misterskankmisterskank
What do you think about the eternal effort to solve human problems by killing people?
blueeyedtawni
i gotta admit ive enjoyed reading your blog for a bit now… learned a lot too... which in turn strengthens the mind.
sadly in the human nature of rage and evil at times of killing i have to offer one bit of visual aspect in that sense. i dont believe in killing another either for that matter
but in order for humans to survive and not overpopulate that is where famine, diseases, war and weather come into play but make sure the strong survive. not a concept i like. but look throughout history. it happens...
what do you think about your question? im interested to know since my answer may be way off anyway lol
misterskank
Somebody has got to stop killing. Killing human beings is not a solution over the long term no matter how attractive it appears in the short term. Killing people just reinforces the idea that killing people is a solution to human problems. It isn't. Yes, people kill in defense of self, in rage, in fear, in anger, in intoxication, in ignorance, and more. For this they can be forgiven.
saikotikgunman
I recall asking you once what you called someone who was willing to kill for something, not just to die for it.
You know I personally believe there are things worth killing for, though, as a general rule, I don't think "isms" are.
I am not a pacifist, and I practice marksmanship with the knowledge that it is, in the strictest sense, a martial (of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior) art, and that I may someday, under specific circumstances, feel compelled to use it as such. For that matter, the same knowledge comes with carrying a knife (though as with the rifle, its primary function is tool, not weapon).
So, yes, killing people is perfectly fine, so long as it's justifiable within my moral and ethical framework. The same can be said of everyone, of course. We all think killing is fine, when there's a reason. The pacifist just finds no situation in which it is justified. And there are a few people out there with very lax restrictions.
misterskank
I figured I'd hear from you, Mike. Yes, we've discussed this issue pretty thoroughly with not much disagreement as I remember. The Jews and Nonjews of Palestine have recently increased the rate of their killing in hopes of ending the killing that has continued now for 4000 years or so. I'm pessimistic about its success. I'm not an absolute pacifist but so far in my life I haven't found it necessary to kill anybody and I hope my luck continues.
saikotikgunman
As a general rule, the majority of America's gun owners would agree. Those who keep arms for personal defense keep them for the same reason they keep fire extinguishers. With any luck, you keep them both loaded, and never have to use them in a real situation.
As for Palestine... I can only shake my head.
misterskank
Head shaking won't stop it either.
saikotikgunman
No, but I'm not sure what will.
It could be argued that sufficient killing, on the order of successful genocide or ethnic cleansing, could stop it, but then, somewhere down the road, the perpetrators of the genocide will diverge into different sects who will then need to purge one another... it'll never end.
misterskank
I'll never give up.
saikotikgunman
You're trying to change human nature, my friend. Even the sanest among us have the capacity to enjoy killing if we do it enough.
misterskank
I'm just killing time, Mike. Got nothin better to do.
saikotikgunman
That must be worse for Buddhists, considering this bout of killing time will be followed by another one.
misterskank
Vow of the bodhisattvas: Beings are numberless; we vow to enlighten them all. Delusions are numberless; we vow to extinguish them all. Mystic gates are numberless; we vow to enter them all. The way is unsurpassable; we vow to live it.
saikotikgunman
Amusing.
whisperingowl
Violence begets violence. Those are words I believe in strongly; however, that being said I do believe that death is not only natural but necessary at times.
I think it's cruel to make people wait for decades to die; if I was sentenced to death and I had no hope at all of survival I would chose death quickly. There are doubtlessly people who would say, "No, you wouldn't, you're just saying that!" I'm not. What's the point in living if I am to be held captive and trapped in an unending cycle of boredom? I would rather move on to the next step in whatever cycle our souls/spirits/lifeforce/psyches/whatever you want to call it) is in and move on to.
Is it right to kill? No. But I do believe that should a man or woman be beyond help to rehabilitate, meaning he/she is at best a hazard and threat to society and others, then, yes, they should be put down, but I think that is one of the few times when intentional death of another should ever be acceptable. We do the same to rabid dogs and animals that are dangerous after all. Naturally defense of oneself or family is included in this along with other self preservation and defense but I believe there are very few times when death is excusable.
