Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by JohnTheNormalOne at 7:28 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Imagine this situation: You live in a poor suburb, and there is a very old woman, which will soon die anyway, and she is a pawnbroker. She is rich, unlike everyone else in the area. And she got rich by putting up insane interest rates, so high that most people couldn't repay, so she would sell their pawns. Anyway, she accumulated all that wealth, and she is hated in the neighborhood because of being a really bad person. a) If someone was to kill her and take her money, and distribute it to the poor in the area (which would result in many lives being improved a lot), would you consider him a good or bad person? Also take in account that she is very old and is about to die anyway. b) Would you do it yourself? PS: Some people might recognize this, but I'm not going to say where this is from, because I want to see if anyone will recognize it. -- Posted by hithere at 7:44 am on Sep. 24, 2008 She raised interest rates after somebody pawned something? -- Posted by Bearsy at 9:22 am on Sep. 24, 2008 a) It depends on their intentions in doing this. b) No I would report her ass to the district attorney. -- Posted by nikki at 9:54 am on Sep. 24, 2008 I don't recognise the question - but no, whoever killed her wouldn't be in the right, and I wouldn't kill her myself either. -- Posted by fenrir at 10:03 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 11:54 am on Sep. 24, 2008 I don't recognise the question - but no, whoever killed her wouldn't be in the right, and I wouldn't kill her myself either. Agreed.  Why have a Judiciary system of government if we all were allowed to arbitrarily decide both intention and necessity of murder solely for the purpose of distribution to the Common Wealth?  Also, being a Capitalistic society promoting greed at the expense of moral behavior honestly shouldn't be the sole reason as to merit a death sentence regardless of intentions. -- Posted by Bearsy at 10:14 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 10:03 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 11:54 am on Sep. 24, 2008 I don't recognise the question - but no, whoever killed her wouldn't be in the right, and I wouldn't kill her myself either. Agreed. Why have a Judiciary system of government if we all were allowed to arbitrarily decide both intention and necessity of murder solely for the purpose of distribution to the Common Wealth? Also, being a Capitalistic society promoting greed at the expense of moral behavior honestly shouldn't be the sole reason as to merit a death sentence regardless of intentions. What's legal isn't necessarily what's right, we're talking about what's right here. What I meant to say which is what I was saying in the beginning which is what the MOTHER FUCKING QUESTION ASKS is that the person who did this could still be considered a good person if they did it for the right reasons even though yes, it would also be illegal and it would be murder. Dear God I am too tired for this shit -- Posted by nikki at 10:17 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 6:14 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 10:03 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 11:54 am on Sep. 24, 2008 I don't recognise the question - but no, whoever killed her wouldn't be in the right, and I wouldn't kill her myself either. Agreed.  Why have a Judiciary system of government if we all were allowed to arbitrarily decide both intention and necessity of murder solely for the purpose of distribution to the Common Wealth?  Also, being a Capitalistic society promoting greed at the expense of moral behavior honestly shouldn't be the sole reason as to merit a death sentence regardless of intentions. What's legal isn't necessarily what's right, we're talking about what's right here. Murder isn't right, either. You can't argue that killing her off to get her money is moral. -- Posted by Bearsy at 10:19 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 10:17 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 6:14 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 10:03 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 11:54 am on Sep. 24, 2008 I don't recognise the question - but no, whoever killed her wouldn't be in the right, and I wouldn't kill her myself either. Agreed. Why have a Judiciary system of government if we all were allowed to arbitrarily decide both intention and necessity of murder solely for the purpose of distribution to the Common Wealth? Also, being a Capitalistic society promoting greed at the expense of moral behavior honestly shouldn't be the sole reason as to merit a death sentence regardless of intentions. What's legal isn't necessarily what's right, we're talking about what's right here. Murder isn't right, either. You can't argue that killing her off to get her money is moral. If the person was trying to do good, that's what counts.   -- Posted by nikki at 10:30 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Not really - it's the unfair killing of someone else. That woman may have raised interest rates or whatever to become wealthy, but that doesn't mean she deserves to die for it. -- Posted by Bearsy at 10:35 am on Sep. 24, 2008 She was already dying he was just stopping her from leaving all her monies to somebody else. -- Posted by nikki at 10:42 am on Sep. 24, 2008 It's still murder, though, even if she was about to die. Who's to say that the day after her death all the poor people don't suddenly die in a fire, or something? -- Posted by fenrir at 10:56 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Or even worse, is simply having money considered a crime against humanity if we still have a double digits percentage who routinely live below the poverty line?  Or if one choses not to give to a particular charity, should that be grounds for immediate execution, as well? Unfortunately, what your proposing is not justice, but vigilantism.  We live in a day where simply being rich should not be a justification for cold blooded murder. Beware a slippery slope whenever arbitrarily designating whomever is Evil. -- Posted by JohnTheNormalOne at 10:57 am on Sep. 24, 2008 To make the situation clear: This is the plot of F. Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment". I'm reading it at the moment so I thought of posting it here. It all happens in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) in Russia, in the middle of 19. century. And there is no legal system to distribute the wealth or tax her in any significant way. And she is intending to leave all the money to a Christian monastery, to ensure 'the welfare of her soul'. In the novel the main character kills her. The novel itself is about the psychological effects it has on him. -- Posted by Bearsy at 11:01 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 10:56 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Or even worse, is simply having money considered a crime against humanity if we still have a double digits percentage who routinely live below the poverty line?  Or if one choses not to give to a particular charity, should that be grounds for immediate execution, as well?   Unfortunately, what your proposing is not justice, but vigilantism.  We live in a day where simply being rich should not be a justification for cold blooded murder.   Beware a slippery slope whenever arbitrarily designating whomever is Evil. I never said I was proposing justice or that it wasn't murder or that she's evil, you two need to quit putting words in my mouth and read the actual question. And she wasn't just rich, she committed corporate crimes against all these poor people. It's THEIR MONEY that she stole it. Whoever did this could absolutely be considered good because it sounds like he was trying to save these people who were poor cos this money had been stolen by this rich hag who somehow escaped the law through tricks o' the trade -- Posted by noraa at 11:08 am on Sep. 24, 2008 The women may have had a lot of money, but the people who put their objects in the pawn shop were aware of the interest rates and agreed to paying them back. The fact that they couldn't was not her problem. She rightfully earned the money, and rightfully deserves to keep it. Moral, in this case, is insignificant. -- Posted by fenrir at 11:14 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:01 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 10:56 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Or even worse, is simply having money considered a crime against humanity if we still have a double digits percentage who routinely live below the poverty line?  Or if one choses not to give to a particular charity, should that be grounds for immediate execution, as well?   Unfortunately, what your proposing is not justice, but vigilantism.  We live in a day where simply being rich should not be a justification for cold blooded murder.   Beware a slippery slope whenever arbitrarily designating whomever is Evil. I never said I was proposing justice or that it wasn't murder, you two need to quit putting words in my mouth and read the actual question. And she wasn't just rich, she committed corporate crimes against all these poor people. It's THEIR MONEY that she stole it. Es tut mir leid, but both Nikki and I are tired of dealing with the same "cold, heartless hag ruthlessly control her block with an iron fist where the helpless beggars require a Robin Hood persona to liberate them from their unfair poverty in hopes to better distribute it throughout the Common Wealth" routine. 1. I repeat.  Simply being Capitalistic at the sake of moral behavior should not be a sole reason as to merit a death sentence. 2. Modern Society is not limited to the Sherwood Forest and Robin Hood can be argued as a deterrent against any further funding toward the elite minority governing a greater sense of poverty beyond your minor scenario. 3. What good is an example without further application?  We're not speaking against the mere act of taking one's life, but questioning both your purpose and intention that you're proposing.  I cannot speak for Nikki, but I have greater stock in her ability to articulate her arguments more so than you already have. Granted, I was being facetious earlier when I inquired if merely refusing to contribute funds toward a particular charity organization or refusal to offer aid to homeless should be grounds for death.  