Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 11:29:00 AM (view original):
If you were capable of killing someone over a couple of thousand dollars, the law, as is, is not stopping you.   That's what you don't seem to understand.   People can get angry enough to say "I'll kill you!!" but they don't follow thru.  Because they aren't capable of doing it.   It's not because of a law.

No, Mike it isn't that I don't understand it. It is that it is completely unsubstantiated, and frankly, more than a little ridiculous. You claim that there is one set of people that is capable of murder, and will behave without regard to consequences in all circumstances, and another that is incapable of murder, no matter what. And how do you back this up? You can make sweeping generalizations because of your knowledge of human nature? Don't make me laugh.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 1/26/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 3:17:00 PM (view original):

If you think everyone, or even the majority of us, could commit a murder, my understanding of human nature far exceeds your understanding. 

Try to start a fight without physically touching anyone.    Human nature will tell them "Avoid this" and they'll only fight back to defend themselves.   If they can walk away, they will.   Is that person capable of murder?  Of course not.

Sure I think the majority of us " could" kill someone and are "capable". That doesn't mean they will nor will be put in circumstances where they feel it is necessary or required, whether for self-gain or self-preservation. But that doesn't change the fact that they could and are capable, especially with readily available means for making killing easy, such as a gun.

Self-preservation isn't murder.   The topic is "murder".   Look it up.

And, by the way, it's ridiculous to think the majority of us could kill someone intentionally.    I think the majority runs from a fight.    

If there was a war, what percent of people would be able to serve and kill in the military?

A couple more points:


Whatever percentage you think is capable of murder, be it 1% or 99%, doesn't it seem likely that the range of situations in which these people will actually commit murder will increase if there is no sanction against it?

You make a distinction between those who are capable of committing murder and those who aren't. Presumably this is a psychological distinction. But you also make the distinction between murder and killing in self-defense, which is a legal distinction. Now you can make the argument that there is also a psychological distinction here; I don't disagree with that. But you should realize that the distinction in your mind between murder and self-defense may well not correspond to the distinction in any given jurisdiction. That was part of the reason for my example with the rapist. I may consider it an act of self-defense to kill him to protect my daughter, but unless I can prove imminent danger, the state would almost certainly rule otherwise.

Posted by The Taint on 1/27/2011 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 11:10:00 AM (view original):
It wasn't that long ago that it was acceptable to own black people.   Doesn't that seem like a crazy idea these days?   Do you think, if slavery were legalized, that people would line-up at the slave shop to get one?

The only people who'd want one are the people who don't understand why it's a bad thing.   Much like the only people who'd go on a murder spree with legalized murder are the people who could do it now.

Exactly.  It was accepted by society and not against the law, so it was practiced by alot of people who were well educated, including the founding fathers. 

You have two pretty barbaric things in slavery and dueling, yet they were practiced by arguably the most educated and influential Americans while they were legal. 

It's not a hard stretch to imagine that people wouldn't be so shy to murder if they could get away with it. 

I don't have time to dig on it right now, but check out the results of the Harvard(I think) experiment that created a prisonlike atmosphere with regular students/people being guards and prisoners.  I think it was from the 60's. 

It is actually.   Over time, I'm sure you're right.   I believe you were alive when blacks had to sit at the back of the bus, use different drinking fountains and stay in seperate hotels.   That was 100 years AFTER slavery was abolished.  Change comes slow.    But that STILL doesn't compare to taking a life.  People become set in their ways, which is why old people act like old people.    And that's why adults who are incapable of committing murder now aren't going to be capable of doing it when because the law changes.  

Posted by babypop985 on 1/27/2011 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 1/26/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 3:17:00 PM (view original):

If you think everyone, or even the majority of us, could commit a murder, my understanding of human nature far exceeds your understanding. 

Try to start a fight without physically touching anyone.    Human nature will tell them "Avoid this" and they'll only fight back to defend themselves.   If they can walk away, they will.   Is that person capable of murder?  Of course not.

