Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation

[Windu Chi]

Clearly it's wrong because it puts the woman through harm and suffering, it's degrading. Imagine pouring hog fat on Muslim Islamists and what that would do to their sensitivities. It's the same thing.

 

I suppose actions taken some sixty years ago to stop a war would be classed as immoral, though then again the fact that we are still here, and not subject to being hunted down by execution squads because we do not fall under some updated view of imperfection, seems to suggest the alternative to violence was not that rosy.

 

In terms of not acting violently, have you heard of the Nigerian scam? Chances are people have try to sucker you into it, the long and short end is that you get a letter from Saddam's wife, for example, promising millions in lost treasure if you send a small donation of something like ten thousand dollars. A group of people, normal people who are not prone to violence like some questionably balenced ex Vietnam vets might be went over to Nigeria to investigate. They were killed. Which suggests to me that the choice between not acting violently and defending your own life or the lives or others is no choice at all.

 

Combine 'acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever' with 'Though Shalt Not Kill' and the ruling appears that you cannot even defend your own life. Now as it pretains to my morality or lack of it, I ask myself all the time whether or not supporting violence, Israel's right to exist for example or wiping out terrorist operations in Afghanistan, is the right thing to do. I haven't gotten an answer yet, haven't seen any sign of me being evil in that regard. So until I do get some type of answer I'm assuming that I don't need to change.

 

With no one being forced to use violence, here's a classic example. Thugs on the rampage, no one lifting a finger to stop them despite what they do. Any attempt to try and fix the peoblem has only made things worse, not only do the police not do anything there are severe reprocussions from the gang because they were called. Now being scarred off with violence or the threat of violence will fix the problem, but oh, that would be immoral. What about pride? What about being able to walk the streets safely? I'd rather be dead than live in a world where people like that are allowed to act however they want, and I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way.

 

Are you talking to me here, Nancy?

[Nancy Allen``]

Ray Jones actually, need to get back into the habit of quoting in my posts.

[Ray Jones]

I suppose actions taken some sixty years ago to stop a war would be classed as immoral, though then again the fact that we are still here, and not subject to being hunted down by execution squads because we do not fall under some updated view of imperfection, seems to suggest the alternative to violence was not that rosy.

Uh oh. HITLER CARD CODE DETECTED!!!

 

Quick everybody --- reboot!!

 

*reboots*

 

Phew. That was close.

 

Boohoo. The big bad Nazis. No, Nancy. (A) No country ever had the power to take on the whole world. Sooner or later the Nazis would have failed. (B) The clear alternative to violence would have been for Germans to not "support" Hitler in the first place. © The whole World War scenario was immoral, no need to discuss whether the intervention of the US was moral or not.

 

See this thread for further Nazi discussion ~tk

 

In terms of not acting violently, have you heard of the Nigerian scam? Chances are people have try to sucker you into it, the long and short end is that you get a letter from Saddam's wife, for example, promising millions in lost treasure if you send a small donation of something like ten thousand dollars. A group of people, normal people who are not prone to violence like some questionably balenced ex Vietnam vets might be went over to Nigeria to investigate. They were killed.

Huh? Egypt?

 

Which suggests to me that the choice between not acting violently and defending your own life or the lives or others is no choice at all.

Defending your life is not acting violently. It's defending your life. You can reject violent acts without acting violent yourself.

 

Combine 'acting violent is NEVER a moral way, NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. Ever' with 'Though Shalt Not Kill' and the ruling appears that you cannot even defend your own life.

I seem to be unable to read "you cannot defend your life" into the above quotes. Of course you can. But when you start to act violent, you're not defending anything anymore, you act violent.

 

Now as it pretains to my morality or lack of it, I ask myself all the time whether or not supporting violence, Israel's right to exist for example or wiping out terrorist operations in Afghanistan, is the right thing to do.

I think you mean if it's the moral thing to do. Sure. Stopping terrorism seems to be a good idea. Maybe using violence is one way to achieve that. It would be immoral though.

