Good Idea, Bad Idea

[Ifreann]

Did you go to a ghetto for the purpose of being attacked because you wanted to kill someone? Then you would be, to my mind, morally equivalent to a murderer. Legally....I think it'd be nigh impossible to prove unless you did it serially or were stupid enough to tell someone your plan.

Well I disagree on it being morally equivalent. I'll agree that it's morally... questionable, but I wouldn't say morally equivalent to murder. After all, in the one case, it's a helpless victim. In the other, it's an attacking perpetrator.

If you set out to kill someone you are not a helpless victim just because you don't start it.

And intentionally putting yourself in a situation in which you will be attacked with deadly force so you can respond in kind is, in my opinion, not ok at all.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion.

I know.

I disagree.

Why?

In either case, I don't think it's illegal.

I don't know maritime or Somalian law...at all but if the intention could be proven I think it could possibly be premeditated murder.

I'm not saying the pirates are blameless in this. Arguably their circumstances force them to resort to piracy, but that's a very tenuous justification at the absolute best, and not one I think I want to make. Ultimately they're picking up guns and firing them at people.

Exactly, and people are more than entitled to defend themselves.

Certainly, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

But other people are going out of their way to stand in front of those guns just so they can fire back and kill the pirates. I'm having trouble seeing how that can be something other than murder.

It's no more murder than if I move into a bad neighborhood and keep a gun by my bed. If my house is broken into, and I see my life or health are threatened, I will respond with deadly force. Could I have made better choices to avoid that? Yes, but I still have the right to defend myself.

Again, did you move to that neighbourhood because you wanted someone to break into your house so you could kill them?

Ah, I see. Well, as we all know, flamebaiting is bad. Flamebaiting and then killing the guy who flames you is worse.

/sigh

You obviously didn't get the comparison. Is the flamebaiter at blame when the flamer gets banned?

They share the blame.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If the pirates want to play with human lives, then someone else gets to play with theirs. Their circumstances might explain their actions, but it doesn't excuse them and doesn't make them any less worthy of turn-around.

My big worry would be the 'due process' argument.

A boat pulls up next to this boat, and someone opens fire? Is that what we're waiting for?

Are they only shooting at people who fired first?


It seems filled with legal loopholes to me.

[The Ophelias]

Some people's idea of fun is rather, em, um, interesting.

[Greed and Death]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If the pirates want to play with human lives, then someone else gets to play with theirs. Their circumstances might explain their actions, but it doesn't excuse them and doesn't make them any less worthy of turn-around.

My big worry would be the 'due process' argument.

A boat pulls up next to this boat, and someone opens fire? Is that what we're waiting for?

Are they only shooting at people who fired first?


It seems filled with legal loopholes to me.

Well if there are no survivors who says they didn't shoot first ??

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If the pirates want to play with human lives, then someone else gets to play with theirs. Their circumstances might explain their actions, but it doesn't excuse them and doesn't make them any less worthy of turn-around.

My big worry would be the 'due process' argument.

A boat pulls up next to this boat, and someone opens fire? Is that what we're waiting for?

Are they only shooting at people who fired first?


It seems filled with legal loopholes to me.

Well if there are no survivors who says they didn't shoot first ??

Ah. So, it's not a crime if no witnesses survive?

[Greed and Death]

Well if there are no survivors who says they didn't shoot first ??

Ah. So, it's not a crime if no witnesses survive?

I doubt the Somali government will investigate it.
As they would need a government to do that.
So from a legal prospective no one is going to go to jail.

[Grave_n_idle]

I doubt the Somali government will investigate it.
As they would need a government to do that.
So from a legal prospective no one is going to go to jail.

Which isn't the point.

[United Dependencies]

This whatever you want to call it defies all logic. That you would sit and try to bait people out to try and kill you and then inturn try to kill them is complete insanity. I cannot see who could possibly want to participate in this.

[Greed and Death]

I doubt the Somali government will investigate it.
As they would need a government to do that.
So from a legal prospective no one is going to go to jail.

Which isn't the point.

i mean a bit pointless to worry about legal loop holes when there is no need to use them.

[Galloism]

If you set out to kill someone you are not a helpless victim just because you don't start it.

And, if these people are killed because of their participation, I'll not be screaming at the injustice of it all. They went there predicting that there will probably be a fight. They expected it.

However, they didn't cause it.

The pirates who attacked caused it, directly. If the pirates hadn't attacked, there would have been no conflict.

And intentionally putting yourself in a situation in which you will be attacked with deadly force so you can respond in kind is, in my opinion, not ok at all.

It's fine with me. After all, they initiate nothing. They *wait* for someone else to attack.

