Philosophical Vegan Forum

Terrorist? These so called "terrorist" aren't real ones. Terrorists aren't supposed to kill people. But in reality are only supposed hurt people as an intimidation factor. There's no difference in a man blowing up a building full of people and a man shooting out a mall and killing people. It seems as though whenever something blows up people are quick to say "terrorists!"

dan1073 wrote:Terrorist? These so called "terrorist" aren't real ones. Terrorists aren't supposed to kill people. But in reality are only supposed hurt people as an intimidation factor.

There's no fundamental difference. The moment you violate the law, and another person's civil liberties to frighten them into doing what you want, you're a terrorist whether you are killing people who don't do what you want to frighten the people who are still alive, or hurting/scaring people generally.

There's no difference in a man blowing up a building full of people and a man shooting out a mall and killing people. It seems as though whenever something blows up people are quick to say "terrorists!"

In both cases, it may or may not be terrorism.

If somebody does it just because they feel like it/ for fun or fame, then it's not terrorism- whether that is blowing up a building or shooting up a crowded place.

If somebody does it from the perspective of an ideology to terrify the general population into ceding to demands, then that's terrorism. It doesn't matter if it's as minor as threatening to do something to them, or killing them- the latter is just a more extreme version.

I'm actually against the crown here in this one I support the death penalty in extreme cases.Not for the reason of crime deterrent which it does not and only partly for the economic reason.Simply because there is no logical reason to keep them alive you can say so we can study them or try to cure them but if this person has no conscience no ability to even comprehend the pain of another.Then there is no logical reason why the state should let them live.Keeping them alive offers no benefit to society hes imprisons so personal freedoms are basically gone.Morally you could claim the taking of anyone's life is wrong but logically I would beg to differ for there is no point in his life or her life having them imprisoned there entire life gives no one in society any benefit thus there is no reason for it and since he or she isn't responsible enough to not interfered with others lives we cant even allow them standard freedoms.

Although I don't believe cold blooded murderers and torturers deserve to live, I oppose the death penalty for practical reasons. First of all, death penalty countries sometimes execute innocent people which is something that should never ever happen. Also, I think it send the wrong message to potential killers. Rather than deterring them from their crime, they might think that if the government has the right to kill than than so do I.

TheDarkendStar wrote:Morally you could claim the taking of anyone's life is wrong but logically I would beg to differ for there is no point in his life or her life having them imprisoned there entire life gives no one in society any benefit thus there is no reason for it and since he or she isn't responsible enough to not interfered with others lives we cant even allow them standard freedoms.

Since when do we base our morals on if someone benefits society? By that standard we should kill all handicapped people.

I am a proponent of the death penalty in a scenario where the subject is superhuman and will just break out of any prison. I would then recommend researching his body so we can develop a superhuman serum and I can become Captain Hollandia.

Come on, we need to be prepared for this stuff.