1 liberal; 1 unarmed psycho; 1gun; Locked in room til the death; Would they shoot "unarmed" man?

[bucs90]

This Tarantino shit has me thinking. He's whining and said "Stop shooting unarmed people. Period." Ok. Fair enough. But would HE? Would any libs shoot an unarmed person?

What if Tarantino made a reality show. And libs were locked in a cage with 1 psychotic thug. And 1 gun is in the cage. The movie? They fight to the death. Sounds like some of Tarantinos "art".

So. Libs....or Tarantino himself......two questions:

1. Would you try to get that gun?
2. Would you shoot the unarmed man?

Remember....1 of the 2 of you is not living past this fight.


Libs....go ahead and avoid the question and make stupid comments. WE ALL know when it came down to surviving....every one of you rotten faggot would shoot an "unarmed man" if surviving was in question . Especially a pussy Hollywood lib who has never faced real stress or danger in his life.

 

[bucs90]

Libs will mock this. But these exact questions are asked on prestigious liberal colleges in philosophy classes. The old "would you kill 1 person to save 10 or let all 11 die but you kill no one".

So...let's see. I KNOW the answer. I just wanna see if they'll he honest.

 

[Indeependent]

The educated Progressives I know would never resort to violence even to save the life of an innocent person.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill or until the gun is empty, and you do not hesitate. No horror movie crap where you shoot once and wait to get killed. Does anyone in the world need to plan for such a thing? Nope, with the very rarest of exception.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The educated Progressives I know would never resort to violence even to save the life of an innocent person.

Depends on the level and type of violence.

 

[Indeependent]

The educated Progressives I know would never resort to violence even to save the life of an innocent person.

Depends on the level and type of violence.

They are "too principled" to resort to violence under any circumstances.
They are touting a false equivalency.

 

[bucs90]

If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill or until the gun is empty, and you do not hesitate. No horror movie crap where you shoot once and wait to get killed. Does anyone in the world need to plan for such a thing? Nope, with the very rarest of exception.

Well...yeah...cops and military members have to plan for it. They might be engaged in a fight with someone who they can't escape from...and may be in danger of the thug getting the gun; remember...1 gun...2 people. And may lose the hand to hand fight.

So again....libs....1 gun. You and 1 crazed psycho thug. You can't escape. Your stuck in a building. Or cage. Or...he has hands on you and tackling you.

Do you shoot the unarmed man?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Here's one for you, to see if you're truly rational.

You and your twins are captured. One is female, one is male, both are 11 years old. You are told that if you shoot one of them the other one and you will go free in two years, otherwise all three of you will die. You know how these people operate. The girl will raped, daily. The boy will be worked as a slave and likely die within a year. Knowing that, which one, if any, do you shoot?

 

[bucs90]

The educated Progressives I know would never resort to violence even to save the life of an innocent person.

Depends on the level and type of violence.

They are "too principled" to resort to violence under any circumstances.
They are touting a false equivalency.

Yep. They won't answer. Dodge time.

Every faggot liberal would fight like hell for that gun....then use it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The educated Progressives I know would never resort to violence even to save the life of an innocent person.

Depends on the level and type of violence.

They are "too principled" to resort to violence under any circumstances.
They are touting a false equivalency.

Violence should always be a last resort but unless you're a Christian, or a one of a few smaller faiths, it's an option.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill or until the gun is empty, and you do not hesitate. No horror movie crap where you shoot once and wait to get killed. Does anyone in the world need to plan for such a thing? Nope, with the very rarest of exception.

Well...yeah...cops and military members have to plan for it. They might be engaged in a fight with someone who they can't escape from...and may be in danger of the thug getting the gun; remember...1 gun...2 people. And may lose the hand to hand fight.

So again....libs....1 gun. You and 1 crazed psycho thug. You can't escape. Your stuck in a building. Or cage. Or...he has hands on you and tackling you.

Do you shoot the unarmed man?

If I have the gun and he is attacking, he was dead to me before he started. Guns are for killing, mainly people, it's why humans invented them.

 

[bucs90]

Here's one for you, to see if you're truly rational.

You and your twins are captured. One is female, one is male, both are 11 years old. You are told that if you shoot one of them the other one and you will go free in two years, otherwise all three of you will die. You know how these people operate. The girl will raped, daily. The boy will be worked as a slave and likely die within a year. Knowing that, which one, if any, do you shoot?

Ok. I'd shoot the boy. I'm bias towards females. We'd suffer two years of hell..and once out...I'd try to hunt them all down and kill them.


I answered. Now your turn. Would you want the gun and would you shoot an "unarmed man"?

 

[bucs90]

If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill or until the gun is empty, and you do not hesitate. No horror movie crap where you shoot once and wait to get killed. Does anyone in the world need to plan for such a thing? Nope, with the very rarest of exception.

Well...yeah...cops and military members have to plan for it. They might be engaged in a fight with someone who they can't escape from...and may be in danger of the thug getting the gun; remember...1 gun...2 people. And may lose the hand to hand fight.

