Views on Killing?

[IglooDame]

Situational. Killing humans to prevent murder/rape, killing animals for food/clothing, killing rodents because of home invasion, killing human-predatory or disease-vector insects are all morally acceptable to me. Roaches are in the fourth category.

 

[Zuffox]

Self-defense is the only excuse I can come up with.

Sitting in front of your TV with a shotgun shooting at person trespassing in your yard or popping up in front of you is NOT the way to go, however. Such paranoid behaviour is unacceptable, particularly since the risk of hurting innocents is way too big.

Should a person enter my house with no inhibition in regards of using violence as means to an end, I am not going to try to aim at his arm or leg to avoid getting into jail for involuntary manslaughter - or whatever you call it in English/American - I'll hit him whereever I have a damn clear shot!

I'm not saying that I'm gonna stab the bloke 40 times in the chest; I'm just not willing to take the chance of immobilizing him in a way that might leave him the chance to get a second chance of hurting, or killing, me or any other in the vicinity. I'll manage if he escapes; scaring him off is the best outcome - other than him getting arrested, of course - in my opinion. Whether it is due to fright I've caused him or pain - naturally, I prefer the first method, but if that doesn't work, saying "Pwease go away mistah" won't make any difference.

I am against the death penaly, by the way, should that discussion come up.

 

[Sidhe]

Here's a tip most burglars if confronted will chose to run rather than risk possible identification or having to actually kill or incapacitiate someone, however if you do have a weapon and you need to use it you are far more likely to be killed by your own weapon, I am speaking in England where burglars go in unarmed generally. Best thing to do is wave something around menacingly and hope the burglar does the sensible thing and leaves.

The same sort of thing goes for carrying a knife on the streets -apparently all to common these days, most knife victims are killed if they chose to fight back rather than if they don't carry a knife at all and fight back. Theres something vaguely comforting about the "rules" about stabbing someone who is unarmed although I have seen first hand that these rules don't always apply.

 

[IglooDame]

Here's a tip most burglars if confronted will chose to run rather than risk possible identification or having to actually kill or incapacitiate someone, however if you do have a weapon and you need to use it you are far more likely to be killed by your own weapon, I am speaking in England where burglars go in unarmed generally. Best thing to do is wave something around menacingly and hope the burglar does the sensible thing and leaves.

Got any supporting evidence? Because in the US, the study claiming that you're more likely to be killed with your own weapon has been debunked.

The same sort of thing goes for carrying a knife on the streets -apparently all to common these days, most knife victims are killed if they chose to fight back rather than if they don't carry a knife at all and fight back. Theres something vaguely comforting about the "rules" about stabbing someone who is unarmed although I have seen first hand that these rules don't always apply.

Again, I'd prefer to see some supporting evidence that contradicts this. Though knives don't necessarily have the same "equalizing power" as pistols do (the twentysomething well-muscled but unarmed robber isn't nearly as likely to flee if a frail grandmother pulls out a knife instead of a gun) and require a bit more physical training to use them well in a fight.

 

[classical_hero]

It's amazing how a statement like that can crack me up

I do hope you know where he got that one from.

 

[Mise]

I do hope you know where he got that one from.

Yeah that's why it's so funny

 

[Sidhe]

Got any supporting evidence? Because in the US, the study claiming that you're more likely to be killed with your own weapon has been debunked.



Again, I'd prefer to see some supporting evidence that contradicts this. Though knives don't necessarily have the same "equalizing power" as pistols do (the twentysomething well-muscled but unarmed robber isn't nearly as likely to flee if a frail grandmother pulls out a knife instead of a gun) and require a bit more physical training to use them well in a fight.

Oh I actually got both statistics off the news, one a couple of years ago and the other recently when groups were going around trying to talk to people about the dangers to themselves of carrying knives on the streets, it's not quite the same but I figured there would be paralels, I don't have tangible proof it's in my head. Tell you what I'll check out some BBC material and see if anything pops up. Otherwise then I'm afraid the BBC is responsible for myth making and I am helpless fool for believing. Assume no news is the fact that this is false propaganda.

Sounds like everyones condemning it out of hand I think I'll just put it down to bunk spread by the media, if that's OK. Although why they'd lie is beyond me?

on a more literal note can anyone translate the original hebrew text about killing, it's eating me up not knowing who's lying here.

 

[IglooDame]

Oh I actually got both statistics off the news, one a couple of years ago and the other recently when groups were going around trying to talk to people about the dangers to themselves of carrying knives? I don't have tangible proof it's in my head. Tell you what I'll check out some BBC material and see if anything pops up. Otherwise then I'm afraid the BBC is responsible for myth making and I am helpless fool for believing. Assume no news is the fact that this is false propaganda.

