Scared of ANTIFA? Just wait until NFAC walks down your streets

[Bernard]

The same applies to Hitler, members of the SS, pedophiles, serial killers, etc.. Killing someone especially using the gov's hand to do so is never right. If you saw the fat dude from Subway in real life and let him die because he watches kiddy porn, you are in the wrong. Killing people because you don't like what they did is stupid and leads to more conflict than it solves. If you really feel so much hatred in your heart that you're willing to kill someone, then how about rationalize that hatred and torture them through imprisonment instead. Because the moment you take their life when you didn't have to meaning to save yourself or someone else in immediate danger, you are in the wrong.

Let's say hypothetically speaking I saw Hitler being lowered into a meat grinder and I thought, society would be better off without Hitler being alive and thus do nothing to prevent his death. By what you've said, this would be wrong because the person does not pose an immediate threat. So Ill counter with what if I believe this person is likely to be a FUTURE threat? And I know you might say, we don't know 100% they're going to be a FUTURE threat and thus can't act upon that to which I say what if someone is like hey if you don't kill me, I will send someone to kill your family in 1 year guaranteed? Not an IMMEDIATE threat, but the threat is there and its guaranteed?

Furthermore, please elaborate on why you think we shouldn't kill anyone for any reason unless its an IMMEDIATE threat other than "its wrong" and why you think it leads to more conflict than it solves. Not sure what conflict you're thinking of.

[JacoZeeks1]

I mean aslong as it is legal to carry the guns I do not care.

[Dab]

Let's say hypothetically speaking I saw Hitler being lowered into a meat grinder and I thought, society would be better off without Hitler being alive and thus do nothing to prevent his death. By what you've said, this would be wrong because the person does not pose an immediate threat. So Ill counter with what if I believe this person is likely to be a FUTURE threat? And I know you might say, we don't know 100% they're going to be a FUTURE threat and thus can't act upon that to which I say what if someone is like hey if you don't kill me, I will send someone to kill your family in 1 year guaranteed? Not an IMMEDIATE threat, but the threat is there and its guaranteed?

Furthermore, please elaborate on why you think we shouldn't kill anyone for any reason unless its an IMMEDIATE threat other than "its wrong" and why you think it leads to more conflict than it solves. Not sure what conflict you're thinking of.

Threatening someones life or inciting violence against someone also does not justify killing that person. For things like this we have a legal system that ideally will investigate as well as protect you under these circumstances. Usually this happens under hate crimes where you have someone fearful for their life because someone else or a group of people are inciting violence, harassing that person, etc.. Do you think some gay muslim should be going around murdering everyone who threatens to kick his ass for being gay and or muslim?

Also just because you believe someone is going to commit a crime in the future or have an advance algorithm in the future that can predict this person is more likely to commit a violent crime, does not mean you should be arresting let alone killing that person. In this situation you're arresting innocent people. Making a threat is different, when someone makes a threat its a matter of how credible and serious the threat is. Imagine if we went around arresting every White, Christian, male because they're the responsible for majority of domestic terrorism... Imagine if we arrested children who were trouble makers in school because they're more likely to become criminals when they're adults. Does your prevention of future crimes extend past threats and hate crimes?

[Bernard]

Threatening someones life or inciting violence against someone also does not justify killing that person. For things like this we have a legal system that ideally will investigate as well as protect you under these circumstances. Usually this happens under hate crimes where you have someone fearful for their life because someone else or a group of people are inciting violence, harassing that person, etc.. Do you think some gay muslim should be going around murdering everyone who threatens to kick his ass for being gay and or muslim?

Also just because you believe someone is going to commit a crime in the future or have an advance algorithm in the future that can predict this person is more likely to commit a violent crime, does not mean you should be arresting let alone killing that person. In this situation you're arresting innocent people. Making a threat is different, when someone makes a threat its a matter of how credible and serious the threat is. Imagine if we went around arresting every White, Christian, male because they're the responsible for majority of domestic terrorism... Imagine if we arrested children who were trouble makers in school because they're more likely to become criminals when they're adults. Does your prevention of future crimes extend past threats and hate crimes?

