Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

[Slavedevice]

But, I don’t have any children. I am PRO Earth. It’s scientifically true that more than 1 or 2 kids will cause pain and suffering sometime in the future

[Ecurb]

But, I don’t have any children. I am PRO Earth. It’s scientifically true that more than 1 or 2 kids will cause pain and suffering sometime in the future

You are polluting and using resources that are destroying the planet! Off to the gas chambers with you!

[stevie]

Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

I reject "always" because "always" implies a non-contextual "intentional non-defensive killing" but context is all that counts when it comes to killing.
So we have the following possibilities:
intentional killing + defense
non-intentional killing + defense
non-intentional killing + non-defense
intentional killing + non-defense

Then we have the question "defense? what is it that is defended?" Physical integrity of one's body or physical integrity of other's bodies? One's own psychological integrity or the psychological integrity of others? One's own philosophical or moral values or the philosophical or moral values of others?

As a result I'd like to offer that 'non-intentional killing + non-defense' is an accident and 'intentional killing + non-defense' is a psychiatric perversion. But any killing in the context of defense is acceptable.

[LuckyR]

I think people who DO NOT believe in BIRTH CONTROL should be killed. The number one way to prevent catastrophic climate changes (which is and will cause suffering of innocent people) is to REDUCE the number of HUMANS!! If you clear your mind and see it this way - people (Catholic) that have many kids are enemies of the earth. If you think of earth as a sinking ship - the only fair way to save it is to throw out the ones contributing to the problem.

Forget Catholics (see above), you should be targeting Mormons and the fundamentalist Christians who don't believe in birth control. Naturally you must support abortion rights. Though the west has mostly a stable to negative birth rate. Some Asian and most African countries have the highest birth rates. Of course you must be a huge supporter of education of young women and girls since that has been responsible for the greatest drop in reproduction.

Of course most would use convincing folks to limit their family sizes over murder as their technique, but you seem to be wedded to the murder idea.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Then we have the question "defense? what is it that is defended?" Physical integrity of one's body or physical integrity of other's bodies? One's own psychological integrity or the psychological integrity of others? One's own philosophical or moral values or the philosophical or moral values of others?

The 18-paragraph Original Post (OP) contains a very thorough explanation of what I mean by defense and defensive. Are you sure you read the whole Original Post (OP), or were you just responding to the one-sentence title of it?

'intentional killing + non-defense' is a psychiatric perversion

Generally speaking, I agree.

I essentially made the same point as a crucial part of my argument in my 2008 topic, Does Society Need Prisons?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

To me the six can be boiled down to three: death penalty (state sponsored), revenge killing, and wartime targeting of civilians, the rest are murder,

All six categories are "murder", if we define "murder" as intentional non-consensual non-defensive killing, which I do.

If you define the word "murder" differently, then it is best we avoid the word all-together in this forum topic so as to avoid confusion and avoid accidental fallacies of equivocation.

In the first two you seem to see a bright line between punishment (acceptable) and punishment to the point of death (never acceptable).

I'm not sure what makes it seem that way, but I don't believe it is the case.