 

I haven't gotten an answer yet, haven't seen any sign of me being evil in that regard.

Evil? Immoral.

 

So until I do get some type of answer I'm assuming that I don't need to change.

What answer do you want? And why? And why do you want to change what?

 

With no one being forced to use violence, here's a classic example. Thugs on the rampage, no one lifting a finger to stop them despite what they do. Any attempt to try and fix the peoblem has only made things worse, not only do the police not do anything there are severe reprocussions from the gang because they were called. Now being scarred off with violence or the threat of violence will fix the problem, but oh, that would be immoral.

Yes it would. Ain't the real problem another one? I don't think the question is how to stop those thugs in action. It's "Why are they there?"

 

What about pride?

Yeah, what about pride? I mean. Yeah! Pride! I am proud because my four year old one can write like eight words, and she can count and add numbers.

 

 

What about being able to walk the streets safely?

Don't know about you but I like it. Where is the point?

 

I'd rather be dead than live in a world where people like that are allowed to act however they want, and I'm sure a lot of people would feel the same way.

These people are not allowed to act however they want, at least in my country. No need to kill yourself.

[Nancy Allen``]

Here's a couple of links explaining the Nigerian 419 scam.

 

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/25/la_record_producer_k.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078489/

http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/nigeria-fraud.html

 

Go back up and look at my example of what to do if you confront someone threatening a woman with a shotgun. Plead with them to please not to kill them, bang, she's dead, the thug turns and kills you. Even police, a life saving organisation, would use deadly force in this situation, the gun's up, a civillian's life is in imminent danger. And sure, it might be a strawman. And? What else? It happens to be true.

 

Again, someone has a gun on you, reasoning doesn't work, you can't run, and they want you dead. How are you going to save your moral hide?

 

I'm sure if the Taliban in Afghanistan would have just allowed America to just waltz in and shut down their terrorist camps, plans for another 9/11, ect then the situation could have been resolved without using violence. The murder, let's be clear here, murder of thousands of innocent people with promise of further attacks seems to suggest that wasn't going to happen.

 

Immoral then, I've recieved no answer to whether or not I'm immoral. What type of answer? Some sign, for there to be something that makes me think that such acts are wrong, God to speak to me if he exists, anything.

 

Why are they there? They might be there because they have been able to intimidate people enough that they have the run of things, that they can act how they like. Attack someone because they want to fight. Go into some store and take what they want because no one dares to stand up to them, or call the police, their violent acts to get them to this point had seen to that. And no this isn't a strawman, this happens.

 

The point is there are times when action must be taken to ensure the safety and protection of society. Sic vis pacem parabellum. It might be harsh to apply such a term to protecting your neighbourhoods, your cities, they don't call it a war on crime for nothing.

[tk102]

The Nazis nearly took over all of Europe and spread their influence to Africa, allying with the Japanese who attempted to conquer the Pacific rim they did a pretty good job of taking over the world until we started fighting bsck, plus there was things such as the Holocaust. I guess we should have ignored all that though.

 

I going to struggle to try to bring this back on topic.

So how do we measure the morality of an action? It is inversely proporational to the amount of distress, D, the particular act, x, causes...

m(x) = 1/D(x)

So for simplified purposes let's say we could either act or not act. So which was more moral? That is to say which would cause less distress (D). True, our actions involved violence (high distress) to the Nazis, but we believed m(action) > m(inaction) because inaction would have led to greater distress.

 

Now that's obviously oversimplified, but it illustrates a point I think you're missing Nancy Allen``. Just because violence is big negative of the morality scale, it doesn't mean that under certain circumstances, that a violent act couldn't be the most moral action available to a person. There just has to be no other alternative available that wouldn't end up causing more distress.

 

And that last part is critical. It often seems that people who choose violence are not trying to discern other alternatives for whatever reasons: they're too angry or paranoid, they're too impatient, they don't care about morality, whatever...