I feel like your post was basically my point of "we don't know 100% they're going to be a FUTURE threat and thus can't act upon that" and I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm just throwing out random extreme hypotheticals to see if there's ever a case where you'd be like oh even though this person isn't an IMMEDIATE threat, you can still be justified in killing them. Like the one year example I gave, in real life, it can't be 100%, but lets say in some crazy voodoo world someone can actually guarantee your death in 1 year unless they themselves die, unless you see this as fitting your definition of an immediate threat. I mean I'm cool with abolishing the death penalty and just changing it to life sentence with no parole/release possible. I'm no death penalty die hard.

Semi-related: Thoughts on droning terrorists? No not suspected terrorists, but like Bin Laden or the leader of ISIS whose name I can't remember anymore. What if the capture of said individuals could likely lead to the deaths of operatives tasked to capture said individuals and thus imprisonment may be harder to do that just outright drone striking?

[Dab]

I feel like your post was basically my point of "we don't know 100% they're going to be a FUTURE threat and thus can't act upon that" and I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm just throwing out random extreme hypotheticals to see if there's ever a case where you'd be like oh even though this person isn't an IMMEDIATE threat, you can still be justified in killing them. Like the one year example I gave, in real life, it can't be 100%, but lets say in some crazy voodoo world someone can actually guarantee your death in 1 year unless they themselves die, unless you see this as fitting your definition of an immediate threat. I mean I'm cool with abolishing the death penalty and just changing it to life sentence with no parole/release possible. I'm no death penalty die hard.

I can give you a hypothetical for that situation that could occur in our world. Say global warming causes most places to be inhabitable for humans, and we're low on resources. Scientist calculate we have 1 year left of survival with our current population. Now within 1 year, all of humanity is going to die due to lack of resources. While this is happening you also have a bunch of people trying to immigrant to places they can survive in, and that have resources.

In this situation, if we do not lower the number of people alive to consume resources, we're all going to die within a year. If we try to save the billions of people going to die due to lack of resources, we'll speed up the time frame that we're going to run out under. Now, do we commit genocide and try to save a handful of people and increase our time frame of survival so we can possibly come up with a solution to save humanity, or do we try to save everyone and end up running out of resources faster?

[Bernard]

I can give you a hypothetical for that situation that could occur in our world. Say global warming causes most places to be inhabitable for humans, and we're low on resources. Scientist calculate we have 1 year left of survival with our current population. Now within 1 year, all of humanity is going to die due to lack of resources. While this is happening you also have a bunch of people trying to immigrant to places they can survive in, and that have resources.

In this situation, if we do not lower the number of people alive to consume resources, we're all going to die within a year. If we try to save the billions of people going to die due to lack of resources, we'll speed up the time frame that we're going to run out under. Now, do we commit genocide and try to save a handful of people and increase our time frame of survival so we can possibly come up with a solution to save humanity, or do we try to save everyone and end up running out of resources faster?

Damn that's a hard hypothetical. I think my abhorrence to the thought of systematic genocide weighs heavier than my need for humanity as a whole to continue. So I'd say, if it came down to genocide or the death of humanity. Guess we're going with the death of humanity. Also assume that in the real world, countries would go to war for said resources, so irl you'd end up with mass casualties if not from genocide then from war.

[[MPGH]Hova]

i facepalm when i see celebrities try to tell people "we should really consider leaving the usa if trump wins the election." 0_o

[[MPGH]Psychotic]

i facepalm when i see celebrities try to tell people "we should really consider leaving the usa if trump wins the election." 0_o

They didn't leave in 2016!

[bladeds]

Blacks doing only what they know how to do, thank god we dont have large percentages of them across the UK so they can't mess up our country. Their the damn common dominator in every American and European city with a large percentage, but some how their the victims. They demand justice, but for some kid killed by a stray bullet by scumbags in a area with a no talk to the police attitude so no justice nothing, a large percentage of blacks are restarted just like a large percentage of whites who support trump. They have a whole continent, and cant run one country properly and destroyed everyone they took over. Just partition a state and let all the BLM and blacks who want to have a independent state and rule as they wish. We would all see what happens.

[tthong901]

This looks good!

[Confluencyy]

Blacks doing only what they know how to do

thank god we dont have large percentages of them across the UK

found the guy incapable of realizing that he's aware of his limited exposure to blacks in the real world but still has very strong opinions on them lmao.

Re-evaluate ******.