Perhaps I am twisted, I'm sure many would say so. I put the same value of life on a cat, or dog, or spider as I do a human. As such, if a bug or man I do not know dies, I do not mourn or cry, but should a man or animal I know well die, I will mourn and feel the same loss for each.
I do form stronger emotional bonds with people, though, but I think that's due to the feedback that I get from them; animals express joy and pain but they do not feel love, anger, or amusement as we do, so there is always a rift in the connection between what bonds I form with animals vs people.
Sorry if I wrote too much but I felt that without going into this detail it would be hard to explain myself fully. I'm interested in your view.
misterskank
I believe it essential that somebody stop killing. Every killing of a human being reinforces the belief that killing people is a solution to human problems. I think the US should have put Saddam Hussein in a cage and let him live in front of the camera; I think the US should do the same to bin Laden if he's ever caught. "Look, Moslems, look, World, we capture but do not kill." The teaching would be that somebody has to stop killing, a demonstration to the world that even mass murderers need not be killed, only caged and forever prevented from killing again. If such caged criminals would prefer suicide, that would be permitted. To overcome popular resistance to life imprisonment, it will have to be minimal, a cage perhaps four inches too small for the prisoner to fully extend himself, a bucket, a mat, bread and water, absolutely no chance ever of release and parole. Just one teeny tiny step this side of execution—a powerful nation announcing that killing is not a solution to human problems.
bahamat
We could eliminate world hunger! Lol Seriously, though, I think killing is unnecessary in most situations, and deprives people.... If you're openminded about religion, we don't really know what we're doing if we don't really know what life means.
Buuuut if there isn't an afterlife, the only remaining consequence is for the living family.... If they were eliminated too at the same time (say none of them knew)...then theoretically they wouldn't be able to mourn
misterskank
Killing people affects the killed, the killer or killers, the family and friends of the killed, the family and friends of the killers, the society as a whole, the world as a whole. Somebody can begin right now to say that from this point onward we are not going to kill, we are going to foster a movement to end killing as a way to solve human problems, we are going to foster all efforts to restrain, capture, and prevent killers without killing them. The abolition of capital punishment is the obvious place to begin; increasing funding and research into nonlethal weapons for law enforcement and military is another; education in the public schools is another. Of course it can't happen immediately but we can aspire, we can affirm the goal, we can move toward it.
bahamat
Like a ripple effect, I guess. It all helps, and the best we can do is the best we can expect of ourselves.... It's not going to completely stop, as you say, but we can make an impact.
misterskank
For forty-two years in college classrooms I've been teaching nonviolent solutions to human problems and I don't see myself ever being persuaded that I'm in error.
bahamat
Yep, because y'know there isn't a justification for the alternative!
disillusions
So I've heard it put that any attempt to control the outside world, whether it be by killing people, or even preventing them from being killed is ultimately negative. That even if your intentions are benevolent, it is still an attempt to control your exterior, which is a negative force, rather than concentrating on your own growth, which is a positive force.
Where do you stand on that argument? Is it a good thing to attempt to change the world for the better, or is anything besides seeking your own enlightenment negative? On the one hand, if everyone tried to be better people, we wouldn't have these problems, on the other hand, I'm a member of humanity, and their problems are mine. I'm curious what you think about that.
misterskank
The supreme virtue in most if not all the major world religions is selflessness; thus a selfless act has good results, a selfish act bad results. I can't understand the argument that risking your own life to preserve the life of another is negative, even though you may lose your life, an obviously negative result from a materialistic point of view. Nietzsche is on the other side of this question, of course, and so, I hear, is Ayn Rand.
Neither can I understand a philosophy that would counsel total passivity. I do understand, however, the argument that we really do not have free will; that is, if your genetic inheritance, your parenting, your experience, your circumstance, etc., were identical to mine, then at any given time you would act exactly as I did. This is the understanding that led both Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein to repudiate the idea of a god who creates beings and then punishes and rewards them according to their willingness and ability to obey laws. Both Russell and Einstein understood that we are not free to choose to be born and that we do not all begin life at an equally advantageous starting point. In other words, we do not have free will or, to put it another way, some of us appear to have a will much freer than others.
Trying to change the world goes wrong, I think, if you try to do it in any way greater than to change yourself. If you can change yourself for the better, perhaps your example will inspire others to try to do likewise. But Lao Tsu says, "Do you think you can change the universe? I really do not think you can."
