Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

What do you do when murder is legal? Hide? Go to church? Unload on any vague semblance of a crowd? Go out in plate mail and decapitate others? Have a picnic?

Interested to know for reasons. Also if you say you wouldn't kill anyone (as a general rule) in this situation - why?

Would murder be permanently legal, or just a one-night purge type of thing?

perma legality

Hide, definitely. I know I've pissed off some people badly enough that if murder was legal they'd kill me and play in my intestines.

If murder became legal i would 

 . Move to Alaska

. Get on a small liveable island and build a cabin

. Place bear traps lots and lots of bear traps everywere

. Starve because i forgot a gun kill bears with

Or more realisticly get stabed to death by the creapy ten year old down the street...

If murder becomes legal, first thing you have to do is learn how to spell creepy and realistically, then worry about survival. 

Yep, grammar is a literal lifesaver. 

How can you stab people if you don't know how to spell the word "Stabbed"?

Murder is hard.

Ignoring the legality of the act, you have to worry about whether or not you can live with yourself after committing the act. Now, it is difficult to logically prove that it is wrong to murder because that changes depending on the context, but I and, I believe, most other social humans would find it difficult to go out and just murder someone, even an enemy. 

Society would probably devolve to the point where everyone carries personal security such as handguns/tasers/beanbag shooters. If I were to get a handgun, I would need some more training, so I would probably either get that self defense training, move to a country which still bans murder, or form my own mini-society which bans murder. 

It's not difficult to logically prove murder is wrong, it's impossible. Not that I'm saying I don't think it's wrong.

I mean lots of people don't believe anything is 'wrong' because that implies there's an objective moral force at work weighing your actions, but most/all societies still wind up outlawing certain things in order to function, and randomly killing people is a big one.

You don't need a 'moral force at work' for there to be an objective standard of morality. You're getting at what I'm saying though: that there is no proof for morality.

There can be an agreed upon standard of morality for a specific society or culture, but that goes from objective to subjective the moment they clash with another one.

Regardless of whether or not objective morality exists is irrelevant however because every law in every country on Earth only exists as far as the will and ability is there to enforce it. Right or wrong rarely factors in over practicality/popularity and half the time people with strong feelings on those things are the ones at odds with the law to begin with.

Yeah, but there's no way to prove that cultural relativity is a better approach to ethics than any other form, so people agreeing that murder is bad doesn't prove murder is bad.

I mean that depends on what you use as a basis for morality. At is core, morality is subjective so terms like good or bad are irrelevant in that respect. When moral contracts are formed in society, if well-being is used as a general rule then you easily say that murder is bad. Killing someone in nearly all cases is directly detrimental to their well being. That being said, morality can't be proven since it is largely a social construct. Murder is bad because people generally agree that they wouldn't want to be recipients of murder and this classify it as bad. That would be like saying "Prove the number 4 is 4."

No, it doesn't matter what meta ethical stance you take, what matters is you can't prove that any one definition of words like 'good' or 'bad' is better than any other logically, and therefore you can't claim any normative ethical statement is logically provable. By 'logically' I mean 'a priori' or by definition, which is what a logical proof is.

'At is core, morality is subjective...' You cannot prove this logically any more than I can prove there are moral objective truths.

'...if well-being is used as a general rule...' Okay so you're arbitrarily suggesting ethical naturalism as a meta ethical stance, where 'well-being' is equal to good. I'm not even going to bother refuting ethical naturalism, just repeat that you can't logically prove it to be a better definition for 'good' than, say, emotivism.

'...morality can't be proven since it is largely a social construct.' Okay, so you are agreeing with me, although you can't prove that it's a 'social construct'.

Exactly, I was just being unnecessarily picky about the use of 'logically', which would need a proof like '4 is 4'. Didn't realise my assholery would spark a debate, if you can call this that.

aHA! My initial proposition was understatement all along! I win .... something. 

Yeah, I agree that it's pretty much impossible to prove anything besides mathematics from a logical point of view. As a skeptic, I believe that we can never really know anything besides mathematics for sure because sense perception is faulty and reasoning can lead us astray, and that's because we (arguably) made math up. 

i'd move to finland, because they at least have good enough morals for paid parental leave and whatever is left of humanity's remaining sanity and morality. because even if there is no established government, at least we have reindeer.

