People shouldn't kill other people

But justifiable homicide tends to only be justifiable as a form of resisting homicide.

Arguably, no other forms of homicide are justifiable, and the law errs in this respect.

I agree with Allan; there are cases where homicide is justifiable. So gotta disagree

There certainly are cases where homicide is justifiable, but not in a world where people do not kill other people.

Plus, my comment stated that the only justifiable form of homicide is to prevent homicide, not that justifiable homicide does not exist.

Yup, the claim is what I was commenting on.

I voted according to my first comment, with later comments clarifying why my vote adheres to my first comment.

Any comments?

LOL! no comment

@Alkanshel, if you admit that there is a justifiable form of homicide, wouldn't your vote be for the wrong side? It seems kind of screwy that you say there is justifiable homicide but that people shouldn't kill other people. That, or we have greatly differing definitions of "justifiable."

My statement is that homicide is justifiable iff it is to prevent homicide.

However, since people shouldn't kill other people, justifiable homicide is a scenario that will never occur, because it presupposes that people will kill other people.

Which they shouldn't.

Touche.

Was this directed at me?

The claim does not say "Peopel should never kill people" it says "people shouldn't kill people" meaning the general case. yes, ther eare exceptions. there are exceptions to just about any claim one can make. Voting against a claim because htere are minority or edge cases makes hte site useless.

But aside from that, the concept of "should" allows conflicting motivations -- people shouldn't kill people, but they also shouldn't let other people threaten the safety of large numbers. sometimes these "shoulds" come into conflict, and a decision has to be made. it doesn't mean that one of them is invalid.

Das Boot: i think allan was poking fun at you, as without the accent mark over the e in "touché" it could be pronounced like "tush" which is slang for butt.

Hell, after all that damn ranting about a value judgement, what happened to value judgements?

There is something like one circumstance in which a person should kill another person, and perhaps two more that are vague gray areas that lean toward killing.

All other circumstances are overreactions or unnecessary.

Vynce's explanation clarified i.e. it is not nice to kill people. And if that is the correct explanation of the claim (and it must be cos it's Vynces claim), then I have to change my vote.

The claim never said people don't kill other people or that there are not cases where they could justify it. It just says people shouldn't kill other people which is a simple enough concept for me to accept is true.

and that's what's called an exception.

killing each other is the easiest and most efficient way to control global overpopulation. I think we should start with every couple that has more than two children.

Can we off the parents too? While we control the population we may as well orphan children so they get tough. I say we kill all but the two youngest members of each household. Maybe the youngest and the oldest should survive. I'm gonna have to think about this one for a while.

Actually allowing nature to take it's course requires even less effort than killing each other and the natural process is easily capable of controlling overpopulation issues. Parents need to be more involved in raising their kids not less. Orphaning children doesn't make them tough it makes them vulnerable. I appreciate the humor intended but murder and orphaned children happens all the time and doesn't seem to be producing any positive results.