I know.

I disagree.

Why?

Because they are the defenders. They do not (appear to) initiate any conflict. They may go looking for conflict. They wait for conflict. They thrive on the conflict. They're prepared for the conflict. However, they did not start the conflict.

If, for instance, I started insulting you heavily in a bar, and you punched me, and then I proceeded to defend myself, would that be wrong?

Granted, I shouldn't have insulted you, and that was bad, but the defense itself, as an individual act, is still justified.

In either case, I don't think it's illegal.

I don't know maritime or Somalian law...at all but if the intention could be proven I think it could possibly be premeditated murder.

Don't think so, as it's very clear that they don't ever start the conflict.

Certainly, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

But that is exactly what you are doing, by saying that they're morally equivalent to murderers. You're saying that, if they get attacked, and fight back, thereby killing one of the attackers, they're murderers. I find that position... untenable.

Again, did you move to that neighbourhood because you wanted someone to break into your house so you could kill them?

Even if I did, it's irrelevant. They broke into my home. They started the specific conflict in question. They threatened my life and safety. It is my right to defend myself with deadly force. It would be their right to do so if I broke into their home and threatened their life and safety.

[Grave_n_idle]

I doubt the Somali government will investigate it.
As they would need a government to do that.
So from a legal prospective no one is going to go to jail.

Which isn't the point.

i mean a bit pointless to worry about legal loop holes when there is no need to use them.

Right. So - it's okay to take machineguns into a school, and spray fire into every living being - just so long as there are no surviving witnesses.

[Maurepas]

You know, this is a horribly bad idea that will just end in disaster.

That being said, I wanna go.....

Yeah....Its like something out of a movie,

[Galloism]

You know, this is a horribly bad idea that will just end in disaster.

That being said, I wanna go.....

Yeah....Its like something out of a movie,

I was kidding. I've had enough killing, personally.

[Greed and Death]

Which isn't the point.

i mean a bit pointless to worry about legal loop holes when there is no need to use them.

Right. So - it's okay to take machineguns into a school, and spray fire into every living being - just so long as there are no surviving witnesses.

Morally no. Legally if you can getaway with it there is much the legal system can do.
We think this guy killed these people but we have no proof.
Unless you want the police officer thinking your guilty to be the burden of proof.

[Maurepas]

You know, this is a horribly bad idea that will just end in disaster.

That being said, I wanna go.....

Yeah....Its like something out of a movie,

I was kidding. I've had enough killing, personally.

Oh, I never doubted it...youd have be pretty crazy, like I said, it sounds like a movie plot...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You know, this is a horribly bad idea that will just end in disaster.

That being said, I wanna go.....

Yeah....Its like something out of a movie,

I was kidding. I've had enough killing, personally.

*grabs by collar and drags away*

Then come, me pretty, and gimme some of that 'death' you know I like...

[Buffett and Colbert]

Lemme at 'em! I'll go 'n make those God damned terrorizors squeal fer their mommas!!

[Buffett and Colbert]

I actually wrote a paper on the subject if anyone wants to read a boring little project. If you actually do wish to read through it mind you I had a five hundred word limit which really ticked me off... So it's only about a page... Sounds pretty tacky also... Like a five year old wrote it... Jesus crap why am I even posting this?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Good Idea: Having a Cruise with a Pirate Theme.

Bad Idea: Having a Pirate Cruise.

Luxury yachts offer pirate hunting cruises

Luxury ocean liners in Russia are offering pirate hunting cruises aboard armed private yachts off the Somali coast.

Wealthy punters pay £3,500 per day to patrol the most dangerous waters in the world hoping to be attacked by raiders.

When attacked, they retaliate with grenade launchers, machine guns and rocket launchers, reports Austrian business paper Wirtschaftsblatt.

Passengers, who can pay an extra £5 a day for an AK-47 machine gun and £7 for 100 rounds of ammo, are also protected by a squad of ex special forces troops.

The yachts travel from Djibouti in Somalia to Mombasa in Kenya.

The ships deliberately cruise close to the coast at a speed of just five nautical miles in an attempt to attract the interest of pirates.

"They are worse than the pirates," said Russian yachtsman Vladimir Mironov. "At least the pirates have the decency to take hostages, these people are just paying to commit murder," he continued.

Link

This is as good of an idea as marrying OJ Simpson.

This sounds like a shitload of fun to me though! *breaks out the 'ol AK-47

[JuNii]

I was kidding. I've had enough killing, personally.

*grabs by collar and drags away*

Then come, me pretty, and gimme some of that 'death' you know I like...

*grabs camera and follows*

[Ifreann]

If you set out to kill someone you are not a helpless victim just because you don't start it.

