Would you do this?

Pluto has never completely went around the sun. Yet, we know that it eventually will. How? because we can predict the future based on information. Would you ever kill a baby for the mere fun of it? No. How do you know you wouldn't do that? Because you have never shown that kind of behavior in the past.

I have never shown the behavior to let others suffer get slaughtered just so I can survive. How do I know? because of my current point of view. It's just not in my character. In this situation I would, without a reasonable doubt, leave that house and die. If you wouldn't, that's fine by me just don't claim to be not evil.

Wow. You are SUPER opinionated.

I want to know your definition of evil.....I TRULY want to know

Irrelevant argument. He thinks it's good to tear babies away from less fortunate families and throw them into foster homes. He has a twisted sense of "morals". I would bother arguing with him.

Yeah,this is a huge waste of my time. Clearly our next political leader has this great plan all worked out.

@twix_right_side: @awesam: I'm trying.... SO HARD.... to not take the bait.

By no small coincidence, he also stated that his mother took up the opposing opinion to his. Also not surprising, he has stated that his mother hates him in other threads. Oedipus complex is what I'm thinking.

Based on the fact that while everyone is insulting me and attacking the idea. No one is presenting any logical argument against it.

We would have plenty of money to give to these foster homes and allow the kids to grow up ok. The government does help finance already. Has that helped? No the kids still grow up in poverty. The parents simply cannot provide for them. The families are being fined because they decided to have unprotected sex, and risk bringing another member into their poverty stricken home. What I'm proposing could stop that.

The families do it because the government hasn't said anything to them about it. If they start fining then slowly but surely people will end this madness.

You think I am immoral because i want kids to actually grow up not being poor. Yet you are willing to let kids get knifed to death just so you can survive....ok. I am morally superior than you.

Your life is not more valuable then two innocent children's. It's not. i love my life. But these are children and I put them in that situation. So I should be the one to get them out. Even if it means my life.

I would take the biggest kitchen knife and make a run for it.

No it's not. Your actions got them in the situation in the first place. In the gang scenario, you did nothing to begin with. Here you know that you brought this upon them. You should pay by being fair and just leaving.

No it's evil for the hobo to enter their house, hear that if he doesn't leave, everyone will die, and then stay in the house. In the gang situation, you did nothing. You would actually have to go looking for trouble. Also I'm not risking anyone's life because I didn't put them in danger in the first place.

Stop saying that. I never said it's wrong to save your own life. I said it's wrong to risk the lives of others just for your own.

Now you want to change the definition of morals completely. We know what right and wrong. for the most part, they don't vary from person to person within a given society. Evil is profoundly immoral. Letting others die just for your self is profoundly immoral. You can try to build straw men all you want but it simply wont work.

pwned...again

Actually,morals differ within society and from person to person. What I consider immoral (clearly) differ from what you consider immoral. You act as if everyone has the same experiences/influences and are raised in the same environments to have the same morals.

@joygirl: lol stahp :P

This.

It essentially is self-preservation.

Step 1: Grab a knife

Step 2: Throw said knife at one of purgers

Step 3: Throw more knives or larger object

step 4: Make a break for it in the confusion

Le rock.

The money came from all that we saved by ending these benefit programs. All the taxes that went to helping these poor families will go to the government. All these extravagant government parties will be halted and that money will go to these agencies. Maybe even a temporary increase in taxes toward the rich. Some this money going toward militarism will stop too. We have enough weapons and soldiers. Including those donations that go to the governments programs like that. add it up that's a lot of money.

Bra, enough with these insults and this sarcasm. Let's chill for a second. I'm doing what's in the best interest of the children. They wont have to grow up in poverty. I'm only concerned about the children. The adults are not the priority at this point. The government has tried time and time to get these people out of poverty. We simply lack the resources.

And that is why people have kids. They have unprotected sex, knowingthat they cannot afford a kid. Knowingthat the kid will grow up in poverty. That is not fair to the child. Sometimes the parents can't even a afford an abortion. So, they have the kid. They then have to request food stamps and other benefits from the government. That is how it happens.

Once again. In this scenario. YOU put them in danger by entering their home. Leaving the home is all you have to do to spare them. due to your own needs you will risk EVERYONE'S lives. The things you are talking about, I didn't cause them. I was not involved at all.

If a child was harmed because of MY actions then I would do whatever it takes to stop it. Same thing with starving/killing.

