The thread that goes against everything we want... *4 Reports* Simon

[Sherab]

Originally Posted by arcora

Hypothetically - If the Native Americans had won and wiped out the white man, would the world be better off today?

Now we're getting back into karma. Karma isn't about absolutes of right and wrong. It is about positive effect and negative effect.

It is the responsibility of the good to fight evil.

No, because that hypothetical "victory" would have been no different from the actual "victory" we have today: it would have been based on murder. So then are you implying that it is not okay to kill to preserve a culture? I think I would agree with you in that regard.

And on a microcosmic scale, isn't one human shooting another human in order to survive the same thing? You still end up with the same result: murder. And the same karmic consequences. So is it okay to arm ourselves with the intention of harming another before they harm us?

[TranceAm]

Why do you write this wrong?

"You still end up with the same result: murder. And the same karmic consequences. So is it okay to arm ourselves with the intention of harming another before they harm us?"

when it should be without the "pre-emptive" 'before':

"So is it okay to arm ourselves with the intention of avoiding to being harmed by another when they try to harm us?"

Cause and result are in a sequence.

Without a potential murderer, there can't be a victim.
And a victim doesn't become a murderer, without the attempt of the murderer to victimize him.

[arcora]

Originally Posted by Sherab

And on a microcosmic scale, isn't one human shooting another human in order to survive the same thing? You still end up with the same result: murder. And the same karmic consequences. So is it okay to arm ourselves with the intention of harming another before they harm us?

Would you kill one to save your family?

Your neighbors?

1,000 people?

10,000 people?

Would you have killed Adolph Hitler to save 6 million Jews?

[arcora]

Originally Posted by TranceAm

"So is it okay to arm ourselves with the intention of avoiding to being harmed by another when they try to harm us?"

Without a potential murderer, there can't be a victim.
And a victim doesn't become a murderer, without the attempt of the murderer to victimize him.

Well said.

I don't think anyone here is advocating Project Avalon train roving death squads to acquire needs.

Protection (defense) is another matter entirely.

[Sherab]

Originally Posted by arcora

Would you kill one to save your family?

Your neighbors?

1,000 people?

10,000 people?

Would you have killed Adolph Hitler to save 6 million Jews?

Let me first say that the questions I previously asked were not rhetorical, and I don't think they have cut and dry answers.

And I don't think it's possible to answer your questions by saying either yes or no as an absolute response.

What if someone did kill your family, then was so full of remorse that he went on to save thousands of lives in some other manner?

What if I did kill Hitler and one of his top generals took over and was able to turn the tide of the war in Germany's favor? We might all be speaking German and not even know what a Jew is.

My point is, how can you know? If pressed, I would fall back on my previous position that killing for the sake of your own selfish preservation is wrong. The only way to transcend killing with selfish motives is to wake up to what you are.

But then the question becomes (I think maybe we can send this one to another thread) If you did wake up, would you kill anyone to save anyone else? And that you could only know in the moment it arose. So I have successfully debated myself in a circle.

[Lythocrist]

I posted in the "Weapon of choice" thread and made it very specific that in my opinion, you should look at any sort of weapon as rather a tool. A tool to defend yourself against inevitable situations of people trying to KILL you to save themselves. (Of course these things only happen if everything really becomes chaos.)

All the gun happy people in times of chaos will learn that bullets don't make themselves, and are pretty useless without said ammo.

and if there was chaos and or Marshall law...Gunshots would draw attention like nothing else. Bow and arrow, cross bow, spear, noose trap, pit trap, the list is virtually endless with alternatives to guns for hunting or even self defense.

TOOLS save lives... WEAPONS..take them.

Peace&Love

[Carol]

Originally Posted by Lance

I'm confused by the notion of guns=bad. I live in rural British Columbia and to be honest, I've been tracked by a cougar (later shot) walking with my then 5 year old. I've been in several 'conflicts' with black bears, hunted by a grizzly and pestered by a kermode. What in god's snot should I do to avoid having a gun...move to Vancouver? I shoot a 50 LB recurve bow which is almost enough weight to hunt (legally you only need to shoot a 40LB bow) with, but really...using a bow in a bear rush situation doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I DO NOT own a gun!
But I am about to get my 'PAL' and buy a 22 long barrel, a shotgun of some sort, and a hunting rifle. I was kind of hoping someone here might be able to assist me in what to buy. But the knee-jerk reactions to the gun thread got it closed...Next autumn I plan on hunting elk and deer to supplement my families diet.

I can really relate to your post Lance. Having lived in a rural area where a mountain lion was killing sheep in their pen next to our bedroom and having an infant, I wanted a gun for protection.

We do not own a gun yet are thinking of purchasing a shot gun because of all of the wild pigs getting to our other animals.

Guns have their purpose. Hopefully one would not ever have to use a gun to kill another person. For myself, I would not want to ever be in that type of situation because of the karma factor and because each time we kill we lose a little bit of ourselves. Yet we currently live in a violent world. In my heart is another world I seek. This is the world where a gun is unknown and where we see each other as brothers and sisters. It is a radiant zone.

[arcora]

I am not trying to persuade anyone to abandon their own value system.

What works for one, may not work for others. If you believe it unconscionable to kill for any reason whatsoever - that is your perogative and I wish you the best of luck.

Am I not allowed the same consideration?

I have thought about various scenarios and my likely responses.

If I have food and someone is hungry - I will invite them to sit down and eat with us.

If they insist on taking all of the food that will keep my family fed - I will ask them to leave.

If they threaten me or my family for said food (and have the means to carry out the threat) I will shoot them dead.