Soinds like everyones condemning it out of hand I think I'll just put it down to bunk spread by the media, if that's OK. Although why they'd lie is beyond me?

Fair enough. I've been even more suspicious of news reports lately than usual, since a couple weeks ago ABC Evening News did a report on an NRA push regarding gun seizures in general emergencies (like New Orleans post-Katrina) and it turned out the reporter doing the story (Jake Tapper) was a former employee of Handgun Control Inc (NRA's polar opposite).

Why would they lie? I don't think they generally realize they're lying, they're just repeating what organizations (that they happen to agree with) tell them without checking their facts.


Edit: and here's a link that may help you look at the Ten Commandments (you'll need to scroll down a bit): http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

 

[Sidhe]

Agreed I think in this case they were trying to persuade people not to behave like "have a go heros" as this could leave them hospitilised so whether this is true or not the ends justify the means, pull out a gun and try and shoot a robber with a gun and you may well get shot, if you don't have one I guess you may still get shot but your at least not provoking the robber. Go hide in the attic until he leaves may be a wise move

Thanks for that, I'm well aware of the translation from Greek/Latin to English and that it is indeed "though shalt not kill", but the Hebrew translation seems even more specific saying that killing of any kind is absolutely forbidden. I think of course the old testament does have examples of killing in the name of, but this is more clear cut and less ambiguous.

I'm interested in knowing if this interpritation of the translation is legitimately followed or acknowledged by the Jews, if it is then that means that fundementalists are lying to suit there agendas or at least many are being misled, if not then the scholar is lying to suit his own agenda, either way I'm seeking confirmation on the Torah, not the Old testament which is a translation of a translation and thus subject to more innacuracy and interpritation. Getting it from the horses mouth if you will, like reading the direct translation of the new testament from Aramaic which is much more interesting incidently

 

[Kozmos]

I wont comment on this, though you can guess what a man without morals or ethics feels about killing...

 

[MobBoss]

Which is in direct defiance of the Old Testament, the literal translation of thou shalt not kill is: though shalt not kill not murder, at least as it's translated from Hebrew,

Nope, once more you are wrong. Ancient hebrew has several distinct words for killing and/or murder. The root word used in the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:13) is pronounced "ratsach" which means the act of homocide. However, another hebrew word used "to kill" is pronounced "harag" which is used to denote the killing of enemies in war for example.

In a language such as ancient Hebrew to simply denote that murder = killing is not enough. It is evident that the root word used in the 10 commandments was regarding man-killing, i.e. Homocide, but that the Hewbrews regarded this differently than say, killing in war.

Here is a good resource for looking up root words used in Hebrew and Greek: http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

I don't have tangible proof it's in my head.

 

[Ramius75]

What about the defense of others?

good question. Will depends on situation really and who is the one im defending. I only place values on the very few ppl i know well. will kill animals to save others of coz, but for human against human, then really depend.

 

[Sidhe]

Mob Boss no offence but I'm waiting for a Jewish source, I rather suspect your source is biased, being as it would come from Fundementalists who's best interest is to cover up stuff like this, anyway it seems that only your bible advocates what you are talking about, mine doesnt and neither do the catholics or the Jews as far as I can tell so far, that leaves you in a substantial christian minority.

Are you calling the most reputable translator of the 20th century a liar You see my dilema whether to believe the propaganda of a web site or the horses mouth, which I am likely to remain waiting for unless some Rabbi happens to get a penchant for CIV. Suffice to say theres a liberal amount of salt being taken from any web sites unless they are reputable, I don't take translation by non Hebrew's as reputable or the interpritation there in and it seems neither do any religion but yours, I'm sorry but I've never been a big follower of minority opinion that's just common sense. You'll note I also dismissed the points of view of non fundementalist US web sites as they seemed just as biased on the other side.

Oh and those are the words from the text, I don't know where you got the other words from? As far as my information goes the two words are lo tirtzak: those in the Torah?

 

[MobBoss]

Mob Boss no offence but I'm waiting for a Jewish source, I rather suspect your source is biased, being as it would come from Fundementalists who's best interest is to cover up stuff like this, anyway it seems that only your bible advocates what you are talking about, mine doesnt and neither do the catholics or the Jews, that leaves you in a substantial christian minority.

