Dwalin2010

No, I am not saying that it's wrong to defend yourself. Killing in self-defence is justified by any law and common sense I think. I wasn't questioning that at all.

Keeping the animal population under control? Just by killing a certain number, and you have no problem with pulling the trigger and taking a life? In this case, why does nobody keep under control the population of, let's say, mafia members? Why not go out shooting mafiosi, especially in small Sicilian towns where everybody knows who is a member of the mafia and who committed which crime, even if nobody talks to the police? This would be fare more useful than shooting animals to keep their population down, yet nobody does that. Killing a gangster is still murder, I understand, yet for example killing a kitten is surely more morally reprehensible, as I see it. Anyway, it's useless to talk about it if a person can pull the trigger on an animal and feel nothing (or even feel pleasure) as life leaves the living being's body. You either have moral scruples that prevent you from crossing the line or you don't. For example, my grandfather was a hunter once. He tried to kill a hare, but just wounded it. After seeing its agony and hearing its cries he had to kill it quickly to stop the suffering, but still does feel like a murderer and never did it again. In my opinion, if you don't feel shocked or "dirty" after having killed a living being that can express suffering while dying, then it's useless to discuss. Moral scruples are something that we either have or don't, I don't think they can be acquired through discussion. Although different people have different concept of moral scruples, some people would kill an animal but wouldn't (maybe) kill a human. Others could kill insects but couldn't kill animals like mammals and birds etc. I personally don't pretend to be completely "clean" and "innocent" in this. If I was, I would be a vegetarian or vegan. I tried, but failed, lost control after 2 years without meat and fish, so I am in no position to judge anyone. But this doesn't change the fact that some people are much worse than animals and some animals can show feeling and compassion. Killing a kitten or a puppy is worse than killing a gangster or a serial killer, imo.

I agree with Cykes-dono about animals, there aren't many people who condemn hunting, unfortunately. I understand if somebody hunts for survival, because they have nothing to eat, but I disagree completely with the statement by some people that the life of ANY human is more important than the life of ANY animal by default.

Ok, I understand then. I personally prefer to stay neutral on the issue, since the arguments about this are usually quite heated, but I get your point.

As somebody who doesn't live in the USA. I would like to ask the opinion of people who live there: independently from which candidate is considered a "better choice" or "lesser evil", independently from who we WANT to win, who is actually more likely to win at the moment? Clinton or Trump? Just being curious.

Sorry for the intrusion but, since you brought up the LGTB/homosexuality/heterosexuality/homophobia etc conflict, I would like to say that in 99% of the cases I have seen so far BOTH sides use the same methods and are equally belligerent and fanatlcally bent on destroying and humiliating each other. Homosexual people themselves (at least the ones who openly state to be homosexual in these discussions) usually argue in a polite and civil manner; while they defend their positions, they don’t push them down the others’ throats. At least so far I have never seen any of them doing so. The “supporters” of homosexuality who are themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, are usually very different. They often are equally rude, insulting, belligerent and completely unwilling to try to change the opposite side’s mind rather than just bashing their teeth, exactly like extremist homophobes are. I have no idea why, but they probably realize that, not being homosexual themselves, they will never be able to COMPLETELY identify themselves with them and their feelings, therefore they decide to “compensate” with belligerent attitude and insults. Maybe they think this will help the LGBT human rights cause better, but I must say that, If I were homosexual, I would honestly be ashamed of THAT kind of help, I would feel that such methods make us look bad. Just in the same way as I am ashamed of religious fanatics/extremists, in spite of being religious myself. What I mean, to put it briefly, is that I have yet to see a LGBT discussion which could really be called a “debate” and not a “banal fight” or “who is better at insulting others”. Both sides use the same shameful methods and attitude, and it usually seems it’s about the people’s ego rather than ideologies. In my opinion, there is no difference what cause is a person fighting for, if such methods are used (just the word “fighting” is already disturbing, since I think it’s pointless to fight without trying to solve a problem with diplomacy first). If somebody has no other way to prove their point than insults and belligerent behavior, does it really matter which side is this person on? The end doesn’t justify the means. If “homophobes” and “LGBT supporters” use the same methods, then they are the same from a moral point of view, even though they support different things. I am convinced that nobody can claim to have made a point it they do so with insults and without trying to be polite. Sorry for the digression, since it’s only indirectly related to the religion topic.

By the way, please don't misundestand my previous post: even though I said the park staff should be more resposible, that doesn't absolve the carelessness of the parents. I mean, with all respect and understanding of the tragedy, I agree they should have known better than to let the child loose in such a dangerous area.

My sincere condolences to the baby's family, but I think killing alligators (especially 4 of them, of whom at least 3 weren't responsible) is pointless. It's not like sentencing to death a human criminal who knows what he/she was doing before getting the punishment (doesn't mean that I support the death penalty though). The alligators are impossible to explain they shouldn't attack humans. Security measures should be taken, sure, but taking revenge against an animal will accomplish nothing, especially if there wasn't just these 4, but a huge quantity around there. I agree with Rezzy, the amusement park staff should have been more responsible in its appoach to the local situation, and why on earth leave a child alone without watching in an area known for the presence of alligators, and with signs there, even if they weren't very clear/specific? By the way, that reminds me of an article I once read where a thief chased by the police tried to swim across the lake and was killed by an alligator (he tried to swim across even though there was a warning sign). They killed the alligator afterwards, instead of just saying "oh, well...what happens, happens...". While in the case of the baby at the amusement park I understand the anger, but here the man was asking for it. If a policeman shot him after he wouldn't stop, they wouldn't have sentenced the policeman to death, would they?

What about Italy, how big is the chance in your opinion? I live in Milan, even though they prefer target capitals and Milan isn't one, but still it's an important city in in some sense is considered Italy's "economy" capital. I hate those scumbags, seriously, they are worse than the mafia.....After what happened, I am worried for my mother who uses the subway every day to go to work.....Haven't even gone to the cinema since the Paris attacks.

My late cat Kuzma'. Died about 2 years ago at the age of 20 : Still haven't taken another cat, miss him so much...

Sorry for being late, I am really sorry for your dog too...I know how it feels, last year my cat died and he was like a little brother to me. He was 20 years old, but I hoped he would last 25 or something like that. After all, the world record for cats' lifespan is 36 years.

Yes, with self-defense there is absolutely nothing wrong. If North Korea attacks, it would only make sense to push them back from South Korean territory.

I understand, but in my opinion it depends on whether your country is in the right or in the wrong in that case. If the country is in the wrong, I don't think it's right to fight for it. However, maybe this would be better to discuss in the earlier "Morality of war" thread, otherwise if will be considered off-topic maybe, since it's a more general subject than just Korea.

Well, if you talking about people trying to kill you... I just wasn't sure who exactly you implied as being an "enemy". Because the quote was "I have the right to kill the enemy" in reply to another posters quote that "American citizens feel they have the right to kill whoever thinks they don't have this right". I mean, self-defense when you kill whoever wants to kill you is one thing, but many people extend the concept of "having the right to kill for their country" to more than just self-defense.

It depends on what "right" are you talking about. If you are talking about the so-called "right of the strongest" like among animals, then sure thing. But if you are talking about moral rights, then it isn't even funny.

Well, you are right then. But I understandably wouldn't like a war to break out right now because my aunt is presently going to the part of South Korea right near the borderline. I wouldn't like to sacrifice somebody of my family for the greater political good. This is personal of course, but just to explain part of my point of view.

I see your point, but how come after Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao died, the repressions went down and the successors never reached the same level of bloodshed? Maybe North Korea is an exception since it became a sort of dynasty, but usually it's built on a cult of ONE personality, it's rare for them to be able to go on in the same manner for generations.

It depends on who would succeed Kim Jong Un. If it's another dictator of the same kind, then it would be bad of course. But if it was somebody moderate who could change the country by merging with South Korea for example, then a peaceful process would be better than a war, don't you think? If this is unlikely, than again, my mistake. But, to make a comparison, the discussion somehow reminds me of when the emperor Frederick II just "bought" Jerusalem from the Sultan, the Pope objected because the "liberation" of Jerusalem can't be considered as such without a war and severe and firm action.

But it's all the same family, isn't Jong Un the last one of them? Or do you think he has already prepared a successor who would be able to continue in the same way? If it's so, then my mistake, sorry.

Usually such dictatorships are based on ONE individual. Once Stalin died, the Soviet Union wasn't the same, it slowly became disgregating and becoming more moderate (compared to the 30s at least). So, if Kim Jong Un gets killed, maybe the regime crumbles upon it self with time, and South Korea could take over with time anyway. I don't think war would be the right solution just because it's a quicker method. The methods involving less deaths are always better. Maybe you are right there wouldn't be many deaths due to the state of the North Korean Army, but I absolutely disagree that IF there were many deaths, it would still be worth it. A brain-washed person can be recuperated, they don't deserve death, they are victims of the regime in a way.

That's weird, wishing for a war to happen. Do you realize we are not living in a computer game, but in real life where every innocent death is a tragedy? It's not like you would have a chance to kill Kim Jong Un anyway, he would probably weasel his way out as as most important scumbags do and even if not, is all the mess and rivers of civilian blood that would flow really worth it? Iraq today is even worse than under Saddam, it's a good example of what happens when war is used to solve a dictatorship problem. If you really have to kill Kim, let the CIA send an assassin after him or something.

Curiosity: are you only talking about ideals that have relevancy on the national and international political scene or personal ideals as well? Because sometimes ideals are attacked and victimized for no reason, even when they don't harm anyone. I for example have some personal ideals that I can't imagine being harmful in any way to anybody yet the quantity of people hating them is unbelievable. Sorry if I somehow misunderstood the original post; if it's meant to be an exclusively political/social topic, I apologize for the off-topic.

My sincere condolences. I have never been through such a situation, never seen dead people, not even strangers, much less close relatives, but I am so extremely sorry for what happened. Unfortunately I don't know how to help in such a horrible situation, but you have all my sympathy and support.

I have never been a fan of Stalin of course, but theoretically Hitler made more deaths I think, if we add to the Holocaust victims also everybody who died during the war attacks and the occupation on conquered territories (even if we don't count the soldiers but just the civilians). But why do you think Stalin is worse than Hitler? To me, making a choice in this case would be pretty hard. Anyway, I think the worst dictator in history was Pol Pot: only massacres and no improvement not even on a purely political level. I mean, Hitler and Stalin committed atrocities, but made their countries stronger (even though this does in absolutely no way justify what they did). Pol Pot, on the other hand, accomplished absolutely nothing other than making a big slaughterhouse. I think it's the same whether he kills compatriots or foreigners, it's an equally dangerous murderer.

I played only V and VIII, mostly because was searching for fantasy setting games that contained childhood friend romance stories, and the ones in these games were absolutely adorable in my opinion. By the way, does anybody else prefer the 1st ending to Dragon Quest VIII rather than the 2nd one? I mean, the first one is where