• My actions would have done no such thing. The purgers are not under my control. In the gang scenario, your inaction is costing lives. Right now. Actual ones, not your hypothetical BS. You wouldn't leave and if you say otherwise, you are a liar.
• It's not evil to seek shelter from life-ending danger. It's not evil to try to save your own life from a band of murderers that have no reason to keep their promise.
• The homeless person is doing nothing, just like you are right now. Good job killing someone else. By my count you are personally responsible for another death in the time it took for you to pound out this poorly thought out post.
• You are risking lives because through your inaction, you are putting others in danger. This is your own flaccid logic turned around on you, nothing more.
• No, we don't. Right and wrong are subject to variation from person to person. Some cultures find it perfectly acceptable to stone a spoiled child for having a big mouth. Fortunately for you, you don't live in such countries. For an individual such as you or even me, such acts are reprehensible. But there is no objective right or wrong. There are shades of grey that are viewed by a lot of different eyes.
• If you think your moral code is the absolute correct one, you are objectively wrong and any philosopher and psychiatrist would think you are a fool and possibly unstable, which would surprise no one here I think.
• I don't think you know what a strawman is. I haven't made one. I have only disassembled your argument, using your own logic against you.
• It must be nice to think you are right when everyone has told you that you are wrong. You don't have to answer this but... do you have pictures of your mother in an unmarked folder, hidden on your computer?

Pwn denied, yet again.

Then how can you insult me like you've been doing. If you know that my morals were influenced by something else how can you criticize them?

The answer is because morals present some type of logic. Once logic is flawed then they can be attacked. Our society values life and the quality of life. That's why letting children die right in front of you, due to your own actions, is considered immoral. You value your one single life over theirs, then according to our society, you are immoral.

Well logically speaking, if they can break in, then there would be no point in me staying in the house in the first place and if they can't then the family is not in danger. The answer would depend on whether I thought they could break in.

Heh, heh. That's really funny.

@erik said:

By no small coincidence, he also stated that his mother took up the opposing opinion to his. Also not surprising, he has stated that his mother hates him in other threads. Oedipus complex is what I'm thinking.

I don't blame her.

Try harder.

I still would leave the house so that family could be safe. I don't really care how people will justify it, but I find that passing up the opportunity to save multiple lives for one self to be frankly, selfish.

It's selfish, yes. But it's not necessarily evil.

You wouldn't consider selfishness that directly lead to the loss of lives to be evil?

@wolverine08: It is selfish but its human nature to survive. I don't have time to type more right now but ill be back. @awesam: Lol alright.

Depends.

I would risk my life to protect those I love. But, frankly, I probably wouldn't do so for a stranger. I would try to survive, by nearly any means necessary.

@awesam said:

@erik said:

By no small coincidence, he also stated that his mother took up the opposing opinion to his. Also not surprising, he has stated that his mother hates him in other threads. Oedipus complex is what I'm thinking.

I don't blame her.

@deathstrokergeist said:

@twix_right_side: @awesam: I'm trying.... SO HARD.... to not take the bait.

Try harder.

LMFAO XD

People who would let the family die and rely on the instinct to survive have no power to overcome those instincts and are therefore weak. If you have the power to put aside your instincts and selfishness you are a strong person.

That's how I see it at least.

LOL OP finds "self preservation" evil but wants to snatch babies from teen mothers and jail poor parents.

Fair enough I suppose, but I just find it hard personally to think of passing up the chance to save a life, family or stranger, when I have the power to do so. I mean, I know talk is cheap, and I don't know how will actually act in a situation like that, and I don't look down on anyone whom would pick themselves, but I just personally think I'd be willing to do it. Morality is a murky and subjective subject, so you can't really judge someone based on that.

@wolverine08: Any one of us would like to say that we would die to protect innocents. I'd like to think that I would run into a burning building to save someone, but put into a situation, your instincts will take control. The OP thinks his sense of morality (or what he thinks is moral) will override his instinct to survive. Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you're in danger and found that you're not willing to take a risk you once thought you could? As good as your intentions are, you simply, probably won't be able to fight your own nature. The reason I say I wouldn't sacrifice my own life for the family is not because I'm selfish. I'd like to be that courageous, but I know, when put into that situation, I probably won't be able to fight my own nature. Not without a period to think, at least.

That's the difference between what you're saying,and what he is saying.

Also takes a strong person to overcome the guilt and emotional burden of abandoning the family.