!!!! My source is biased? OH MY GOD. Please go to the website yourself and see, OR please use an online concordance. You know, use google and type "online concordance". There is not a single thing that shows any of the concordances I link to as biased and in fact, Strongs Concordance is considered a standard for such theological study. You nitwit.
Moderator Action: You were warned in another thread on your posts with Sidhe. Consider this a warning that puts you that much closer to another ban. - The Yankee
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Are you calling the most reputable translator of the 20th century a liar You see my dilema whether to believe the propaganda of a web site or the horses mouth, which I am likely to remain waiting for unless some Rabbi happens to get a penchant for CIV. Suffice to say theres a liberal amount of salt being taken from any web sites unless they are reputable, I don't take translation by non Hebrew's as reputable or the interpritation there in and it seems neither do any religion but yours, I'm sorry but I've never been a big follower of minority opinion that's just common sense.

Head......meet wall. I challenge you to somehow PROVE that the link I gave you is biased in ANY WAY, SHAPE or FASHION. Meh. Abject denial of evidence - another sign of the truly desparate.

"I dont take translation by non-hebrews".......oh my gosh. How many jews today do you know that speak ancient hebrew?

 

[Sidhe]

It is why? Are they translating from Hebrew to english? No from Greek to English as far as I can tell? Nope I want a source that is a direct translation, kinldy refrain from calling me names too, your condecension is wearing thin. As is my patience with translations from greek/latin. Which come out as though shalt not kill in the majority of bibles on the face of the Earth. I didn't translate it? I'm just saying your assertion flies in the face of the evidence I have available and since the evidence I have available is from a Jew I'm gonna take it more seriously, sorry you can't understand the need for direct translation from the original texts your loss, not mine.

He does understand ancient Hebrew, that's what I'm talking about. I prefer the less biased aproach of the Jews to there own books than small minorities espousing killing in gods name to further a minority agenda and mistranslating texts, that's just common sense.

Look Mob Boss we all know how fiercly competitivie you are I'm not looking for evidence from you, your chalk board score keeping is lame and I'm not interested in what you have to say atm. If I am wrong which I can't be yet I havent picked sides, then I will hold my hands up tell you what whatever the result is I'll admit I'm wrong ok, happy? Sheez, what is it with you and your desire to prove yourself right at all costs, you do know it's a serious character flaw, so serious your even arguing against someone who hasn't made their mind up yet and hasn't picked a corner?

It seems I'm trying to learn something here and your just obfuscating it by trying to pick a fight with someone who's on the fence? Kindly do so elsewhere it's not helping me learn anything.

 

[MobBoss]

It is why? Are they translating from Hebrew to english? No from Greek to English as far as I can tell?

They do both actually. Or did you miss the little button that says "hebrew" right by the little button that says "greek"?

Oh boy.

Nope I want a source that is a direct translation, kinldy refrain from calling me names too, your condecension is wearing thin.

Oh gee, I am so sorry...I am just not used to people claiming that a non-biased online concordance is somehow a propaganda tool.

sorry you can't understand the need for direct translation from the original texts your loss, not mine.

Hmmm, yeah, I guess those Jews havent figured out how to put such translations on the net yet. Hopefully they will sometime in the future for our ease of research.

 

[Sidhe]

Mob Boss look at the other links and I have not decided my position are you on the same planet? It's obviously too much to ask that you remain calm about this and refrain from being condescending, this is a genuine attempt to find out the truth, your not helping, I'm not saying you are wrong or right get that straight please before you end up making an arse of yourself.

 

[Perfection]

Killing people is wrong, except for self-defence, or direct defense of others (but even then non-lethal ways are to be preferred if possible)

What do you mean by direct defense of others?

 

[Grisu]

well, bascially, directly stopping someone who's just about to kill another person. this doesn't include pro-active killing and similar stuff.

 

[Sidhe]

Well I'm more confused than ever pretty much, according to some web sites catholic and non-fundenmentalist protestant faiths are fairly consistent that only killing in self defense is tolerated, this appears to have remained unchanged since the foundation of both churches and that killing in war is not covered under this tennant, I'm a litle unsure of the Jewish position which appears to be mixed, some saying it is murder whilst others saying it is kill with again a distinction for war also an acknowledgement of killing as punishment as being beyond its remit.

It's clear to me that this is a matter of interpritation or in other words that this depends on who you speak to about the issue(which is of no real help whatsoever) I know fundementalists position I read it in spades and I also read the counter position of non fundementalists in America who are just as arrogant and opinionated on the issue, which really doesn't help, I don't think calling someone a fat head is conducive to making a case for kill not murder Which is why I wasn't too interested in Mob Boss's position, because I've already seen it or the counter position in his land because it was equally biased.

I would like to see what the Jewish position is as it is the least vocal position on the web and probably the most accurate. For now I'll say maybe it's murder but I'm not sure as there appears to be disagreement of various sources from them? Scriptural interpritation, who'd be a theoligist honestly! Anyone got any wisdom that will show me the light, cause wood trees and all that.