 

Do you understand that regardless of any argument or scenario that you propose, there is always an action that causes the least amount of distress to others? Whether you're able to figure out what action is and whether you decide to act accordingly is up to you.

[Ray Jones]

Here's a couple of links explaining the Nigerian 419 scam.

I don't see how this relates to the argument of using violence being immoral or not. Moreover, you're not going to suggest that using violence is a appropriate answer towards the initiators of the scam just because there are people who are obviously "naive" enough to fall for that. I mean, seriously, if someone on the street asks you for your bank account data would you tell? And if you would, would you be surprised if they took your money? And would you say you'd have a right to violently go after that person you voluntarily told your data?

 

Go back up and look at my example of what to do if you confront someone threatening a woman with a shotgun. Plead with them to please not to kill them, bang, she's dead, the thug turns and kills you. Even police, a life saving organisation, would use deadly force in this situation, the gun's up, a civillian's life is in imminent danger.

I'm not sure how many civilians got killed in "friendly fire" in an "imminent danger" situation. However, an alternative to deadly force would be man stopping force, wouldn't it?

 

Again, someone has a gun on you, reasoning doesn't work, you can't run, and they want you dead. How are you going to save your moral hide?

Hmm. I think I said it before like this: "yah mon get your butt out there asap but do me a favour this time try to keep the body count nice and low at zero bro kthxbye", but since you seem to insist I'll say it again. ..

 

Okay, there is a gun, I cannot run, the guy cannot be convinced to let me go and obviously wants to kill me.

 

Maybe you would decide otherwise, but if possible in any way I'd try to end that life threatening situation rather short termed. The most effective strategy (and almost every species we know uses it) for this is "tactical rearrangement" - in other words: get away as far and as quick as possible. Now, you say I cannot run, (obviously I'm not tied or something otherwise the question about what I'm going to do is futile) but want to. In order to be able to do a tactical rearrangement I'd have to create the opportunity to do so. Evolution has brought up many ways for doing this. Usually they all have the same goal: to irritate the enemy and perform a successful escape. And usually they don't kill the enemy, nor do they cause harm in a way that is inappropriate or overdone. In fact these acts don't even aim at doing harm or taking life.

 

So to give it to you in exact words for this hypothetical situation: what if I manage to get his gun with a sovereign Jackie Chan move. Where is the need to act violent?

 

I'm sure if the Taliban in Afghanistan would have just allowed America to just waltz in and shut down their terrorist camps, plans for another 9/11, ect then the situation could have been resolved without using violence. The murder, let's be clear here, murder of thousands of innocent people with promise of further attacks seems to suggest that wasn't going to happen.

Invading Afghanistan did not clear the situation any more than not invading would have done it.

 

Immoral then, I've recieved no answer to whether or not I'm immoral. What type of answer? Some sign, for there to be something that makes me think that such acts are wrong, God to speak to me if he exists, anything.

A sign that shows you that violent acts are wrong? How about 9/11? Or instead of an answer, maybe you should ask yourself if you want your country to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away. This is not called "defence" but "revenge".

 

I think you should not wait for someone else to give you a reason to change your mind. What reason could that be anyway? I mean, if you could think of a reason that would cause you to change your mind, wouldn't that alone be reason enough?

 

Why are they there? They might be there because they have been able to intimidate people enough that they have the run of things, that they can act how they like. Attack someone because they want to fight. Go into some store and take what they want because no one dares to stand up to them, or call the police, their violent acts to get them to this point had seen to that.

Wrong. They are there due to problems in society. They are there because they have nothing better to do. They are there because they don't know any better, and the are there because of bad role models. Most of all they are there because no one taught them otherwise. Maybe someone should?

 

The point is there are times when action must be taken to ensure the safety and protection of society.

Sure. But not violently. Ever thought about alternatives? Do you want a society where protect with heavy guns is necessary even at daytimes? With police shootings on the agenda? I surely don't.

