Stripped

[DamascusSteel]

[committed]

[DamascusSteel]

[starvingeyes]

[mosaik]

it is up to you if you want to dispute the existence of opposites. i'm not going to fight you on that. thank you for confirming that things can be lumped into categories, but as i knew that already, you needn't repeat it again.

you are correct. two objects cannot be the same as eachother unless they are the exact same object, and even then they will have slight differences in physical characteristics.

this is my point: reality is not affected by perception. as you yourself just admitted, two objects cannot be the same. even if you percieve them to be the same, they have objective characteristics that exist in reality, and those are not affected by perception. A is A, it cannot be B, for it is A.

once again, if morality is realitve, on what grounds does society punish the baby killer? are you now saying it is okay for society to force it's morals on others?

the concept of majority rule relies exclusively on the use of force. force is irrational and suspends man's right to choice. it renders his thinking mind useless. if you choose to use force, you are not acting human.

might makes right is always dangerous because initiating force, especially to get your way in an argument, is wrong.

would i rather die then steal? rather? no. but would i be right if i stole? no. so therefore, i would not steal.

[Brooklin Matt]

xchrisx if i drove to your house to blow away your family would you stop me??? (this is a hypothetical) A. The police or neighbours cannot help you save someone walking down the street who happens to run as fast as Michael Johnson......B. I come prepared with a loaded shotgun which I demonstrate by shooting your in with. and C. Your family is home!!

Do you have the right to kill me then. Or do I have the right to kill your family because you will not act.

Is taking a human life wrong? I mean I've come down to the simplest way of saying that killing (not even murder) is necessary. Police don't let their partner get shot before they start shooting. they shoot when they are threatened at a certain level. This is them being rational, an instinct of survival. Since you have ignored that with the house in the woods scenario one might assume that you are not rational and have very selfish morals which are not functional outside of yourself. They just seem to break down into actionless behaviour that obviously has no significant chance of causing the situation to desolve.

If I felt hopeless as to finding any food or water i would break in for shelter, post a note on the door if possible so that the owner is aware that I am there, drink some hot chocolate, and write xchrisx is going to die in the bushes. In that scenario I'm sure it was meant that all resources had been exhausted, that either hypothermia or dehydration were setting in and that your body did not have much time. It would be a shame for you to die when really all you had to do was break in, get some shelter and food, and maybe go to court so that you could either spend a year in jail, or in all probability, go home safe. I still am baffled by your logic. People have rights.......do those rights give them the power for you to die in the woods because their materialistic possessions are more important then your life?? That sounds like a case of mistaken priorities in your moral reasoning to me.

Hey, thanks for painting me as a elitist oh wise one. Me and Narbus are quite happy now that we have attained tha rank. Gimme 5 Narbus.

[DamascusSteel]

[committed]

[DamascusSteel]

[DamascusSteel]

[Axtech]

[committed]

[DamascusSteel]

[Axtech]

Why? If you don't kill the intruder, he will kill you. It is the only option that won't end up in your death.

You can't just call everything "wrong", there has to be a line somewhere. For me, the line is self defence.

[committed]

instead of having your gun at his head, why don't you point it at his shooting arm?

[mosaik]

[mosaik]

[DamascusSteel]

[DamascusSteel]

[mosaik]