The Mahayana Buddhists believe we should seek the well-being and happiness of others before we seek our own; indeed, they believe we can only achieve our own by putting others before ourselves. Socrates makes the same argument in the dialogues of Plato.
blueeyedtawni
the only flaw i see towards your words at the end are that some people are actually born truly evil and thus crave death among others no matter how much you try to reform them…
those are the ones that trying to persuade them that happiness is among peace and not death would be like trying to hold your breath for one hour. it simply wouldnt happen. their minds are engineered by genetic flaws from the moment of conception…
your view? grins i do enjoy a good debate
misterskank
If persons are born defective, brain-damaged, genetically impaired, or retarded, then they are not "evil" and shouldn't be executed for acts they had no power to resist. They should be restrained and prevented from harming others, but not killed for a condition they did not choose themselves. There are certainly criminals of many kinds who for a variety of reasons cannot be reformed or rehabilitated; but my proposal isn't concerned with that, only with preventing them from harming again and with not killing them. Your debate over the incorrigible is with someone else, not me.
blueeyedtawni
hmm maybe i didnt word it correctly i mean the ones who kill today who hate people… i guess namely the criminals who enjoy killing others… restrained yes, but not all can be reformed.
misterskank
Yes, there are many who have killed in hate and cannot be reformed. They must be captured and imprisoned for life.
saikotikgunman
It could be argued that that is a fate worse than death. For anyone who would rather be free than alive it would be. Perhaps that's why so many murders are murder-suicides.
misterskank
By my proposal prisoners would be permitted to take their own lives if they wished.
saikotikgunman
Fair enough.
ubu13
You already know my reply: Thou Shalt Not Kill, and I am not even a Christian...but I am a pacifist. It is more expensive to kill persons in jail than it is to incarcerate them for life. Put them away and keep them there, I also say. And have everyone take conflict resolution sometime in their lives, maybe in junior high.
misterskank
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
shadeofgray
I'm sorry I missed your previous post. I despise any violence although I would appreciate mercy killing if I asked for it, and I would like to see the heads of state duel to the death if they cannot resolve their issues diplomatically. Leave the rest of us out of it.
What do you think about the eternal effort to solve human problems by killing people?
blueeyedtawni
i gotta admit ive enjoyed reading your blog for a bit now… learned a lot too... which in turn strengthens the mind.
sadly in the human nature of rage and evil at times of killing i have to offer one bit of visual aspect in that sense. i dont believe in killing another either for that matter
but in order for humans to survive and not overpopulate that is where famine, diseases, war and weather come into play but make sure the strong survive. not a concept i like. but look throughout history. it happens...
what do you think about your question? im interested to know since my answer may be way off anyway lol
misterskank
Somebody has got to stop killing. Killing human beings is not a solution over the long term no matter how attractive it appears in the short term. Killing people just reinforces the idea that killing people is a solution to human problems. It isn't. Yes, people kill in defense of self, in rage, in fear, in anger, in intoxication, in ignorance, and more. For this they can be forgiven.
saikotikgunman
I recall asking you once what you called someone who was willing to kill for something, not just to die for it.
You know I personally believe there are things worth killing for, though, as a general rule, I don't think "isms" are.
I am not a pacifist, and I practice marksmanship with the knowledge that it is, in the strictest sense, a martial (of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior) art, and that I may someday, under specific circumstances, feel compelled to use it as such. For that matter, the same knowledge comes with carrying a knife (though as with the rifle, its primary function is tool, not weapon).
So, yes, killing people is perfectly fine, so long as it's justifiable within my moral and ethical framework. The same can be said of everyone, of course. We all think killing is fine, when there's a reason. The pacifist just finds no situation in which it is justified. And there are a few people out there with very lax restrictions.
misterskank
I figured I'd hear from you, Mike. Yes, we've discussed this issue pretty thoroughly with not much disagreement as I remember. The Jews and Nonjews of Palestine have recently increased the rate of their killing in hopes of ending the killing that has continued now for 4000 years or so. I'm pessimistic about its success. I'm not an absolute pacifist but so far in my life I haven't found it necessary to kill anybody and I hope my luck continues.
saikotikgunman
As a general rule, the majority of America's gun owners would agree. Those who keep arms for personal defense keep them for the same reason they keep fire extinguishers. With any luck, you keep them both loaded, and never have to use them in a real situation.