[Nancy Allen``]

Do you understand that regardless of any argument or scenario that you propose, there is always an action that causes the least amount of distress to others? Whether you're able to figure out what action is and whether you decide to act accordingly is up to you.

 

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't try and act as morally as we possibly can. To say that we shouldn't have even gone to war against the Nazis however is well beyond the pale.

 

I don't see how this relates to the argument of using violence being immoral or not.

 

It's an explanation of what these people do, and the lengths they will go to. Being scammers as well as killers, that means that efforts against them should be with the preperation to use force, even lethal force, if necessary. Given that it doesn't bother them to kill the people they've scammed they arn't going to like cops arriving on their doorstep, it's safe to say they would act immorally, violently. So both to defend themselves and to apprehend the scammers police must be prepared to be immoral as well, to act violently, as violently as necessary whether that means stopping them from harming others, killing them so they can't kill someone else, whatever. Police are actually trained to kill if they need to kill, as a shot to the shoulder still makes an armed suspect a threat. That's why they use lethal hollow point rounds rather than full metal jacket.

 

So to give it to you in exact words for this hypothetical situation: what if I manage to get his gun with a sovereign Jackie Chan move. Where is the need to act violent?

 

According to how you view it that would in fact be acting immorally, violently. You're not punching the bejesus out of a polar bear so they slaughter goons, but what Jackie Chan does is still violent.

 

Invading Afghanistan did not clear the situation any more than not invading would have done it.

 

So explain to me the terrorist plans for further attacks that were discovered in the camps.

 

A sign that shows you that violent acts are wrong? How about 9/11? Or instead of an answer, maybe you should ask yourself if you want your country to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away. This is not called "defence" but "revenge".

 

If I was living in Afghanistan I would want the ruling Taliban taken out, no question, even if it is by the dumb **** Western infidels who do not follow Islam and therefore should be destroyed.

 

I think you should not wait for someone else to give you a reason to change your mind. What reason could that be anyway? I mean, if you could think of a reason that would cause you to change your mind, wouldn't that alone be reason enough?

 

That's just it, I see no reason for me to change my mind. September 11, Taliban terrorists threatening further attacks, the moral thing would be to stop them from happening. Given their willingness to murder thousands and to do so again, milk and cookies would fail. In fact it was turning away from what they did that allowed September 11 to happen.

 

Wrong. They are there due to problems in society. They are there because they have nothing better to do. They are there because they don't know any better, and the are there because of bad role models. Most of all they are there because no one taught them otherwise. Maybe someone should?

 

Society's to blame. Would the Jews also be responsible for Germany's economic hardship? Sure every effort should be made to teach right and wrong, unfortunetly some people are told this all their life and they just don't want to hear it. I can give you solid evidence if you need it.

 

Sure. But not violently. Ever thought about alternatives? Do you want a society where protect with heavy guns is necessary even at daytimes? With police shootings on the agenda? I surely don't.

 

That's exactly the situation society is trying to avoid, but that's the way things are going to turn out if people scream 'don't you dare lay a finger on them, it's immoral' and coddling those who choose to act violently just to get their ****ing rocks off.

[Ray Jones]

It's an explanation of what these people do, and the lengths they will go to. Being scammers as well as killers, that means that efforts against them should be with the preperation to use force, even lethal force, if necessary. Given that it doesn't bother them to kill the people they've scammed they arn't going to like cops arriving on their doorstep, it's safe to say they would act immorally, violently.

Nancy. That still doesn't give the cops the moral right to go in and kill them preemptively.

 

 

So both to defend themselves and to apprehend the scammers police must be prepared to be immoral as well, to act violently

To act violently or to defend themselves? Defending themselves is not immoral.

 

 

Police are actually trained to kill if they need to kill, as a shot to the shoulder still makes an armed suspect a threat.

Just because someone is a threat doesn't mean he must be killed.

 

 

According to how you view it that would in fact be acting immorally, violently. You're not punching the bejesus out of a polar bear so they slaughter goons, but what Jackie Chan does is still violent.