@twix_right_side: Pardon me?

@awesam: Fair enough.

@twix_right_side: Do you think you ae overwhelming me? Do you think that your insults are intimidating? He he he. I'm on you.

The point of that was that morals are not absolute. So I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

The answer is because morals present some type of logic. Once logic is flawed then they can be attacked. Our society values life and the quality of life. That's why letting children die right in front of you, due to your own actions, is considered immoral. You value your one single life over theirs, then according to our society, you are immoral.

And according to society,women are nothing but "deceitful" and sex toys.

Ask that question to a random person on the street and the answer will be women are not sex toys.

According to society (currently,and in the past),minorities are nothing but trouble.

Same thing here. Most people don't have an issue with minorities.

According to society,atheists are "immoral" and don't see life as worth any value.

Same thing here....well. This is actually true. Agreed.

You shouldn't use society's standards as your own.

You confuse media with society as a whole.Yeah in movies women are not treated fairly but in reality guys that do that are lloked down upon by most people. Same thing with racists. We don't like those people in this society.

By the way,everyone has morals/opinions based off of their own experiences/beliefs....is that what you mean? That there is a reason for why someone believes XYZ?

Yes. a reason why they think it is logical. If someone can find the flawed logic then they are not acting within their own claimed morals.

And it's kind of odd that you say that about our society.....guess you don't know what happens at Mcdonalds and the modern-day factory farm.

I'm not following you lol

And you keep spewing the same sh!t,clearly showing that you haven't read a single thing that I've said. But hey "according to society,I am immoral".....and according to society,I'm more likely to become a criminal and rape white women just because I'm darker.....

You mean according to statistics which just count and predict based on the past....Once again you confuse something small with society as a whole.

Again,looking to society for your beliefs isn't the wisest thing to do. And by the way,self preservation is not "immoral". It shows concern for oneself.

It depends on if they are logical and line up with the societies goal. Here in America our goals are to allow as many people as possible to be happy and live.

Wow. You really....wow. So instead of helping them.....we stop helping them....and we fine them.....after we take their children.

Wow.

Their children will only be a burden to them financially. It's not that I don't wan to help them. If it were up to me everyone would be rich. But we only have the resources to save the children from poverty.

So you're "moral",but you're not going to help people just because you didn't cause their dilemma's?

Super moral.

Wait a second. My actions wont help at all in some situations. So I am acting reasonably. I'm being moral because i know that no matter what I do people will suffer. It's only bad when you know you can stop it but choose not to anyway. You know you can actually help. Not just a tiny bit but a lot. That's the reason why I'm right.

• And with that control, I choose to save a life; mine. If I, being a malnourished man that has a smell that would give away my position, and I could effectively hide and/or flee, then so too could the family. It doesn't matter what actions were taken beforehand if your argument that a lack of action is the same as evil action. If we employ your critically flawed logic, then you are evil for your current inaction. In fact, you are doubly evil for wasting your life arguing on the internet instead of saving lives.
• LOL actually, you are saying it is evil to try and save your own life. Try to get your own argument straight, please? I mean, you look silly either way but it's just another drop in the silly bucket when you flip/flop on your own moral code.
• Except the homeless man doesn't know that. For all he knows, laying down his life will result in just another body. These are, after all, a band of guys that think killing a family is fun.
• You are putting lives in danger. Right now. Because you could be saving them by taking down a whole gang of killers. It's all fun to argue about online, safely behind your computer screen preaching of BS objective moral code, but it's another thing entirely when you are faced with the real thing. I personally think you would buckle and cower. I mean really, you are the guy that stated he feared for his life because some girl said she wanted to kick your butt. And even entertained ideas of beating her head in with a metal pipe. Where is the high moral standards in murdering a girl?

"They depend on the goal of that society. We think stoning is wrong because 10 we probably think the child is innocent 2) we value life. Morals only differ depending on goals of society."

