oh for fucks sake, thats not what i meant and you know it.you're just being argumentative now. any means within the constrains of that situation. If that involves taking a life to avoid the loss of his own, then so be it.
(
PMGT -Bacon.,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 0:25,
archived)
people have been beaten to death by attackersusing only their bare hands before now, so dont try to be so /pedantic.
(
lo, the OTHER greebo warrior,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 0:39,
archived)
i thinkthe person who's defending themselves has more right to live. Providing the person was actually trying to kill them.
(
Lora,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 0:32,
archived)
no no no NO NO NO NO NOevery single person has the inalible right to life. you can't have more of a right to live than someone else.
(
bananaman,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 0:36,
archived)
everyonehas the right to life. But if a person tries to take someone else's life, then that person is quite justified to stop their attacker, if necessary by taking their life. In my opinion.
( Lora,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 0:38,
archived)
ah!but everybody has the right to life and the right to live! that`s the whole point - I`m never going to lock myself inside my house, with bars on the doors in case some wee cunt decides he likes the look of my telly
( Reckless_Rik,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 0:44,
archived)
Because.....?Has a life that will do nothing but deliberately degrade the quality most other lives that they come into contact with got any value?
Surely you throw the rotten apple out of the barrel of life in order to preserve others?
Or does that rotten apple have the right to destroy or otherwise lessen the quality of every apple that it comes into contact with? If it's very existence is a cancer on society, get rid of it.
(,
Mon 4 Aug 2003, 0:48,
archived)
Surely you throw the rotten apple out of the barrel of life in order to preserve others?
Or does that rotten apple have the right to destroy or otherwise lessen the quality of every apple that it comes into contact with? If it's very existence is a cancer on society, get rid of it.