C'mon Nancy, it cannot be that hard. There are hundreds of tricks to get a weapon out of the opponents hands without beating him. I mean, I was talking about simply taking it away.

 

Would you please start using your head already?

 

 

So explain to me the terrorist plans for further attacks that were discovered in the camps.

Easy: someone must have put them there? See, whether or not Afghanistan had been invaded, these "plans" would have been there anyway. IF they where really there. I did not see them, or any proof, did you?

 

 

If I was living in Afghanistan I would want the ruling Taliban taken out, no question, even if it is by the dumb **** Western infidels who do not follow Islam and therefore should be destroyed.

No no. That was not the question. Because you don't live in Afghanistan. How do you want to know what you would want as Afghan? But you live in the US. So, again: Do you want your country (read: the USA) to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away?

 

 

That's just it, I see no reason for me to change my mind. September 11, Taliban terrorists threatening further attacks, the moral thing would be to stop them from happening.

Hey! That is CORRECT! The moral thing to do is: stop them.

 

 

Given their willingness to murder thousands and to do so again, milk and cookies would fail.

I'm not really sure how often the US have proven they are willing to murder thousands and to do so again, and yes, in their case milk and cookies DID FAIL oh so often too. And yet they wonder when others take opportunity to do as they do.

 

 

In fact it was turning away from what they did that allowed September 11 to happen.

Oh really? I thought it was over-self-confidence and lack in airport/flight security.

 

 

Would the Jews also be responsible for Germany's economic hardship?

Err. What? No. Gay marriage is to blame. Tsk.

 

 

Sure every effort should be made to teach right and wrong, unfortunetly some people are told this all their life and they just don't want to hear it.

Or, alternatively, they're teaching it wrong? Or giving wrong examples/role models? Like preaching freedom and peace while invading other countries and killing their innocent citizens.

[tk102]

Thread cleaned and re-opened. Please try to stay on topic. Re-read the thread title and the first post if you're not sure what the topic is.

[Nancy Allen``]

To act violently or to defend themselves? Defending themselves is not immoral.

 

Using what Jackie Chan does in his films as a method of self defence, I had a look at his films and noticed that Around the World in 80 Days has violence in it, Jackie Chan violence. So does The Medallion, Shanghai Knights, The Tuxedo, Shanghai Noon, Rush Hour, in fact most if not all of his movies have him doing things that are class as violent. So by defending yourself the way Jackie Chan would you are being immoral, violent.

 

Easy: someone must have put them there? See, whether or not Afghanistan had been invaded, these "plans" would have been there anyway. IF they where really there. I did not see them, or any proof, did you?

 

As a matter of fact I did, they were on the FBI web site for all to see, as well as the Al Qaeda training manual that may or may not still be there. They didn't include video games used as flight simulators as people thought but rather the hijackers went to flying schools for their training. So were their plans planted in Afghanistan? I realise this is off topic but how can that be? The Taliban based in Afghanistan were responsible for 9/11. There were videos of them taking credit for the attacks.

 

No no. That was not the question. Because you don't live in Afghanistan. How do you want to know what you would want as Afghan? But you live in the US. So, again: Do you want your country (read: the USA) to be invaded and innocent lives taken just because ONE group of internationally spread dumbnuts of which some, maybe also supported by your government, happen to live in your neighbourhood decided to kill some thousand innocent people somewhere far away?

 

Most of the hijackers may have been Saudis but it was their decision to join the terrorist network in Afghanistan and take on the mission, so the Taliban camps in Afghanistan were a more logical target than the country the hijackers came from. If America fell to the level of Taliban ruled Afghanistan, in other words if the people were made to suffer in a war torn country so no one could stand against them while they set out on terrorist attacks the world over, I'd be the same as the Northern Alliance, no question.

 

I'm not really sure how often the US have proven they are willing to murder thousands and to do so again, and yes, in their case milk and cookies DID FAIL oh so often too. And yet they wonder when others take opportunity to do as they do.