• What? Are those even sentences? Morals depend on the goals? I am afraid to ask what you even meant by that but if you were trying to say that stoning a child is reprehensible only because we think the child is innocent, you are wrong yet again. I just told you why some of these cultures might do it. Someone like you would be seen as guilty in the eyes of some of these people and promptly stoned to death. What innocence are you talking about?
• Yeah, that's right. Your moral code works for you. You and you alone. I don't know what you mean by goals, but I'm almost certain it doesn't mean what you think it means.
• Wrong again. I posed different scenarios for you and applied your logic to them. That is not a strawman. It shows the flaws in your own line of thinking. The flaw of your 'moral code'. If you think that is a strawman, then you just don't know what a strawman is. No surprise there.
• That's your opinion and it's hardly shared by the majority here. Didn't you say that morals depend on the society present and not the individual? Well if that's the case, then your line of thinking is immoral.
• Yeah... the gangbanger scenario is not a strawman. A strawman is to attack an argument that you never made. I didn't. I instead applied your logic to a real life situation and chided you for not following your own logic.
• If you want superior logic, all you need to do is read every single post in this thread that is not yours.
• Yeah you pwnd me alright. If you are Wimp Lo that is.

I would do whatever it takes to survive, we each have to look out for ourselves. The only time I wouldn't is if my action would hurt/kill a child, or a pregnant mother.

You don't look down on others or condemn them for their actions

That's a different kind of strong. But far weaker than the strong I mean. Overcoming your survival instincts(Which you are born with and are really hard to suppress) and giving your life. That is overcoming what we are programmed to do. We are programmed to do everything to survive, and to break that chain, that takes REAL power. Giving into your instincts and going back to square one like the programmed selfish monkey that we are and living with the "small" guilt afterwards, is not nearly is strong.

As you see, most people in this thread agree, "my survival is the most important." Just as the primates that we are. And in my eyes, that's a sign of weakness.

@twix_right_side: Ah, I gotcha.

What about a dude? :p

@erik:

• And with that control, I choose to save a life; mine. If I, being a malnourished man that has a smell that would give away my position, and I could effectively hide and/or flee, then so too could the family. It doesn't matter what actions were taken beforehand if your argument that a lack of action is the same as evil action. If we employ your critically flawed logic, then you are evil for your current inaction. In fact, you are doubly evil for wasting your life arguing on the internet instead of saving lives.

So you admit that you know that your actions inadvertently put them in danger. You didn't know it but at the time, you were essentially risking the lives of that family

• LOL actually, you are saying it is evil to try and save your own life. Try to get your own argument straight, please? I mean, you look silly either way but it's just another drop in the silly bucket when you flip/flop on your own moral code.

I'm definitely not flip/flopping. Enough with this strawman! Saving your life is fine. Risking others for yourself is bad.

• Except the homeless man doesn't know that. For all he knows, laying down his life will result in just another body. These are, after all, a band of guys that think killing a family is fun.

No. the homeless man knows that the purgers spare the rich all the time. They even said they would. There is a good chance the purgers would have let the family go. But even so, lemme ask you this: Say you knew without a doubt that the family would be spared, then would you give up your life for them?

• You are putting lives in danger. Right now. Because you could be saving them by taking down a whole gang of killers. It's all fun to argue about online, safely behind your computer screen preaching of BS objective moral code, but it's another thing entirely when you are faced with the real thing. I personally think you would buckle and cower. I mean really, you are the guy that stated he feared for his life because some girl said she wanted to kick your butt. And even entertained ideas of beating her head in with a metal pipe. Where is the high moral standards in murdering a girl?

No I'm not. Staying at home on my computer is not putting anyone in danger. Staying in a house after some madmen threatened to kill you and the family in it, if you don't leave IS. Because you know that entering the house put the family in danger.

Your trolling about the girl, right? I'm laughing so hard right now. You made me lol. Tell me you are trolling.

"They depend on the goal of that society. We think stoning is wrong because 10 we probably think the child is innocent 2) we value life. Morals only differ depending on goals of society."

• What? Are those even sentences? Morals depend on the goals? I am afraid to ask what you even meant by that but if you were trying to say that stoning a child is reprehensible only because we think the child is innocent, you are wrong yet again. I just told you why some of these cultures might do it. Someone like you would be seen as guilty in the eyes of some of these people and promptly stoned to death. What innocence are you talking about?

Ah yes. Try to keep up, bra. Morals do depend on the goals of a particular society. Think about why killing that child is wrong. Most likely the reason killing the child is wrong is simply because "killing a child is wrong." Our society has already outlined that we value youth and we value life. As a society our goal is to keep as many people alive and happy as healthy as possible. Their society goals are quite different. They value religion, most likely. Their God probably said it was ok to stone the disobedient boy. They value their after lives more than their lives. Their goal as a society is for as many people as possible to enjoy their afterlife.

