Comments | capeandcowl: 1616 - voice

plantpacifist in capeandcowl

1616 - voice - On train tickets

Nov 02, 2009 14:45

[The tone is serious, and somewhat distraught. There are sounds of traffic in the background.]

Maybe this was a bad idea. But I'd like to know.

There are some people who are completely nuts. I get that. But there are others that are different.

Why do they continue to kill?

† vash the stampede | humanoid typhoon

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

text | ENCRYPTED, user ID scrambled mobius_bound November 2 2009, 20:06:00 UTC

It depends on the motivations.

text | ENCRYPTED plantpacifist November 2 2009, 20:07:44 UTC

Depends?

text | ENCRYPTED, user ID scrambled mobius_bound November 2 2009, 20:10:39 UTC

Yes. On why.

Do they kill for power? For money? For revenge? For necessity?

text | ENCRYPTED plantpacifist November 2 2009, 20:18:50 UTC

Killing is avoidable in almost all situations. Why should anyone kill at all in the first place? And once they've got what they wanted, why should they continue?

How about revenge, then?

text | ENCRYPTED, user ID scrambled mobius_bound November 2 2009, 20:22:17 UTC

Some people do no understand what it is they want in order to be able to stop themselves once they have obtained it.

Your definition of death, and mine, may allow for variances you do not anticipate.

Revenge I do not understand as well. Neither do I understand guilt or jealousy which are other motivations.

text | ENCRYPTED plantpacifist November 2 2009, 20:36:30 UTC

How could my definition of death be different. Dead is dead. Once someone is dead, there's no coming back. Except in this place.

text | ENCRYPTED, user ID scrambled mobius_bound November 2 2009, 20:40:23 UTC

Killing is avoidable in almost all situations. Why should anyone kill at all in the first place?

If I encounter someone or something who is as intent towards destroying as I am intent towards protecting and they pose a risk to that which I protect, the death and destruction of one of us is the only conceivable outcome. Neither of us will stop until we have completely removed the threat the other poses to our mission, our purpose. This is not an issue of race or creed; this is the most base understanding of threat and efficiency.

I will kill to protect.

text | ENCRYPTED plantpacifist November 2 2009, 21:02:54 UTC

I killed to protect, once.

It may be foolish of me, it may be hypocritical. But if I can disable or disarm, if there's the slightest chance they'll accept their defeat, I can't kill them.

text | ENCRYPTED, user ID scrambled mobius_bound November 2 2009, 21:08:03 UTC

In the situations I have encountered, there is nothing that will allow for the admittance of defeat. There is no use in disarming when new weapons can be obtained; no use in disabling when damage can be repaired and that which is beyond repair can be replaced.

Back to all threads