Sure I think the majority of us " could" kill someone and are "capable". That doesn't mean they will nor will be put in circumstances where they feel it is necessary or required, whether for self-gain or self-preservation. But that doesn't change the fact that they could and are capable, especially with readily available means for making killing easy, such as a gun.

Self-preservation isn't murder.   The topic is "murder".   Look it up.

And, by the way, it's ridiculous to think the majority of us could kill someone intentionally.    I think the majority runs from a fight.    

If there was a war, what percent of people would be able to serve and kill in the military?

Would people be shooting at them?  Sort of a "kill or be killed" situation?    Not murder.     Look up the meaning of "murder" and come back.

Posted by genghisxcon on 1/27/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):
A couple more points:


Whatever percentage you think is capable of murder, be it 1% or 99%, doesn't it seem likely that the range of situations in which these people will actually commit murder will increase if there is no sanction against it?

You make a distinction between those who are capable of committing murder and those who aren't. Presumably this is a psychological distinction. But you also make the distinction between murder and killing in self-defense, which is a legal distinction. Now you can make the argument that there is also a psychological distinction here; I don't disagree with that. But you should realize that the distinction in your mind between murder and self-defense may well not correspond to the distinction in any given jurisdiction. That was part of the reason for my example with the rapist. I may consider it an act of self-defense to kill him to protect my daughter, but unless I can prove imminent danger, the state would almost certainly rule otherwise.

If someone is capable of committing murder now, I'm sure they'll continue to commit murder.   Maybe even expand upon the circumstances in which they commit murder.    So, yes, there would be more murders.

But, if you go back, you'll see that hasn't really been my argument.   The law doesn't prevent individuals from committing murder.   It's just something that some people can do and something some people cannot do. 

This is what I'm getting from this thread:   We've got a bunch of "tough guys" who think they would be doing some killing if they didn't want to spend time in jail.  
And here's the actual situation:  No, you're not murdering anyone.  It's not in your DNA.  If you're afraid of jail, you're afraid to take a life.

By the way, taint, I'm pretty sure I saw the experiment you mentioned.   I came away thinking "mob mentality" more than anything.    Same thing I felt about Abu Ghraib.   If you take "normal" people and put them in a certain enviroment, they'll act appropriately. 

Doesn't apply to discussion because we don't have a "Murder Colony" where we can place Joe Average to see what happens.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 1:44:00 PM (view original):
By the way, taint, I'm pretty sure I saw the experiment you mentioned.   I came away thinking "mob mentality" more than anything.    Same thing I felt about Abu Ghraib.   If you take "normal" people and put them in a certain enviroment, they'll act appropriately. 

Doesn't apply to discussion because we don't have a "Murder Colony" where we can place Joe Average to see what happens.

I agree with Mike here - the Stanford Prison experiment (which is what Taint was trying to think of) and the similar Milgram experiment (recently adapted for a batshit crazy and kind of sickening French doc) both involve people being told what to do by authority figures, and don't have much bearing on what people might do when left to their own devices.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by babypop985 on 1/27/2011 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 1/26/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 3:17:00 PM (view original):

If you think everyone, or even the majority of us, could commit a murder, my understanding of human nature far exceeds your understanding. 

Try to start a fight without physically touching anyone.    Human nature will tell them "Avoid this" and they'll only fight back to defend themselves.   If they can walk away, they will.   Is that person capable of murder?  Of course not.

Sure I think the majority of us " could" kill someone and are "capable". That doesn't mean they will nor will be put in circumstances where they feel it is necessary or required, whether for self-gain or self-preservation. But that doesn't change the fact that they could and are capable, especially with readily available means for making killing easy, such as a gun.

Self-preservation isn't murder.   The topic is "murder".   Look it up.

And, by the way, it's ridiculous to think the majority of us could kill someone intentionally.    I think the majority runs from a fight.    

If there was a war, what percent of people would be able to serve and kill in the military?

Would people be shooting at them?  Sort of a "kill or be killed" situation?    Not murder.     Look up the meaning of "murder" and come back.

your "look up the meaning of murder" retorts are meaningless. of course the definition of murder is one with legal ramifications, and we are discussing killing without the legal ramifications as part of our whatif scenario. im not trying to compare war between countries and killing between individuals, but your "definition" argument cuts out its own legs.

