forum Debate. Debate. Debate.

Started March 14, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

oh my god incest is a whole different discussion

dom is being a little dumb tonight

dom is being a little dumb tonight

domb

well
if i had to kill one person i don't know to save 1000 people i don't know, i'd kill the one
same if they're people i know and love dearly
but if it was one innocent to save 1000 pedophiles, bank robbers, baby murderers, predators…
i'm totally killing the thousand

it depends on the people

Exactly but Dom seemed upset that I said that instead of giving a proper response or whatever
Because ig telling him that he's spouting non sequiturs doesn't count as a valid answer to his quite frankly stupid ass theory. Sorry Dom. You know I love you.

well
if i had to kill one person i don't know to save 1000 people i don't know, i'd kill the one
same if they're people i know and love dearly
but if it was one innocent to save 1000 pedophiles, bank robbers, baby murderers, predators…
i'm totally killing the thousand

it depends on the people

Agreed.

So Dom wouldn't kill anyone for the sake of someone else/a mass of people because he feels not involving himself at all in the equation makes him guilt free.
Like, say he doesn't choose to pull the lever. 5 people get run over right in front of him, but he had nothing to do with it. He was just a bystander. To him, if he pulled the lever, he'd have the blood of the one on his hands. He couldn't get in trouble for taking no action. But if he does take that action, he's involving himself in the equation and making himself guilty.
Am I somewhat correct, Dom?

So Dom wouldn't kill anyone for the sake of someone else/a mass of people because he feels not involving himself at all in the equation makes him guilt free.
Like, say he doesn't choose to pull the lever. 5 people get run over right in front of him, but he had nothing to do with it. He was just a bystander. To him, if he pulled the lever, he'd have the blood of the one on his hands. He couldn't get in trouble for taking no action. But if he does take that action, he's involving himself in the equation and making himself guilty.
Am I somewhat correct, Dom?

Would Good Samaritan laws play into this?
Are those real or just in Seinfeld?

So Dom wouldn't kill anyone for the sake of someone else/a mass of people because he feels not involving himself at all in the equation makes him guilt free.
Like, say he doesn't choose to pull the lever. 5 people get run over right in front of him, but he had nothing to do with it. He was just a bystander. To him, if he pulled the lever, he'd have the blood of the one on his hands. He couldn't get in trouble for taking no action. But if he does take that action, he's involving himself in the equation and making himself guilty.
Am I somewhat correct, Dom?

Would Good Samaritan laws play into this?
Are those real or just in Seinfeld?

The Good Samaritan law is if you try to help save someone and make it worse (because you're most likely an average citizen), you can't get in trouble
In conclusion, what are you talking about Eva?

She's saying, do Good Samaritan laws apply to Dom if he pulled the lever- he predictably saved five lives, but killed the one, so he did some damage. Under good samaritan laws, he's exempt from that, because he was saving 5 others.

To Dom, from what I've gathered, damage is damage, and all damage is equal. To him, it's better not to be apart of it at all.
Again, Dom, confirm or deny this?

I shall leave and come back later.

I shall leave and come back later.

Ah. I should pay closer attention.

Good Samaritan is a set of laws that is different in every state.

However, they are usually concerning medical attention. Like CPR. For example, I’m not certified in CPR, nor am I certified to give certain drug doses to save people’s lives. I plan to get certified as soon as I can, but that’s besides the point.

Because I am not certified, does not stop me from doing CPR. If someone went down and had no pulse, you damn well should know I’d be following my parents’ footsteps with a calm head and quickly doing CPR on the patient who needs it.

Say I end up breaking some of their ribs (which is normal, usually), but I do serious damage to their lungs, yet they survive through the attack and get to the hospital. Their family, nor they, can sue me for adding onto their hospital bill to fix their lungs. They cannot sue me at all for using CPR, for I was trying to save their life. Hence, “Good Samaritan”.

Basically what I’m trying to prove: Good Samaritan would not count. It’s only basically in that one instance, or other medical issues.

If Dom shot and killed someone, it’d still be a crime.

Continue.

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

Hey, not every novel protagonist has an intense moral dilemma!

Very true, Jyn, and important to say.

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

Hey, not every novel protagonist has an intense moral dilemma!

Very true, Jyn, and important to say.

Look again (hint: more closely) and tell me where I said they all do (another hint: I didn't :) )

Dom, you seem to forget that not everyone is a novel protagonist with an intense inner moral dilemma.

Hey, not every novel protagonist has an intense moral dilemma!

Very true, Jyn, and important to say.

Look again (hint: more closely) and tell me where I said they all do (another hint: I didn't :) )

I know, I was just harnessing my inner obnoxious chaotic neutral lead

with this whole 1 innocent to save 1000 more thing
…what if some of those 1000 people were also innocent?
should those individuals have to lose their lives all for one person, when they've done nothing to deserve it?

Of course not. But I am not allowed to kill except in specific circumstances, and even then I have sinned. Only I have a good enough excuse.

It is still very much rape. Legalizing incest ≠ legalizing rape. I had more to say but I can't remember

I implied (but did not directly state, forgive me) that this incest was rape.

dom is being a little dumb tonight

Not more than normal.

domb

Ah, Ash. I thank you.

Dumk

It is still very much rape. Legalizing incest ≠ legalizing rape. I had more to say but I can't remember

I implied (but did not directly state, forgive me) that this incest was rape.

Then I'm confused on how you wanted me to respond

Exactly but Dom seemed upset that I said that instead of giving a proper response or whatever
Because ig telling him that he's spouting non sequiturs doesn't count as a valid answer to his quite frankly stupid ass theory. Sorry Dom. You know I love you.

Oh I am not upset, _{Except that some of you would theoretically kill me (I know your mindset and excuse you though.) but that's not really important.} Pickles. It takes a great deal to do that in a debate. everything is allowed to be said so you really have to mentally be ready. If I am spouting what looks like nonsense, that is because you don't understand, my argument is weak, or both.
And no. Non sequiturs are completely unrelated. What I said definitely was attached by multiple tendons.

So Dom wouldn't kill anyone for the sake of someone else/a mass of people because he feels not involving himself at all in the equation makes him guilt free.
Like, say he doesn't choose to pull the lever. 5 people get run over right in front of him, but he had nothing to do with it. He was just a bystander. To him, if he pulled the lever, he'd have the blood of the one on his hands. He couldn't get in trouble for taking no action. But if he does take that action, he's involving himself in the equation and making himself guilty.
Am I somewhat correct, Dom?

Yes. If I look at it face on… yes. I am not to kill. So I shall not, unless I am killing someone who is being a danger to others by their actions.