And, if these people are killed because of their participation, I'll not be screaming at the injustice of it all. They went there predicting that there will probably be a fight. They expected it.

However, they didn't cause it.

The pirates who attacked caused it, directly. If the pirates hadn't attacked, there would have been no conflict.

But they sought the conflict out. They know they'll probably be attacked, that's why they're doing it. They're putting themselves in a situation where they can kill someone and get away with it.

And intentionally putting yourself in a situation in which you will be attacked with deadly force so you can respond in kind is, in my opinion, not ok at all.

It's fine with me. After all, they initiate nothing. They *wait* for someone else to attack.

I know.

I disagree.

Why?

Because they are the defenders. They do not (appear to) initiate any conflict. They may go looking for conflict. They wait for conflict. They thrive on the conflict. They're prepared for the conflict. However, they did not start the conflict.

If, for instance, I started insulting you heavily in a bar, and you punched me, and then I proceeded to defend myself, would that be wrong?

Granted, I shouldn't have insulted you, and that was bad, but the defense itself, as an individual act, is still justified.

Legally, yes. You have every right to try and verbally provoke me into fighting with you. Morally, no. Setting out to assault someone isn't right just because you're provoking someone else into starting it.

In either case, I don't think it's illegal.

I don't know maritime or Somalian law...at all but if the intention could be proven I think it could possibly be premeditated murder.

Don't think so, as it's very clear that they don't ever start the conflict.

Like I said, I don't know law.

Certainly, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

But that is exactly what you are doing, by saying that they're morally equivalent to murderers. You're saying that, if they get attacked, and fight back, thereby killing one of the attackers, they're murderers. I find that position... untenable.

Because you ignore the fact that their intention is to kill. They are abusing the right to self defence to kill people. Its no different to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre so some people will get trampled to death.

Again, did you move to that neighbourhood because you wanted someone to break into your house so you could kill them?

Even if I did, it's irrelevant. They broke into my home. They started the specific conflict in question. They threatened my life and safety. It is my right to defend myself with deadly force. It would be their right to do so if I broke into their home and threatened their life and safety.

And you're abusing that right. Legally, I doubt you'd go to jail. But the simple facts are you wanted to kill someone, you found a way to do so and stay out of jail, and you followed through. Someone is dead because of a plan you set in motion, the ultimate goal of which was to kill somebody.

[Grave_n_idle]

Morally no.

And, more importantly, legally, no.

[Galloism]

But they sought the conflict out. They know they'll probably be attacked, that's why they're doing it. They're putting themselves in a situation where they can kill someone and get away with it.

They're putting themselves in danger of being attacked. If they kill someone as a result of defending themselves, it's... unfortunate, but it's not immoral. Unless you think that all those blacks who were killed for being black in a white neighborhood were putting themselves in the situation, and if one defended and killed a white person who attacked him, he's a murderer, because he should have known that he would be attacked in that neighborhood.

Legally, yes. You have every right to try and verbally provoke me into fighting with you. Morally, no. Setting out to assault someone isn't right just because you're provoking someone else into starting it.

Hence why I can say that I may "deserve" the punch I get for it. It doesn't mean you shouldn't be prosecuted for it, or that defending myself is immoral in any way.

Because you ignore the fact that their intention is to kill. They are abusing the right to self defence to kill people. Its no different to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre so some people will get trampled to death.

I don't see this as equivalent at all. It's more equivalent to a white man walking through a predominantly black neighborhood, hoping to get attacked - or vice versa.

And you're abusing that right. Legally, I doubt you'd go to jail. But the simple facts are you wanted to kill someone, you found a way to do so and stay out of jail, and you followed through. Someone is dead because of a plan you set in motion, the ultimate goal of which was to kill somebody.

But the act was a fault of their judgment - not mine. Even if I hoped for it, it's still not illegal, or immoral. You can't be jailed for your thoughts, or I would have been in jail by the time I was 4.

[Greed and Death]

Morally no.

And, more importantly, legally, no.

I hold morality to a higher realm then legality.
If something is a moral imperative but illegal I tend to do the moral thing regardless of the law.

For it to be a issue of legality they would have to have a chance of the matter going to court.
Since there is no chance of this going to court, the law is irrelevant.
though i think the law of Somalia ( they perform this in Somalia's coastal waters) permits opening fire for being threatened.

[Wilgrove]

Good Idea: Having a Cruise with a Pirate Theme.

Bad Idea: Having a Pirate Cruise.

I don't think anyone I know ever remember "Good Idea, Bad Idea", that was one of my favorite shorts from Animaniacs.

Finally someone gets it. You get a slice of cheesecake!