So again....libs....1 gun. You and 1 crazed psycho thug. You can't escape. Your stuck in a building. Or cage. Or...he has hands on you and tackling you.

Do you shoot the unarmed man?

If I have the gun and he is attacking, he was dead to me before he started. Guns are for killing, mainly people, it's why humans invented them.

So you're ok with Darren Wilson?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Libs will mock this. But these exact questions are asked on prestigious liberal colleges in philosophy classes. The old "would you kill 1 person to save 10 or let all 11 die but you kill no one".

So...let's see. I KNOW the answer. I just wanna see if they'll he honest.

Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Here's one for you, to see if you're truly rational.

You and your twins are captured. One is female, one is male, both are 11 years old. You are told that if you shoot one of them the other one and you will go free in two years, otherwise all three of you will die. You know how these people operate. The girl will raped, daily. The boy will be worked as a slave and likely die within a year. Knowing that, which one, if any, do you shoot?

Ok. I'd shoot the boy.

That is the correct answer, and I already did.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill or until the gun is empty, and you do not hesitate. No horror movie crap where you shoot once and wait to get killed. Does anyone in the world need to plan for such a thing? Nope, with the very rarest of exception.

Well...yeah...cops and military members have to plan for it. They might be engaged in a fight with someone who they can't escape from...and may be in danger of the thug getting the gun; remember...1 gun...2 people. And may lose the hand to hand fight.

So again....libs....1 gun. You and 1 crazed psycho thug. You can't escape. Your stuck in a building. Or cage. Or...he has hands on you and tackling you.

Do you shoot the unarmed man?

If I have the gun and he is attacking, he was dead to me before he started. Guns are for killing, mainly people, it's why humans invented them.

So you're ok with Darren Wilson?

Nope, because he provoked an unnecessary confrontation, the equivalent of Fighting Words.

 

[Arianrhod]

What if Tarantino made a reality show.

Why would he?

 

[bucs90]

If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill or until the gun is empty, and you do not hesitate. No horror movie crap where you shoot once and wait to get killed. Does anyone in the world need to plan for such a thing? Nope, with the very rarest of exception.

Well...yeah...cops and military members have to plan for it. They might be engaged in a fight with someone who they can't escape from...and may be in danger of the thug getting the gun; remember...1 gun...2 people. And may lose the hand to hand fight.

So again....libs....1 gun. You and 1 crazed psycho thug. You can't escape. Your stuck in a building. Or cage. Or...he has hands on you and tackling you.

Do you shoot the unarmed man?

If I have the gun and he is attacking, he was dead to me before he started. Guns are for killing, mainly people, it's why humans invented them.

So you're ok with Darren Wilson?

Nope, because he provoked an unnecessary confrontation, the equivalent of Fight Words.

He enforced the law. You cannot be serious.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you have to shoot, you shoot to kill or until the gun is empty, and you do not hesitate. No horror movie crap where you shoot once and wait to get killed. Does anyone in the world need to plan for such a thing? Nope, with the very rarest of exception.

Well...yeah...cops and military members have to plan for it. They might be engaged in a fight with someone who they can't escape from...and may be in danger of the thug getting the gun; remember...1 gun...2 people. And may lose the hand to hand fight.

So again....libs....1 gun. You and 1 crazed psycho thug. You can't escape. Your stuck in a building. Or cage. Or...he has hands on you and tackling you.

Do you shoot the unarmed man?

If I have the gun and he is attacking, he was dead to me before he started. Guns are for killing, mainly people, it's why humans invented them.

So you're ok with Darren Wilson?

Nope, because he provoked an unnecessary confrontation, the equivalent of Fight Words.

He enforced the law. You cannot be serious.

I'm very serious. Even in that there is a time and a place. He forced a confrontation, and shouldn't have, like the bozos cops who killed the guy selling singles in NY. Time and a place.

 

[bucs90]

Well...yeah...cops and military members have to plan for it. They might be engaged in a fight with someone who they can't escape from...and may be in danger of the thug getting the gun; remember...1 gun...2 people. And may lose the hand to hand fight.

So again....libs....1 gun. You and 1 crazed psycho thug. You can't escape. Your stuck in a building. Or cage. Or...he has hands on you and tackling you.

Do you shoot the unarmed man?

If I have the gun and he is attacking, he was dead to me before he started. Guns are for killing, mainly people, it's why humans invented them.

So you're ok with Darren Wilson?

Nope, because he provoked an unnecessary confrontation, the equivalent of Fight Words.

He enforced the law. You cannot be serious.

I'm very serious. Even in that there is a time and a place. He forced a confrontation, and shouldn't have, like the bozos cops who killed the guy selling singles in NY. Time and a place.

That is the job of law enforcement. Someone commits a crime...they confront them. You call it an "unnecessary confrontation". Well...when then?

Do cops now say "Ok sir...we will come back later when you're cooperative" and just keep repeating as many times as necessary?


Anyway....getting off topic.

I noticed that as expected....liberals are avoiding this question.