Finland's pretty tiny and would probably be overthrown/overrun in short order. Hell, you could probably do it yourself if you can find a sharp object and get the drop on 'em.

Well I'm certainly not going to stop murdering just because it's legal all of a sudden.

Originally I felt the same way but now I dunno, buncha fuckin teenagers suddenly deciding murder is trendy might just be the one thing that could make me want to quit.

Teenagers already murder people. Texas is just mad the federal government won't let them send them to the chair.

You guys should add a like button for comments because that was great! Lol

Go about normal life because most people still wouldn't kill. Even if someone wanted to kill me, there's nothing I could do to stop them, so why bother acting any different?

cause its fun. it'd be the latest and greatest hobby and there's so much variety! knife kills, poison pills, sword skills, and gun mills all around the place and interacting in a wilderness of blood lust would feel amazing.

Imagine the size of the multireddit! Imagine the commercials for new smaller quad-core scentless poison pills! Imagine how wars and conflicts would be resolved!

10/10 you give way too much credit to people not killing. I think most people would kill simply due to the chain reaction caused by having their life or their loved ones lives on the line. The cycle of blood would flow free and smooth across the marshy swamps of the dead.

Please get help, Ford.

It's weird that Orange said 'people still wouldn't kill' when people actually already kill or attempt to kill all over the world, all the time, with most societies already considering murder quite the serious crime deserving of the harshest penalties available!

But if there's no law saying you can't murder then there's no law saying you can't kill a murderer, and so I think de facto 'no murder on pain of death' laws would eventually reestablish themselves after a period of anarchy and revenge cycles and blood feuds because that's a pretty common theme throughout most human societies.

Also I guess Orange is already the chick climbing into the cars and submarines of creepy strangers whenever they ask because hey if someone wants to kill her, not like she can stop it?

I don't see your point Ford. 

Well, that'd certainly make it easier for me to die.

Honestly, yeah. As a result of this, I'd emotionally and mentally prepare myself for death.

Similar to a zombie apocalypse I guess where you'd try to find a sane group of people and establish a community in a good defensive location and everyone would agree on rules for living there and probably the first would be regarding not murdering each other.

If murder is legal that's as good as removing all other rights and laws as well which I'm not sure is a thing everyone else is factoring in. Pure anarchy isn't really sustainable though so I'm guessing communities would form that policed themselves, establishing militias or relied on the help of actual police or military.

Or former police/military, most of whom might still have strong beliefs about law and order even after ditching their jobs to return home and protect their families.

Martial law also might be established immediately. A shit ton of minorities will be shot.

I'm pretty sure Missisipi and places like that would quickly become far less diverse due to some gun wielding racists. 

Texas might be a good place to be. Gov Abbot (and many other more local leaders around the world) would just declare martial law and establish "don't murder" laws. 

Some arse would shoot some nukes somewhere, however. That'd suck.

I would try to maintain a good relationship with everyone. I wouldn't piss them off or they'll find me. If there was someone after me, I would move to the Antarctic and live there with the penguins. 

• Carry a weapon with me at all times
  • I might hurt somebody, tbh. Maybe I shouldn't carry it.
  • Ooooorrrrr I might be able to defend myself better
• Speaking of which, I'd take a self defense class and have my friend teach me tae kwon do
• Make sure only family can have access to the house
• Wear some sort of clothing or something, like those boot replacement things they had in WW2 because they were too cheap to afford the real thing or whatever, to protect myself
• Get a guard dog

Tae Kwon Do is good for self defense, but in terms of martial arts you may want to learn something a bit more lethal and effective in a life-or-death scenario like Krav Maga.

Literally every martial art is deadly if you use it right. Just because Krav Maga likes to show off "Modern applications" shouldn't make you feel more confident knowing that instead. Melee combat is dictated far more by experience and how big you are rather than simply "knowing" a martial art. I mean, martial arts training is a good way to improve your body and gain that experience, but you can't exactly measure who will win sheerly by what they were trained in.

Not that it's practical to learn self defence in an age where untrained surprise stabbers and old men in wheelchairs with shotguns can put the most heavily trained bare-handed killers to shame in terms of killing potential.

I'd say boxing and jujitsu are the most practical.