As for Palestine... I can only shake my head.
misterskank
Head shaking won't stop it either.
saikotikgunman
No, but I'm not sure what will.
It could be argued that sufficient killing, on the order of successful genocide or ethnic cleansing, could stop it, but then, somewhere down the road, the perpetrators of the genocide will diverge into different sects who will then need to purge one another... it'll never end.
misterskank
I'll never give up.
saikotikgunman
You're trying to change human nature, my friend. Even the sanest among us have the capacity to enjoy killing if we do it enough.
misterskank
I'm just killing time, Mike. Got nothin better to do.
saikotikgunman
That must be worse for Buddhists, considering this bout of killing time will be followed by another one.
misterskank
Vow of the bodhisattvas: Beings are numberless; we vow to enlighten them all. Delusions are numberless; we vow to extinguish them all. Mystic gates are numberless; we vow to enter them all. The way is unsurpassable; we vow to live it.
saikotikgunman
Amusing.
whisperingowl
Violence begets violence. Those are words I believe in strongly; however, that being said I do believe that death is not only natural but necessary at times.
I think it's cruel to make people wait for decades to die; if I was sentenced to death and I had no hope at all of survival I would chose death quickly. There are doubtlessly people who would say, "No, you wouldn't, you're just saying that!" I'm not. What's the point in living if I am to be held captive and trapped in an unending cycle of boredom? I would rather move on to the next step in whatever cycle our souls/spirits/lifeforce/psyches/whatever you want to call it) is in and move on to.
Is it right to kill? No. But I do believe that should a man or woman be beyond help to rehabilitate, meaning he/she is at best a hazard and threat to society and others, then, yes, they should be put down, but I think that is one of the few times when intentional death of another should ever be acceptable. We do the same to rabid dogs and animals that are dangerous after all. Naturally defense of oneself or family is included in this along with other self preservation and defense but I believe there are very few times when death is excusable.
Perhaps I am twisted, I'm sure many would say so. I put the same value of life on a cat, or dog, or spider as I do a human. As such, if a bug or man I do not know dies, I do not mourn or cry, but should a man or animal I know well die, I will mourn and feel the same loss for each.
I do form stronger emotional bonds with people, though, but I think that's due to the feedback that I get from them; animals express joy and pain but they do not feel love, anger, or amusement as we do, so there is always a rift in the connection between what bonds I form with animals vs people.
Sorry if I wrote too much but I felt that without going into this detail it would be hard to explain myself fully. I'm interested in your view.
misterskank
I believe it essential that somebody stop killing. Every killing of a human being reinforces the belief that killing people is a solution to human problems. I think the US should have put Saddam Hussein in a cage and let him live in front of the camera; I think the US should do the same to bin Laden if he's ever caught. "Look, Moslems, look, World, we capture but do not kill." The teaching would be that somebody has to stop killing, a demonstration to the world that even mass murderers need not be killed, only caged and forever prevented from killing again. If such caged criminals would prefer suicide, that would be permitted. To overcome popular resistance to life imprisonment, it will have to be minimal, a cage perhaps four inches too small for the prisoner to fully extend himself, a bucket, a mat, bread and water, absolutely no chance ever of release and parole. Just one teeny tiny step this side of execution—a powerful nation announcing that killing is not a solution to human problems.
bahamat
We could eliminate world hunger! Lol Seriously, though, I think killing is unnecessary in most situations, and deprives people.... If you're openminded about religion, we don't really know what we're doing if we don't really know what life means.
Buuuut if there isn't an afterlife, the only remaining consequence is for the living family.... If they were eliminated too at the same time (say none of them knew)...then theoretically they wouldn't be able to mourn
misterskank
Killing people affects the killed, the killer or killers, the family and friends of the killed, the family and friends of the killers, the society as a whole, the world as a whole. Somebody can begin right now to say that from this point onward we are not going to kill, we are going to foster a movement to end killing as a way to solve human problems, we are going to foster all efforts to restrain, capture, and prevent killers without killing them. The abolition of capital punishment is the obvious place to begin; increasing funding and research into nonlethal weapons for law enforcement and military is another; education in the public schools is another. Of course it can't happen immediately but we can aspire, we can affirm the goal, we can move toward it.
