What is the stance on killing?

JamesSand wrote: I think it's been answered: There's no particularly strong official stance, although mention is made of the death penalty.

I "support" killing, for reasons more or less explained previously - if a peaceable agreement can't be reached (say "Your dog killed my chickens") then...well someone gotta go.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I fully believe that if someone wrongs you, you are within your rights to punch them in the face (or anywhere else, really)

How or if it escalates from there is up to the ineffable.

Violence and use of force is a part of life.

Murder-by-committee (sorry, "the death penalty") is absolutely insane.

What do you mean by wrong? Its a very nebulous term.

What do you mean by wrong? Its a very nebulous term.

as when I wrote "when someone wrongs you" ?

Well it would be nebulous wouldn't it? Some people consider not making eye contact when clinking glasses to be the height of insult - Whether or not it is pistols at dawn after that probably depends on local custom :laugh:


I don't have a bullet point list of "wrongs" for you, I'm afraid - my point (I think) is that violence is not inherently evil, and occasionally a perfectly servicable solution, say someone (or a business, because let's face it, they're mostly thieves) takes $20 from you. (In my country this is an orange coloured note, equivalent to 16L (4 gal) of petrol, or two Whopper Meals)

Some people would say the appropriate course is to spend weeks communicating, have annoying phone calls, send sternly worded emails, and if all else fails, take them to the civil tribunal (or whatever your local variant is)

I would say that an appropriate course of action for the theft of $20 is

A. a punch in the solar plexus for the thief
followed by
B. resistitution of the funds.



Of course, we have all these great systems to prevent people falsely claiming wrongs, and attempting to extort money on threat of violence - Evidently it's a slippery slope and the "laws" and whatever bodies enforce them start to miss the point entirely.




Edit: I have no idea of the historical accuracy, nor do I much think the precedence matters - I quite liked the notion as described in the TV Series Vikings after one man killed another -
He was permitted to pass by two houses in order to avoid reprisals from immediate family, but had to declare his act to the third house - Once declared (with his reasons, dispute over farm borders or something) the act of killing was not considered murder, but a fair end to an ongoing and unresolvable dispute.

Then I am going to have to disagree with you strongly. Attacking someone over a perceived slight is not only morally reprehensible but illegal for a reason. Violence initiated over nonviolence is always wrong. Now your example is one that could be iffy as it depends on how it was taken. If someone snatches it from you that is an act of aggression and possibly its ok to fight to get it back(even this is iffy). However, if it was taken from your room and you track them down and beat it from them it's unethical and illegal. Violence should only ever be used in direct response to a threat to your person or to attempt to end an immediate theft of your goods and in the later case it should be very restrained unless the other person amps it up.
I just do not understand how anyone can think its ok to attack someone over say mouthing off to you as this would constitute a wrong.

Attacking someone over a perceived slight is not only morally reprehensible but illegal for a reason.

Perceived slight, certainly.

I just do not understand how anyone can think its ok to attack someone over say mouthing off to you as this would constitute a wrong.

Me neither honestly - mouthing off is a time honoured tradition in my culture, and is to be met with louder, more expressive mouthing off.

Theft, on the other hand, is reprehensible and is to be met with aggression.

As I said, I don't have a list of "wrongs" and their matching responses, I just don't view violence as by it's own nature the height of depravity and sin.





Meandering off the point and really wearing out the life of my (potentially shoddy) example of theft:
It is 2017, most of my "assets" exist in a very intangible ethereal way as numbers in machines - Does that diminish my right to protect them physically, any less than a gold coin in my pocket?



Edit: For what it's worth, as per several other people in this thread, I support the wholesale destruction of various creatures insofar as they compete with me for food and space.

Spiders and Snakes I can get along with well enough, but rabbits that eat my crop or termites that eat my shed soon find themselves one with the force.

If some bloke broke into my property every night and pulled all the leaves off my crop, I imagine I'll treat him the same as I do the rabbits (I might need bigger traps though)

JamesSand wrote:

Attacking someone over a perceived slight is not only morally reprehensible but illegal for a reason.

Perceived slight, certainly.

I just do not understand how anyone can think its ok to attack someone over say mouthing off to you as this would constitute a wrong.

Me neither honestly - mouthing off is a time honoured tradition in my culture, and is to be met with louder, more expressive mouthing off.

Theft, on the other hand, is reprehensible and is to be met with aggression.

As I said, I don't have a list of "wrongs" and their matching responses, I just don't view violence as by it's own nature the height of depravity and sin.





Meandering off the point and really wearing out the life of my (potentially shoddy) example of theft:
It is 2017, most of my "assets" exist in a very intangible ethereal way as numbers in machines - Does that diminish my right to protect them physically, any less than a gold coin in my pocket?