The most practical martial art is the one you're good at. There is no "this vs that" in terms of martial arts. You can pit two people against each other, and try to minimize as many variables as you can, but in the end it comes down to a heavy mix of size, luck, and actual combat experience. Melee combat was perfected hundreds of years ago, and it required tons of special, expensive equipment to improve one's effectiveness. Even then, techniques were developed to fight against the ultimate close fighters in melee, and all the way through that, people with ranged weapons and people who basically just rammed everyone else with cars then ran away, still gave them quite a run for their money in terms of danger potential and practicality.

Now, that's pretty much all irrelevant and antiquated outside of very specific circumstances because guns exist and armor never quite caught up to that. (Nor is it something people wear very often anymore.) I'd argue that just about every martial art made by people who knew what they were doing is equally practical depending on who's using it, and they're all equally impractical in a world where an hour of safety lessons and some sense of other people's field of vision can instantly put martial artists to shame. You'd be surprised how much better running away is compared to standing and fighting up close.

 

Boxing is proven to have the best punching out of every martial art and it's fair to say that the average boxer could beat the average karate practitioner. Not only because of the art of boxing itself, but the way that we train. Also, boxing is very simple; there are only five ways to throw a punch in boxing and you train to specialize in that alone. Anyone can learn how to box because of this and it doesn't require the flexibility of throwing kicks like many of these other martial arts (something many people lack). I agree with your point that it ultimately depends on the fighter, but it would be foolish to disregard the fighting style itself. I'm sure you're well aware that some fighting styles were designed with the intent of countering another type of fighting style. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wing Chun would fall under that category as would Brazilian Jujitsu.

Speaking of which, jujitsu would, again, be practical to learn because it's one of the most effective (if not the most effective) martial arts that utilize grappling especially when you're taken to the ground. I'd even go as far as to say that the average jujitsu practitioner could be the average striker in most martial arts (including boxing). If you don't believe that, you could watch some film on Royce Gracie as he pretty much proved how effective it could be against people regardless of how big they are. Hell, I can personally attest to the effectiveness jujitsu in a street fight (but keep in mind that I'm also 6'1" 170lbs).

 

 

You also have to consider who you'd be fighting against. The average punk on the street doesn't know how to actually fight. They mostly throw wild haymakers that any decent fighter could see coming. Also, they almost never throw kicks. For that reason, boxing would be very practical to know. Of course, the chances of a street fight going to the ground is good, which is why it would be a good idea to know what to do should that happen. If it's one on one and your aggressor doesn't have anyone that'll jump in, use jujitsu to pacify him or you could just land a couple decent punches and hopefully he'll back off. If it's more than one aggressor, (you should run) boxing would serve you better than grappling.

Or, you just get bottled instantly. I feel that's more likely to happen.

I probably wouldn't do anything differently save keeping a weapon on me at all times.

Torture people until they die is my dream..

I would kill all of the annoying people at my school, and all of the stupid white people. I'd get an RPK, all of my friends, and then go out and slaughter those fags, while blasting Green Day songs extremely loudly.

Go ahead, try start a race war. We have the major power houses of the globe, and since Kim Jong will go rogue and try blow the fuck out of Japan and South Korea, Asia will crumple to infighting.

I'm not saying that all white people should be killed, because I am white :/

I'm saying that the white people at my school should be killed.

Ah. I guess that's... like, less racist? I guess? Still pretty racist, but whatever, fuck it.

It's not racist if you're saying it about yourself.

Untrue. The Kapos, Samuel Jackson from Inglorious Bastards, that Jewish Nazi who offed himself, you can be racist against your own race.

If anything, it’s the worst kind of racism since you’re a traitor on top of being a racist.

No, because it isn't racist. You can't be racist towards yourself.

And again, you can. If you've seen Django Unchained you'd know that Samuel L Jackson was,

That's bullshit, you're required to off yourself too in these scenarios.

What's the name and phone number of your middle school btw? Just curious, noooo reason.

Not all white people at my school, only the white trash at my school...

Yes, because "Fucking kill all black people!" is bad, but "Fucking kill all the black scumbags at in my area!" is cool.

I have nothing to worry about, I'm blind.

If murder was legal... I'd probably steal the camper next door and drive to the nearest store and buy all it's bread out. Either society would crumble to the point it's Fallout minus the nukes, or the government will successfully kill almost every inhabitant, and with the remaining humans turn the land into a dystopia relatable to Big Brother. In either case, you will most likely die unless you at least have control over a major industrial section (Say, power plants, water filtration etc.), or enough fire power and allies to start a small army, to which you will likely be backstabbed.