OK, I'll make it easy for you.   Taking the life of another when your life is not in danger.  Such as to get a nice pair of sneakers.   Or the other person looked at you "funny".    Don't give me "If I guy was pointing a gun at me and I had a gun, I could shoot him first" BS.   That's not murder.     Use that as your definition since you refuse to look up the meaning of "murder" and obviously don't know what it is. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by babypop985 on 1/27/2011 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 1/26/2011 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/26/2011 3:17:00 PM (view original):

If you think everyone, or even the majority of us, could commit a murder, my understanding of human nature far exceeds your understanding. 

Try to start a fight without physically touching anyone.    Human nature will tell them "Avoid this" and they'll only fight back to defend themselves.   If they can walk away, they will.   Is that person capable of murder?  Of course not.

Sure I think the majority of us " could" kill someone and are "capable". That doesn't mean they will nor will be put in circumstances where they feel it is necessary or required, whether for self-gain or self-preservation. But that doesn't change the fact that they could and are capable, especially with readily available means for making killing easy, such as a gun.

Self-preservation isn't murder.   The topic is "murder".   Look it up.

And, by the way, it's ridiculous to think the majority of us could kill someone intentionally.    I think the majority runs from a fight.    

If there was a war, what percent of people would be able to serve and kill in the military?

Would people be shooting at them?  Sort of a "kill or be killed" situation?    Not murder.     Look up the meaning of "murder" and come back.

You were the one who said people couldn't kill someone intentionally. I think they can. I think a military draft shows they can.

And unless I'm mistaken, someone has to shoot first in battle.

Posted by antonsirius on 1/27/2011 4:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 1:44:00 PM (view original):
By the way, taint, I'm pretty sure I saw the experiment you mentioned.   I came away thinking "mob mentality" more than anything.    Same thing I felt about Abu Ghraib.   If you take "normal" people and put them in a certain enviroment, they'll act appropriately. 

Doesn't apply to discussion because we don't have a "Murder Colony" where we can place Joe Average to see what happens.

I agree with Mike here - the Stanford Prison experiment (which is what Taint was trying to think of) and the similar Milgram experiment (recently adapted for a batshit crazy and kind of sickening French doc) both involve people being told what to do by authority figures, and don't have much bearing on what people might do when left to their own devices.

Isn't saying murder is no longer a crime implying a new societal acceptance of killing someone?

The prison experiment shows exactly how easy it is to steer humans away from knowing the difference between right and wrong and absolutely has bearing on the discussion.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 5:19:00 PM (view original):
OK, I'll make it easy for you.   Taking the life of another when your life is not in danger.  Such as to get a nice pair of sneakers.   Or the other person looked at you "funny".    Don't give me "If I guy was pointing a gun at me and I had a gun, I could shoot him first" BS.   That's not murder.     Use that as your definition since you refuse to look up the meaning of "murder" and obviously don't know what it is. 

Mike is trying to address the definition here, or maybe I should say he is trying to sidestep the problematical nature of the definition. But this almost a side issue. The more serious flaw in his argument are the sweeping statements about human nature which have no basis in fact whatsoever.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/27/2011 5:19:00 PM (view original):
OK, I'll make it easy for you.   Taking the life of another when your life is not in danger.  Such as to get a nice pair of sneakers.   Or the other person looked at you "funny".    Don't give me "If I guy was pointing a gun at me and I had a gun, I could shoot him first" BS.   That's not murder.     Use that as your definition since you refuse to look up the meaning of "murder" and obviously don't know what it is. 

Life being in danger is a ridiculously slippery slope to try to define. Being in danger is nowhere near as simple as having someone directly pointing a gun at you in a specific moment. Lets say I know person A killed person B, and maybe I fear I'll be next, so I kill person A because I felt my life was in danger. Or I know someone and get in a heated argument with them and fear later repercussion, or I owe someone money and can't pay on time and feel in danger.

When in doubt you seem to try to simplify your arguments, and you simply fail. You alone can't be the determiner of what words mean nor the great understander of all human nature.