Violence should be a tool of last resort when no other options is safe or viable. So while meeting a thief with aggression such as a warning to stop or resisting them grabbing your item by holding onto it are all fine and dandy its not ok to track down a guy who took your dvd and beat the tar out of him to get it back. That is a job for the courts and police to handle. We pay them to do this job for a reason. When no imminent threat to our life or direct line of sight to the theft of our goods it is too easy to make a mistake of fact and target the wrong person or to go overboard in our efforts. Which is why we should leave it to third parties whose job it is to settle such things.

One thing I have learned is Violence can master , very few master it. We would do wise to understand this

When no imminent threat to our life or direct line of sight to the theft of our goods it is too easy to make a mistake of fact and target the wrong person or to go overboard in our efforts

It absolutely is easy to mistake facts - and if you do make a mistake, you are liable for said mistake.

If Avalonslight steals my $20, and I go punch MadHatter - then I am at the mercy of Madhatter, as now I am in the wrong.
or if I kill Ava, I am probably in the wrong again (depending on how much value we're putting on $20 these days)

Let's pretend I am a moral and virtuous man - I will face the penalty for my error (Madhatter, in this instance, does not support violence, so I get off scot free, or at worst with someone saying "I'm not mad, just disappointed" )

Which is why we should leave it to third parties whose job it is to settle such things.

Palming off my responsibilities to third parties is close to the opposite of what I strive to achieve, as a Jedi or anything else you like.

JamesSand wrote:

When no imminent threat to our life or direct line of sight to the theft of our goods it is too easy to make a mistake of fact and target the wrong person or to go overboard in our efforts

It absolutely is easy to mistake facts - and if you do make a mistake, you are liable for said mistake.

If Avalonslight steals my $20, and I go punch MadHatter - then I am at the mercy of Madhatter, as now I am in the wrong.
or if I kill Ava, I am probably in the wrong again (depending on how much value we're putting on $20 these days)

Let's pretend I am a moral and virtuous man - I will face the penalty for my error (Madhatter, in this instance, does not support violence, so I get off scot free, or at worst with someone saying "I'm not mad, just disappointed" )

Which is why we should leave it to third parties whose job it is to settle such things.

Palming off my responsibilities to third parties is close to the opposite of what I strive to achieve, as a Jedi or anything else you like.

Does that change that you hurt an innocent person? Does it change the damages to them? So how does owning up to it do any real good or change anything? Further, I will say I am not against violence, so in no way would someone put hands on me scot-free. I am against violence when you are not under direct threat or to a lesser degree in response to line of sight theft of your goods.
How is turning the matter over to people who are far more likely to be objective, who have the resources and duties to investigate the matter in ways you cant, and who will not act without good proof and even then have yet another party to act as the decider of the punishment to ensure even further impartial behavior not something a Jedi would do? How is letting the justice system do its job not a Jedi goal?

How is letting the justice system do its job not a Jedi goal?

You must have a better experience with bureaucracy than me


Conversationally - An impartial body of intelligent and and resourceful people established to maintain good order of things sounds great.

Let me know if you see one.

Does that change that you hurt an innocent person? Does it change the damages to them?

Not really, no.
Does having a Judge put Ava in gaol help the harm to me? maybe I'll be scared to go out in public again, for fear of losing $20, (or of leaving my house, in the case the $20 was purloined in my absence)


The world is a nasty place, fortunately we are not in it for too long - It is certainly not the Government's job to ensure you live that time free from hurt or damages.

(Maybe that's what Jediism is for? :side: )


We all carry responsibility - both for the acts we do to others, and how we recover from the acts done to us.


There should be a bunch of reasons why Ava doesn't steal $20.

Fear of violence, or fear of the courts should certainly be the last two that occur - Perhaps we can at least agree on that,

Whether or not involving "higher powers" is an escalation after interpersonal communication and violence fails, or if violence comes after the higher powers fail can remain as a sticking point in our philosophies

JamesSand wrote:

How is letting the justice system do its job not a Jedi goal?

You must have a better experience with bureaucracy than me


Conversationally - An impartial body of intelligent and and resourceful people established to maintain good order of things sounds great.

Let me know if you see one.

Does that change that you hurt an innocent person? Does it change the damages to them?

Not really, no.
Does having a Judge put Ava in gaol help the harm to me? maybe I'll be scared to go out in public again, for fear of losing $20, (or of leaving my house, in the case the $20 was purloined in my absence)


The world is a nasty place, fortunately we are not in it for too long - It is certainly not the Government's job to ensure you live that time free from hurt or damages.

(Maybe that's what Jediism is for? :side: )


We all carry responsibility - both for the acts we do to others, and how we recover from the acts done to us.

You would get your 20 dollars back, you can get money for pain and suffering to get you therapy for that fear, etc etc so yes you can be made whole again by the courts much easier than by vigilante action and third parties trained to investigate such matters are far less likely than me or you to make a mistake that hurts an innocent person.