No, I’m saying that if I needed to kill an innocent in order to also kill the person making the threat, I’d consider doing it.
OK. Then we don’t really have anything to talk about here. You and I, we have zero common ground.
That’s not what the OP is saying, either. Would you kill innocents to save the life of your child, period. There is nothing about also getting to kill a guilty party.
This thread had an OP?
What if by killing all these innocents, you set your children up for a lifetime of constantly defending themselves against avengers? Are you willing to ruin their lives to save their lives?
And why should anyone be sympathetic to you or your people when at any moment the whole world could be in your savage cross-hairs?
If other Israelis feel the same way you do, Alessan, I don’t see how we can possibly give Israel any moral highground over the Palestinians. I hate to say it, but your performance in this thread lends credence to the idea that nuking the hell out of all you fuckers is the best thing for everyone.
Yes, and it might have been helpful had you read it before posting, and then throwing in all that irrelevant stuff about what happens during war. In another thread, Scumpup had claimed he would strangle innocent children if it resulted in saving the life of his own child.
I’ll certain factor that consideration into my decision.
I don’t have a single, monolithic code of behaviour that provides simple solutions to all my quandries, as you seem to have. I don’t believe in moral absolutes, in saying “I would never do that” or “doing that is always wrong.” I wish I could, but life isn’t that simple.
Why would anyone do anything to me to put thrmselves in my crosshairs? Live and let live, friend.
Well, I still think we have a *bit * of moral high round, if only because we generally kill innocents as a last resort instead of our first. But putting that aside, what good is having the moral highground? How does having it help anyone, except maybe for PR purposes?
Now who’s advocating genocide?
So you’re not even going to *try *and defend the idea of killing in self defence? Just “no common ground” and that’s it? Is it because the idea is ultimately indefensible? I mean, I’m willing to defend my stance, and the reasons behind it. Aren’t you?
Is this an attempt at being ironic? 
I’m curious. Why is killing in self-defense indefensible?
Not every German was a nazi or a soldier or a particularly mean person. Not every soldier on either side was a particularly bad person. The upper echelon of Nazi germany? Sure, they were assholes, kill 'em all. But to justify killing every german (which i assume includes people of german descent that aren’t german citizens) is fucking nuts. Thats like trying to justify killing every white person on the planet because the KKK mistreated my ancestors and hung 'em from trees.
I don’t know, ask Alessan, he’s the one who’s not defending it.
I’m pretty sure the idea could be defended. I’m not going to be the guy to do it, though.
Heh, this whole thread, pro and con, reminds me of: False dilemma - Wikipedia
So you are willing to fight in self defense? Must mean you are genocidal, worse than Hitler. 
I don’t think the OP was about defending your child or family. In a situation like you’ve laid out, hell, I’d help you kill the jackass. In the thread that spawned this one I said pretty much that I wouldn’t sacrifice my own well being and survival for a strangers child, but I wouldn’t let a mad man stab an innocent kid.
It would have to be a crazy movie like scenario to put someone in the position of killing a stranger or letting their own child die. But even in that situation its an awful act, and hard to justify. the person you have to kill probably has friends, family maybe children too. How will they feel? They may decide to kill you and your kid for killing my loved one.
Not me.
It’s just your logic being bounced back to you.
He’s too busy being threatened with ethnic extermination by the pacifistic to explain. 
No, I advocated killing one group to save another. You advocate killing both groups because they offend your sensablilties.
Look up “strawman argument” on Wiki while you’re about it - I’ve not mentioned genocide.
Not a crack at you specifically, good sir, but rather at the thread as a whole - on both sides of the argument. 
It is in the nature of these hypotheticals to tend towards the extreme - as this thread makes abundantly clear - and to end in “you are with us or you are against us” types of polarizations.
In reality, people generally favour their own children over the unknown children of strangers, but rarely if ever are in a position where strangling other people’s children will “save” their own.
In our society “to save your child” is the excuse that justifies the absolute widest range of behavior. So the question that was really asked in the original OP was “Who would you kill if you had an ironclad excuse to do so?” I was surprised that there were so many people who would immediately say “Australia.” What the hell did they ever do to you?