More
8

Let's say it has to be the death of someone above the age of 30. They have to either volunteer or be a murderer. Since we're dealing with hypotheticals there is no way one could fake having a volunteer or murderer. Otherwise the ritual would not work.

The power received would be key knowledge that only the opposite side(s) have, given to those who perform the sacrifice.

There is no way of knowing what the information will be, only that it is very useful to them.

Would you be willing to use this weapon?

Let's say it has to be the death of someone above the age of 30. They have to either volunteer or be a murderer. Since we're dealing with hypotheticals there is no way one could fake having a volunteer or murderer. Otherwise the ritual would not work. The power received would be key knowledge that only the opposite side(s) have, given to those who perform the sacrifice. There is no way of knowing what the information will be, only that it is very useful to them. Would you be willing to use this weapon?

15 comments

[–] PMYA 4 points (+4|-0)

If it was a murderer, no. If it was a volunteer, yes.

I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but if someone is volunteering, then they are clearly involved in whatever it is these two opposing sides are doing, and are asking for it to happen.
[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)

For the sake of argument let's say the murderer is in fact a murderer. There is no doubt at all. They took someone's life against their will. This is a not a stand trial kind of thing where there could be doubt in the form of mishandled evidence or crafty lawyers.

[–] PMYA 2 points (+2|-0)

This is one of the main arguments against capital punishment, and I do agree with it, but it isn't the most important one to me.

I just think it is wrong to kill someone because they killed someone. There is also the context in which they did it. Even if we're saying that there is no doubt they killed someone, I think we would all have conditions under which we would sympathise with certain murders over other ones.
[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)

For me there is only murderer. If someone is abused they can leave. If they can't leave and they kill their capture it is self defense and therefore not murder.

[–] smallpond 2 points (+2|-0)

I like that the conflict and opposing sides are just assumed - it's like we're all warring over something serious enough to involve killing people.

Also, once someone kills a murderer, they become one. A clever leader would only need to find that first murderer.

PS: Yes. For the serious conflicts I think it's a no-brainer.

[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)

Haven't humans always been involved with something worth killing other humans over?

Also, if someone is a murderer they forgo their rights as they took another's without their consent.

[–] smallpond 2 points (+2|-0)

I think most of aren't really involved with anything that serious. Given your made up power we might get involved though.

So you're editing the rules to create two classes of murderer? The original and the secondhand?

[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

No, I clearly said there was no way of faking having a murderer. You seemed to need further explanation.

I think if someone kills another person in cold blood then they give up their rights just as they forced another to. Thsts why I included them as a sacrifice. The murderer holds no side other than their own yet they are still a life.

©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae