[Maz_AE_kial] I would not define my core beliefs which have been deduced and critically thought over my entire life, frequently questioned until I discovered an answer, and all while equally taking time to understand and find the wisdom in other beliefs even if I don't agree with their core values as "bias". I'm willing to say I may be wrong on some thing or another, but I have personally found no proof to make it clear that I'm wrong at this point. And to chime in on "Unity" citing religion as the bane of progress and a source of violence and hate, I'd like to address that most of the people who declared the aforementioned "Holy Wars" that pertain to my beliefs at least were either misguided by false interpretations or didn't even bother to understand the source material of the "beliefs" they claimed to uphold. Fantastic examples of idiots pretending to know what they're doing, missing or making up an entire point and giving the whole belief a bad name, which irks me to no end. It's morons like them that caused things to spiral out of control on Earth and various colonies. Of course that's another matter entirely that would warrant a completely different discussion which I'm sure most people in this galaxy would not give two craps about.
Not enough information, but from what you said the armed individual is defending himself. I do not see how it is immoral to show that he has a loaded gun to apparently provoke the knife wielder to attack. If anything, it should discourage him. Not that it matters, fifteen feet apart and the knife wielder has a pretty damn good chance. The Tueller drill has determined that a knife wielding attacker from 21 feet can close the distance between themselves and their target within 1.5 seconds. Of course, with the weapon being unholstered already this may end differently. Spoiler
-Jodora- I have an odd feeling this scenario was made to provoke. It's very vague, and we can't have a true answer without expressing opinions.. ..What if this whole thread has been misleading?
Well then, that was fun. Yes, it was a set up, designed to see if you'd ask for more or just solve the simple problem. Either way, was fun times. -Captain
The real answer is this. The man with the gun is "good". Not because he is or isn't, but because he is the one left alive to tell their side of the story. He can paint whatever picture of himself he wants for anyone after that point. Dead men, as they say, tell no tales. Intentions are lost in history and perception is a bitch.
-Lyra All of this made up just for fun... some people are just hatchlings. No wonder why he got a bounty placed on him. And just to vent out, Crosswell made best point. It's what life shows when you look enough at it, in the end what matters is surviving the storms, not avoiding or creating them.
This wasn't made for my fun but as a test, I just had fun looking at the answers of those who understood said test. Again, the morality of the masses that come on here to Starnet is very widespread. You say you agree with Crosswell, that survival is key. We'll tell that to someone who would sacrifice his or her life to protect his or her children. In that situation would it be best for the husband or wife to adhere to that standard of survival? Maybe for some, maybe not for others, that's the point. And what's all this about bounties? I quit the bounty-hunting-gunslinger-mercenary gig awhile ago you know. -Captain
Maybe someone ought to try and stop the tornado instead of riding along with its path of destruction, what do you call the one who stands in its way for the safety of those in its path? A fool or a hero? -Captain PS: I dislike this tornado analogy, what kind of person would stand in front of a tornado? That's obviously not what I meant but... Why could the analogy be going with the current of a river of something? Then at least I could make a logical statement about swimming against the current, not standing in front of a tornado.
[As Sai] The man with the gun is just as immoral as the man with the knife. They are equally immoral in this situation. Now, the man with the gun, if he didn't deceive, but instead prevented death from happening by using the threat that he had ammo, then the man with the gun would be less immoral than the man with the knife. People take for granted how important life is, and how easy it is lost. You can be the 'winner', the 'victor', the person who tells their side of the story, if you take that shot, or make that charge. But you took somebody's life and that is an inescapable fact. That being said... people would probably benefit from martial arts classes on how to defend against knife wielders and gun toters. I'm considering starting up classes and offering personal training. Feel free to PM me if you're interested.