However, you still have not argued your point clearly enough as to prevent my scenario from occurring either, I'm afraid. -- Posted by Bearsy at 11:43 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from NoNoNora383 at 11:08 am on Sep. 24, 2008 The women may have had a lot of money, but the people who put their objects in the pawn shop were aware of the interest rates and agreed to paying them back. The fact that they couldn't was not her problem.   She rightfully earned the money, and rightfully deserves to keep it. Moral, in this case, is insignificant. No, they didn't agree to the interest rates she imposed, she raised the interest rates after they pawned their stuff so she could sell them. she's a thief. -- Posted by Bearsy at 11:44 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 11:14 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:01 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 10:56 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Or even worse, is simply having money considered a crime against humanity if we still have a double digits percentage who routinely live below the poverty line? Or if one choses not to give to a particular charity, should that be grounds for immediate execution, as well?   Unfortunately, what your proposing is not justice, but vigilantism. We live in a day where simply being rich should not be a justification for cold blooded murder.   Beware a slippery slope whenever arbitrarily designating whomever is Evil. I never said I was proposing justice or that it wasn't murder, you two need to quit putting words in my mouth and read the actual question.   And she wasn't just rich, she committed corporate crimes against all these poor people. It's THEIR MONEY that she stole it. Es tut mir leid, but both Nikki and I are tired of dealing with the same "cold, heartless hag ruthlessly control her block with an iron fist where the helpless beggars require a Robin Hood persona to liberate them from their unfair poverty in hopes to better distribute it throughout the Common Wealth" routine. 1. I repeat. Simply being Capitalistic at the sake of moral behavior should not be a sole reason as to merit a death sentence. 2. Modern Society is not limited to the Sherwood Forest and Robin Hood can be argued as a deterrent against any further funding toward the elite minority governing a greater sense of poverty beyond your minor scenario. 3. What good is an example without further application? We're not speaking against the mere act of taking one's life, but questioning both your purpose and intention that you're proposing. I cannot speak for Nikki, but I have greater stock in her ability to articulate her arguments more so than you already have. Granted, I was being facetious earlier when I inquired if merely refusing to contribute funds toward a particular charity organization or refusal to offer aid to homeless should be grounds for death. However, you still have not argued your point clearly enough as to prevent my scenario from occurring either, I'm afraid. what the hell is wrong with you I told you I wouldn't do it, but that I think if he did it because he thought he was doing good he could still be considered a good person instead of a bad one. that's the original question I was answering dear God. when you ass u me you make and ass out of u and me -- Posted by nikki at 12:38 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 7:43 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from NoNoNora383 at 11:08 am on Sep. 24, 2008 The women may have had a lot of money, but the people who put their objects in the pawn shop were aware of the interest rates and agreed to paying them back. The fact that they couldn't was not her problem. She rightfully earned the money, and rightfully deserves to keep it. Moral, in this case, is insignificant. No, they didn't agree to the interest rates she imposed, she raised the interest rates after they pawned their stuff so she could sell them. she's a thief. Raising interest rates =/= theft. It's unfair, yes, but it doesn't warrant her getting killed. -- Posted by Bearsy at 1:09 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Nikki at 12:38 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 7:43 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from NoNoNora383 at 11:08 am on Sep. 24, 2008 The women may have had a lot of money, but the people who put their objects in the pawn shop were aware of the interest rates and agreed to paying them back. The fact that they couldn't was not her problem.      She rightfully earned the money, and rightfully deserves to keep it. Moral, in this case, is insignificant. No, they didn't agree to the interest rates she imposed, she raised the interest rates after they pawned their stuff so she could sell them. she's a thief. Raising interest rates =/= theft. It's unfair, yes, but it doesn't warrant her getting killed. Yes it is theft, it was clearly implied that she charged them more than she agreed to pay. that's theft. -- Posted by nikki at 1:12 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Still doesn't warrant her getting killed. Theft is one thing, murder is quite another. -- Posted by Bearsy at 1:16 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Maybe those Russians were going to starve without their monies, did you think of that -- Posted by nikki at 1:30 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 9:16 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Maybe those Russians were