When is it morally acceptable to kill someone can you give me some examples Yas Forums?

When is it morally acceptable to kill someone can you give me some examples Yas Forums?

Attached: 1552705526182.jpg (2500x1564, 517.7K)

That's something for you to decide by yourself. Morals are subjective. Anything can be justified.

if a pedo touched a kid they deserve to die
rapists deserve to die

Self defense

Attached: 1564631993833.jpg (600x800, 99.2K)

When you get angry

Assault with friendly quads

When they are black, brown or have hooked nose and are in your country to invade or be subversive.

If you were placed in a room with a pedo and or a rapist and given a gun and you were exempt for murder you would carry out your duty?

if he deserved

When someone calls you a big silly doodoo head

This is acceptable.

Any intentional murder should be met with murder as a penalty. If you decide to end someone else's life, then society has a right to decide to end yours. It's only fair. The only exception would be if you intentionally kill somebody in self defense.

also fucking this

When anything happens anywhere at any time

When it would be very funny.

Attached: franklinsleepoverchainsaw.jpg (990x1200, 544.24K)

1. Self defence
2. People with major disabilities.
3. Poachers.
4. Terrorists.
5. Corrupt politicians/people in power.

now give me my 2k

I like you

Attached: poolepatrol~.png (620x845, 647.35K)

According to what morals? Be specific.

My own would be never. It's a waste of resources. Slave labour is better. Although it does mean there's incentive for a government to get as many criminals in its system as possible, I still find the waste of killing someone unacceptable.

I would say self defence, but killing in self defence is just an event by proxy. The intent is to defend yourself. Death might just be a side effect. It makes no practical difference to me if the attacker is incapacitated or killed. So yeah.

out of pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth

It's okay to kill brits, jews, chinks and indians imho

I don't know if people are gonna agree with me. But i think prisoners should be used as test subjects for medicine, weapons etc. I'm not talking about some petty crime. I'm talking about real mass murderers or rapists so we can take their useless life away in the name of science.

I never asked for shit. Hey, Captain "no u" is delaying fees for late rent DUE TO A GLOBAL PANDEMIC communism too? Do you feel justified now? Is this proof it'll work this time?

Anybody with a double digit IQ after the age of 18, anybody found guilty of three violent crimes over the course of their life, and the mentally handicapped.

IMuslims, Jews, and probably anyone who talks about sports enthusiastically like it's important.

Do you understand how IQ works?

When they are black or a mudslime.

morally acceptable to whom?

I know mine is above double digit.

That's possible, but doesn't really answer my question. If we enacted your principle, a bit less than half of every generation would be put to death, every generation, forever. Not sure we'd manage that as a species.

Would you prefer the sub-100 be used for all the heavy lifting?

>when they disobey an order from any government official
>when they fail to contribute to the country, either financially or through labor
>when they even suggest overthrowing the government
>when they commit a crime
>when they get too old
>when they get too sick to work
>when they refuse to follow the national religion
>when they breed more than is allowed

it is foolish. Even the dumb can be put to good use, such as murdering dissenters or serving as meat shields in war.

Nah, just saying IQ is iffy since it's based on an average. Meaning even if everyone in the population was a genius, half would be killed anyway. Like, imagine a test with 50 questions.

One generation, most people get 20 of the questions right. It would mean 100 IQ is a person who gets 20 questions right.

Next generation, the average person gets 40 of the questions right. 100 IQ would then be a person who gets 40 questions right. If my ancestors took the IQ tests that the average 100 IQ person does today, they'd score about 70. If we took an IQ test from their time, the average person would score 130. Are all people today geniuses, or were all people in the past retarded?

Neither. 100 IQ is just the most common IQ in any population. Meaning if we killed everyone with double digits, we'd always kill like 40% of the population, regardless of how smart it is.

During an active situation.
Guy in the process of butt-fucking a 12yo? Lethal force is not justified, but it can be excused.
Psycho bitch is trying to carve up a cat with a butcher knife? Probably won't be excused, but I'm on the cat's side. Same as above but she's got a kid instead of a cat? Oh yeah, totes justified homicide. You might spend one night in holding while they figure everything out.
Then you get the weird ones, the tragic ones. The medical ones.
Old woman begging for release, in pain 24/7, literally all treatment avenues are exhausted. A baby born braindead. These are reasonable but not justifiable in this country.
The big question is do you prefer internal or external morality? External has a lot of legalese and loopholes but is quite rigid in definition. Internal can never be completely defined but is much more pure and simple.

Attached: 1525213354711.jpg (960x640, 46.5K)

>they
We.

Attached: 1431809441309.jpg (125x93, 2.83K)

/thread

So it sounds like the population would get progressively smarter on average.

This is a smart person.

But I would add, anyone that puts pineapple on a pizza

When they vote Republican.

race traitors must die

did you just assume my societal role

It’s always open season on rapists

With glee. Not even trying to be edgy. My sister got raped a few years ago and I’ve thought a lot about finding him and taking out the trash.

Lol communist hate is such brainlet boomer dribble. The Cold War is over gramps. Get the fuck over it

Maybe. But humanity, when it comes to breeding, a K-strategists, not r-strategists, which means we simply wouldn't have the population numbers to keep it up for long. In the past, when we've had child mortality rates at 50%, the population wouldn't evolve anywhere. The main genetic trait being filtered was being able to survive child birth. If we started killing off half the population due to IQ tests, chances are good we'd become better at IQ-tests but not get more intelligent. Those researching intelligence are pretty much in agreement that IQ isn't a very good representation of intelligence. It measures some of it, but not enough to be useful. There's also constraints on brain size due to the limits of a birth canal. But that's outside of this conversation I think.

TL;DR: it might filter intelligence. But also might not.

what has changed? Communism is still the greatest threat to humanity on the planet. The cold war ended because our leaders decided ignoring the problem is easier than fixing it. We never should have withdrawn from vietnam, and we should have kept going until communism was eradicated. Do that and take full control of China and maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in right now.

wow, that's a hot AND stupid take. Congrats

solution: allow the government to control reproduction. Anyone found to have gotten pregnant outside of a government-approved laboratory will be put to death, along with their entire families. If we take humanity out of it, we can control it.

Lmao

That's called 'eugenics' and the 'progressives' of the 1930s thought it was a great idea too. This led to race wars.

you won't be laughing when the communists come for you. Your che guevara shirt won't protect you.

Holy shit you enthusiastically ate up the government propaganda. How does the boot taste annon?

When she tries to leaves you.

Attached: 1577196566654.png (653x645, 407.66K)

you'll be licking mine before long, faggot. Change is coming fast and I plan to be on the winning side.

The only ones who apply value to life are the ones who fear death. Kill all, annihilate fear. I'll start by killing myself, you start by killing a fly on the wall

/FUCKINGTHREAD

Why do you tards keeps responding to this cancer? God damn it.

Or at least sage-reply.

Hey dude, they're not coming. Everyone found out that corporate control is a way more effective way of gaining power because you don't need to rely on a dictator to do your bidding.

Hope your heart lasts long enough gramps!

i'd rather see 50 of threads like this than another trap or loli thread. At least discussion is happening.

if they're niggers, it's morally acceptable

why is Bill Murray there?

i'm 28

when they look at you funny

Attached: 1477170115711.gif (280x280, 242.17K)

I... I really hope you don't think that where America is now is "the winning side".

I like the way you think.

Attached: Ed209.jpg (1600x900, 144.29K)

With the level of sperging out you exhibit you probably have the heart of an 80 year old.

>In defense of yourself, your family
>Defending the populace against an authoritarian government attempting Nazi Germany / Soviet Russia / Communist China / Khmer Rouge Cambodia - style mass genocide

There's probably a few other examples where it would generally be reasonable, but those are the two that come to mind. I've only killed game animals while hunting & pray I never have to take another human's life. But defending yourself and your family from harm by lethal means is a pretty basic instinct.

yeah well i have the dick of a 5 year old so it all balances out