bahamat
Like a ripple effect, I guess. It all helps, and the best we can do is the best we can expect of ourselves.... It's not going to completely stop, as you say, but we can make an impact.
misterskank
For forty-two years in college classrooms I've been teaching nonviolent solutions to human problems and I don't see myself ever being persuaded that I'm in error.
bahamat
Yep, because y'know there isn't a justification for the alternative!
disillusions
So I've heard it put that any attempt to control the outside world, whether it be by killing people, or even preventing them from being killed is ultimately negative. That even if your intentions are benevolent, it is still an attempt to control your exterior, which is a negative force, rather than concentrating on your own growth, which is a positive force.
Where do you stand on that argument? Is it a good thing to attempt to change the world for the better, or is anything besides seeking your own enlightenment negative? On the one hand, if everyone tried to be better people, we wouldn't have these problems, on the other hand, I'm a member of humanity, and their problems are mine. I'm curious what you think about that.
misterskank
The supreme virtue in most if not all the major world religions is selflessness; thus a selfless act has good results, a selfish act bad results. I can't understand the argument that risking your own life to preserve the life of another is negative, even though you may lose your life, an obviously negative result from a materialistic point of view. Nietzsche is on the other side of this question, of course, and so, I hear, is Ayn Rand.
Neither can I understand a philosophy that would counsel total passivity. I do understand, however, the argument that we really do not have free will; that is, if your genetic inheritance, your parenting, your experience, your circumstance, etc., were identical to mine, then at any given time you would act exactly as I did. This is the understanding that led both Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein to repudiate the idea of a god who creates beings and then punishes and rewards them according to their willingness and ability to obey laws. Both Russell and Einstein understood that we are not free to choose to be born and that we do not all begin life at an equally advantageous starting point. In other words, we do not have free will or, to put it another way, some of us appear to have a will much freer than others.
Trying to change the world goes wrong, I think, if you try to do it in any way greater than to change yourself. If you can change yourself for the better, perhaps your example will inspire others to try to do likewise. But Lao Tsu says, "Do you think you can change the universe? I really do not think you can."
The Mahayana Buddhists believe we should seek the well-being and happiness of others before we seek our own; indeed, they believe we can only achieve our own by putting others before ourselves. Socrates makes the same argument in the dialogues of Plato.
blueeyedtawni
the only flaw i see towards your words at the end are that some people are actually born truly evil and thus crave death among others no matter how much you try to reform them…
those are the ones that trying to persuade them that happiness is among peace and not death would be like trying to hold your breath for one hour. it simply wouldnt happen. their minds are engineered by genetic flaws from the moment of conception…
your view? grins i do enjoy a good debate
misterskank
If persons are born defective, brain-damaged, genetically impaired, or retarded, then they are not "evil" and shouldn't be executed for acts they had no power to resist. They should be restrained and prevented from harming others, but not killed for a condition they did not choose themselves. There are certainly criminals of many kinds who for a variety of reasons cannot be reformed or rehabilitated; but my proposal isn't concerned with that, only with preventing them from harming again and with not killing them. Your debate over the incorrigible is with someone else, not me.
blueeyedtawni
hmm maybe i didnt word it correctly i mean the ones who kill today who hate people… i guess namely the criminals who enjoy killing others… restrained yes, but not all can be reformed.
misterskank
Yes, there are many who have killed in hate and cannot be reformed. They must be captured and imprisoned for life.
saikotikgunman
It could be argued that that is a fate worse than death. For anyone who would rather be free than alive it would be. Perhaps that's why so many murders are murder-suicides.
misterskank
By my proposal prisoners would be permitted to take their own lives if they wished.
saikotikgunman
Fair enough.
ubu13
You already know my reply: Thou Shalt Not Kill, and I am not even a Christian...but I am a pacifist. It is more expensive to kill persons in jail than it is to incarcerate them for life. Put them away and keep them there, I also say. And have everyone take conflict resolution sometime in their lives, maybe in junior high.
misterskank
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
shadeofgray
I'm sorry I missed your previous post. I despise any violence although I would appreciate mercy killing if I asked for it, and I would like to see the heads of state duel to the death if they cannot resolve their issues diplomatically. Leave the rest of us out of it.