going to starve without their monies, did you think of that After she raised the interest rates when one person pawned their stuff, surely the other people would be smart enough to either go to another pawnbroker, or to just keep their stuff? Seems to me that she took advantage of some unfortunately stupid people, which isn't a crime. Immoral, maybe, but it certainly doesn't warrant death. -- Posted by Bearsy at 1:42 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 No I think she had all their stuff when she raised the rates -- Posted by nikki at 1:45 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Even if that's the case, it doesn't warrant her being killed - regardless of whether she was going to die the next day or whatever. It's still murder. -- Posted by Bearsy at 1:57 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 I KNOW THAT it'S MURDER AND I'M NOT DENYING IT CAPIECH -- Posted by nikki at 1:58 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 9:57 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 I KNOW THAT it'S MURDER AND I'M NOT DENYING IT CAPIECH Woah, chill already. I know that. -- Posted by Bearsy at 2:01 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 think of the poor Russian children who were hungry because some mean old lady had stolen their food -- Posted by nikki at 2:05 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 10:01 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 think of the poor Russian children who were hungry because some mean old lady had stolen their food She did what she did so she wasn't one of the many poor families in the area, right? That meant she had to capitalise on the unsuspecting poor. It is unfair, but life isn't fair. -- Posted by fenrir at 2:19 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:44 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 11:14 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 1:01 pm on Sep. 24, 2008 Quote: from fenrir at 10:56 am on Sep. 24, 2008 Or even worse, is simply having money considered a crime against humanity if we still have a double digits percentage who routinely live below the poverty line?  Or if one choses not to give to a particular charity, should that be grounds for immediate execution, as well?     Unfortunately, what your proposing is not justice, but vigilantism.  We live in a day where simply being rich should not be a justification for cold blooded murder.     Beware a slippery slope whenever arbitrarily designating whomever is Evil. I never said I was proposing justice or that it wasn't murder, you two need to quit putting words in my mouth and read the actual question.   And she wasn't just rich, she committed corporate crimes against all these poor people. It's THEIR MONEY that she stole it. Es tut mir leid, but both Nikki and I are tired of dealing with the same "cold, heartless hag ruthlessly control her block with an iron fist where the helpless beggars require a Robin Hood persona to liberate them from their unfair poverty in hopes to better distribute it throughout the Common Wealth" routine.   1. I repeat.  Simply being Capitalistic at the sake of moral behavior should not be a sole reason as to merit a death sentence.   2. Modern Society is not limited to the Sherwood Forest and Robin Hood can be argued as a deterrent against any further funding toward the elite minority governing a greater sense of poverty beyond your minor scenario.   3. What good is an example without further application?  We're not speaking against the mere act of taking one's life, but questioning both your purpose and intention that you're proposing.  I cannot speak for Nikki, but I have greater stock in her ability to articulate her arguments more so than you already have.   Granted, I was being facetious earlier when I inquired if merely refusing to contribute funds toward a particular charity organization or refusal to offer aid to homeless should be grounds for death.  However, you still have not argued your point clearly enough as to prevent my scenario from occurring either, I'm afraid. what the hell is wrong with you I told you I wouldn't do it, but that I think if he did it because he thought he was doing good he could still be considered a good person instead of a bad one. that's the original question I was answering dear God. when you ass u me you make and ass out of u and me First, why don't you launch a more coherent argument?  Second, it isn't my fault if you're seemingly becoming lost in translation.  Third, your example is meaningless without further application or contributive merit apart from this purely isolated case where everyone in the background begins to cheer once the Wicked Witch from the East has a house topple on her.  Fourth, I am quite aware both of my context and reasons for doing so, but it appears that you're incapable of thinking outside your very limited worldview. And finally, you fail at providing any explanation for how and why we should empathize with the murder of a terminally ill woman responsible for fiscal strangulation of her respective community.  Once again, apart from vigilante justice, there is certainly nothing right where the primary focus for this justice to be financially based and appropriated. Not my fault you refuse to admit your argument is both naive and incomplete. Pages: 1 2 3  Next