with an invention, etc. Cut off that altruism, and the population falters, with the chances of something coming up that will benefit society. Now, take away the law, and you make the population drop lower still. This is bad for the population.
Because it would destroy south Louisiana. You get that there are cities, people, and shipping lanes down there right?
*there may or may not be cake
So the only reason you do not is because the place that you live in has laws BASED ON MORALS
Once you accept the scientific conclusion that nothing has value you will realize that "good" and "bad" are labels which are used by unscientific people to apply to things which displease them. Any action becomes okay because it has no real impact on the universe or even things on a planetary scale. From a scientific viewpoint, legislating against murder is equal to legislating against sweeping dust or kicking sand.
And why not?
So?
Without this law nothing would get done and we would all be killed.
Because theres no rightful reason. And don't start up on the "law and moral" ******** again, do you know how many problems legal murder would cause?
Fun forum about lamps
If you don't get why that is bad then let me introduce you to something called the real world.
*there may or may not be cake
Things would get done because people would realize that they need to do other things than kill in order to survive.
How many problems? Is it all negative or is all you can see is the negative?
Its not that i didnt get it i was saying so why does that matter :biggrin.gif:
There is no positive! We need laws like this because many people are stupid and would make stupid decisions without them.
*there may or may not be cake
It's all negative, some idiot would go kill everyone in the hierarchy above citizens. Then everything would be survival of the fittest, we're not animals. Even killing a supposedly "terrorist" or "threat" to society is wrong, you let the law take care of that.
Fun forum about lamps
People would just take what they wanted.