• Yeah, that's right. Your moral code works for you. You and you alone. I don't know what you mean by goals, but I'm almost certain it doesn't mean what you think it means.

This may be true. Only if our goals are different. If we both have a goal to live happily within the same exact area, our actions will be very similar. If we both had a goal to get as many people to our afterlife as possible, our tactics would be quite similar.

• Wrong again. I posed different scenarios for you and applied your logic to them. That is not a strawman. It shows the flaws in your own line of thinking. The flaw of your 'moral code'. If you think that is a strawman, then you just don't know what a strawman is. No surprise there.

No you didn't. In the gang scenario I didn't bring any harm to the peoples' way. I didn't cause the gang members to come. In the purge scenario YOU brought those madmen there. different logic.

• That's your opinion and it's hardly shared by the majority here. Didn't you say that morals depend on the society present and not the individual? Well if that's the case, then your line of thinking is immoral.

I don't care about the maority or anyone for that matter. I'm stating my opinion and using logic to defend it.

• Yeah... the gangbanger scenario is not a strawman. A strawman is to attack an argument that you never made. I didn't. I instead applied your logic to a real life situation and chided you for not following your own logic.

No you didn't. Your scenario was missing key components that the purge scenario had. In you story I didn't cause anyone trouble. I didn't bring the gang members to their neighborhood. In the purge story, the hobo's presence is what brought along the madmen.

• If you want superior logic, all you need to do is read every single post in this thread that is not yours.

Some agree with me. But i don't want to drag anyone in this.

• Yeah you pwnd me alright. If you are Wimp Lo that is.

Don;t know who that is but you are owned yet again. Man this has got to be a record.

@scorpion2501: Most people aren't saying "my survival is more important". Most people are just admitting that they won't be able to fight their own instincts. And I don't believe a person is weak for giving in to their own instincts.

@awesam: Well, I do. Guess this is where the debate ends :/

• I am astounded that you got that admission from literally nothing. That sentence had nothing to do with admitting to anything. It did say however, that prior actions are irrelevant should your logic actually be sound. Someone is in danger. Your life should be forfeit should there be more than one life in danger. It kind of seems like you are struggling to employ Utilitarianism as having the morally objective high ground. If that is the case, then it must be applicable to other situations. If you expect someone to lay down their life for the greater good of several people, then you must also do the same in real life, where your sacrifice would equate to the great good of several others. Like I said before, you're all talk. You're sitting on a high horse when everyone knows you belong in the mud.
• I'm not risking anyone's life by trying to save myself. There is no guarantee that my death will save their life. Once again, these are brazen murderers. Why should their word be trusted? That's just absurdly stupid.
• Right. The word of a band of killers is so very trustworthy. Get serious.
• Yup. You are putting several people, countless people in danger if we use your silliness. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for acting like a scumbag. You can make reparations though. Go pick a fight with some gangbangers, in order to save the life of some innocent girl that is probably going to eventually be shot by accident. That should solve this problem to everyone's satisfaction. You get to maintain your lofty moral code and for a spell, the Vine will get to enjoy itself without your company. That is until you are released from the hospital...
• The only one trolling this thread is you. Trolling your own thread, what a shame.
• If I'm struggling to keep up, it's because I am having trouble decoding the erratic, no-sense drivel posted by a child. I can assure you, it's not for a lack of intellect and many people on this site can verify that fact. Even people that don't like me don't often say I'm stupid because they know it's the quickest way to lose credibility in an argument. But you seem determined to show everyone that intelligence is not shared equally among Viners, so be my guest.
• Killing a child is wrong because killing a child is wrong? LOL my my what an excellent display of that logic you said you have so much of.
• Allowing evil to take place is just the same as doing it yourself, according to you. So yes, you are putting people to harm.
• In the Purge scenario, the men chased me there. I didn't bring them anywhere.
• Interesting that you would say you don't care about the 'majority or anyone for that matter' when you also state that your moral opinion is based directly on the morals outlined by the majority. You are just all over the place.
• The homeless person didn't cause trouble in your scenario either. He was trying to flee trouble. Trouble just chased after him.
• People agreeing with you on what is morally correct is irrelevant. I said if you want superior logic, you need only read every post here but yours. I could expand on that but if you missed what was painfully obvious, it would take two of three posts for you to get it, if I tried to explain it.
• You don't know who that is and lack the ability to look it up? Sounds to me that your ignorance has defeated you.