Little Girl Kills Intruders
- Started
- Last post
- 261 Responses
- k0na_an0k0
i wonder...
if the girl didn't have the gun and didn't shoot these guys, and the worse case scenario were to happen (raped then killed) by these two men...
what would this thread look like?
would anyone be saying 'man, if she only had a gun' or 'these two guys should be strung up by their balls and killed.'
i wonder.
- k0na_an0k0
lol flavor.
you don't want to know what # i'm on
- v-gates0
As for “Forty Guns,” the title is accurate; Stanwyck plays a ranch owner, Jessica Drummond, with twoscore men under her thumb. Such eminence should make her a grandma, yet, at dinner, the jewels glitter like bait on her bosom, and when a strapping young marshal turns up she wastes no time in reaching for his weapon:
“May I feel it? Just curious.”
“May go off in your face.”
“I’ll take a chance.”
- Crouwel0
k0na, read the thread, you ...... !
- k0na_an0k0
crouwel. i can't. it's at 170 now and i haven't read a single post. it will take me far too long to catch up, and if flavor says it's 200+ i'm only picking up bits of the conversation.
it was a rhetorical question.
carry on. yavo.
- flavorful0
kOna, the read the thread part is that this story is not real at all, haha.
- Rand0
of course if someone killed my daughter I would want to kill them--thank god the laws of nations aren't based on my own impulses, or there wouldn't be a world left
- k0na_an0k0
kOna, the read the thread part is that this story is not real at all, haha.
flavorful
(May 3 07, 09:22)so she didn't kill any illegal aliens?
damn...
*removes two silhouettes of illegal aliens running across border from the stock of the shotgun hanging above cube. kinda like...
i still ain't reading this thread. :)
- flavorful0
hahhhhah
- Crouwel0
Ah Rand worded it so mcuh more gooder.
- gramme0
of course if someone killed my daughter I would want to kill them--thank god the laws of nations aren't based on my own impulses, or there wouldn't be a world left
Rand
(May 3 07, 09:22)This is why we have due process, investigators, juries, judges who undergo rigorous training. It's not exactly a system based on impulse. It takes weeks, months, and sometimes years for these trials to play out.
I've never said that the laws of any nation should be based on anyone's impulses. Some of you guys are quite skilled at twisting my words, it's amazing at times.
I think we are inherently moral beings, we can't get away from a sense of right and wrong. This is why we have laws and not anarchy. We are born with it. People try to separate ethics and morality, but that seems silly to me. They are inextricably linked. There are certain absolute rights and wrongs that are not predicated on whether I acknowledge their presence. But they are there nonetheless, and they nudge each and every one of us in the back on occasion, whenever we violate our innate sense of justice. It is possible to drown out that still small voice to the point of moral deafness, but we are not born that way.
If every murderer in the world was sent eternally packing, I'm not convinced that this would be a worse place. But I do understand the point behind keeping them alive, with the sole hope that they might become changed, rehabilitated.
You can separate church from state, but you cannot separate a man from his conscience. Even you, dobs, vote your conscience based on your idea of social, ethical and moral justice...whatever label you give it, your conscience speaks to you and informs your every decision.
Strong evidence, I'd say, that we are more than articulate monkeys who wear clothes and lack tails.
- gramme0
in other words, we acknowledge right and wrong only until it offends us.
- Mimio0
Actually, supporting the death penalty and pretending to believe in an absolute right and wrong are incompatible. You're sessentially saying that the act of killing a person is negotiable or conditional based on authority and discretion. The justification is immaterial.
- gramme0
Actually, supporting the death penalty and pretending to believe in an absolute right and wrong are incompatible. You're sessentially saying that the act of killing a person is negotiable or conditional based on authority and discretion. The justification is immaterial.
Mimio
(May 3 07, 10:30)Ah but then it all depends on the content of that absolute truth, doesn't it?
If you haven't ready my previous posts, I have stated that I am not completely sure what the right or wrong stance is here, because I can see both points being justified by sound reasoning, and I can see both sides being supported based on how one interprets the Bible, for those that care.
I was actually speaking more generally in my last post about how our innate sense of right and wrong informs the laws that we vote into practice. Things like the rights and wrongs of stealing, perjuring, wrongful violence, and so on.
- mrdobolina0
I think we all agree that killing is bad?
So fucking stop it.
- Rand0
I actually believe in God, and that most of the religions are based on an original primary contact with God. I just don't much care for most of the adherents of specific relgions as they are interepreted today
- Crouwel0
gramme, ther eare some interesting philosophy books related to the evolution of law if i can put it this way.
our notion of good or bad has always been shifting and still is ever changing.
killing people means your judgement is ever finite and absolute and of superior might that imho, and of every sane human being opinion, should be intolerable.
it is not possible.
and reality has proven this again and again and again. many terrible, horrible mistakes have been made and people have been killed under the justificiation of political ideology or cultural intolerance.
i am a member of Amnesty International and i sign tons of their petitions each year to end the ridicule of people deciding over other people's livers.
- gramme0
I hear you guys...
Faith either makes sense to you or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with anyone's intelligence or lack thereof. It's either revealed to you through a myriad list of possible conduits, or it isn't.
Crouwel, I think our main point of separation, besides faith, is how we view right and wrong. Let's forget about the specific question of the death penalty for a second. You believe that right and wrong has been constantly evolving throughout human history, yes? Where I differ is that I believe right and wrong are concepts that exist independent from how we interpret them. I belief truth exists whether I like it or not. There are some truths that I even I have a hard time accepting...but at the end of the day I know that my acceptance does not affect their reality.
We did not make this world, and thus we cannot pretend to be authors of right or wrong. People have historically proven to be narrow minded, driven by whimsy and selfish gain (myself included, from time to time). I would rather die than hold my mind, my understanding of truth, up to the level of Creator. I would rather believe in something greater than myself, something that does not and will never fuck up. We are all subject to being wrong. I will not place my belief in something, person or group of people that is flawed at it's core.
- mrdobolina0
We did not make this world, and thus we cannot pretend to be authors of right or wrong. People have historically proven to be narrow minded, driven by whimsy and selfish gain (myself included, from time to time). I would rather die than hold my mind, my understanding of truth, up to the level of Creator. I would rather believe in something greater than myself, something that does not and will never fuck up. We are all subject to being wrong. I will not place my belief in something, person or group of people that is flawed at it's core.
gramme
(May 3 07, 10:58)So then why should men decide if someone lives or dies?