 

The diffirence is that America's targets have been people such as Saddam, Bin Laden, Aidid. They don't go "the village is the town of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated, they are unarmed". Terrorists however seem to revel in doing this, their targets being of no military or strategic value but intended for maximum loss of innocent life and promise further bloodshed.

 

Oh really? I thought it was over-self-confidence and lack in airport/flight security.

 

When the Beirut barracks were the target of terrorists America did the moral thing and looked away, they didn't use violence. The same with the Khober Towers, America looked away, the same with the USS Cole, America looked away. Each time they did it emboldened terrorists to the point where they thought they would get away with 9/11.

 

Or, alternatively, they're teaching it wrong? Or giving wrong examples/role models? Like preaching freedom and peace while invading other countries and killing their innocent citizens.

 

Can you prove America sets out to kill innocent people? Innocent people is at the forefront of our minds including the ones in the Twin Towers. In any case I'm thinking more along the lines of teaching in the school, in the home, about not harming others, about doing the right thing. Or not teaching children things like "Our Gods say America is evil empire. You kill as many as you can and go to Paradise".

[Ray Jones]

So by defending yourself the way Jackie Chan would you are being immoral, violent.

If you attack, yes, but if you're in defence, no. Also I was rather stressing the fact of simple disarming than doing it like Jackie.

 

As a matter of fact I did, they were on the FBI web site for all to see, as well as the Al Qaeda training manual that may or may not still be there. They didn't include video games used as flight simulators as people thought but rather the hijackers went to flying schools for their training. So were their plans planted in Afghanistan? I realise this is off topic but how can that be? The Taliban based in Afghanistan were responsible for 9/11. There were videos of them taking credit for the attacks.

This has nothing to do with further plans you were talking about here:

So explain to me the terrorist plans for further attacks that were discovered in the camps.

 

Terrorists however seem to revel in doing this, their targets being of no military or strategic value but intended for maximum loss of innocent life and promise further bloodshed.

This is the very nature of terrorism, hence the name.

 

Can you prove America sets out to kill innocent people?

When you bomb cities, you may not necessarily "set out" to kill innocent people, but you definitely must calculate the loss of many civilian lives.

[Nancy Allen``]

How would you take the gun off someone who wanted to kill you without violence? Regardless of the level of force you use it's still by definition violence, which is immoral.

 

Below are several links directly exposing the plans recovered from Afghanistan I neglected to mention, including plans to smuggle nuclear weapons to use on America.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#September_11.2C_2001_attacks_and_the_United_States_response

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45313

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003923.php

 

Every death is a tragedy in war, but again there's a vast diffirence between disarming butchers who use weapons on innocents and said butchers targeting those who cannot defend themselves.

[Ray Jones]

How would you take the gun off someone who wanted to kill you without violence? Regardless of the level of force you use it's still by definition violence, which is immoral.

You've obviously not seen many Jackie Chan/ Steven Seagal/ Jet Li/ Hau Zu/ Ruck Zuck movies then

However. The point was there are actually ways to take a weapon from someone without hitting him.

 

Below are several links directly exposing the plans recovered from Afghanistan I neglected to mention, including plans to smuggle nuclear weapons to use on America.

These links do not prove anything. They are not providing any evidence. Although I would not doubt the existence of any such plans in general, from whoever against whoever.

 

but again there's a vast diffirence between disarming butchers who use weapons on innocents and said butchers targeting those who cannot defend themselves.

"Butchers"? Like those "butchers" who drop a-bombs over cities? Or napalm over villages? Or those who carpet bomb populated areas?

[Nancy Allen``]

They prove that there were plans found in Afghanistan that indicated further terrorist attacks. Unless you'd like to claim they were planted.

 

Like those who hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Like those who use car bombs and suicide bombers to kill as many people as they can. Like those who support terrorism. We are finding better and better ways to do this, just look at Afghanistan.

[Tyrion]

You've obviously not seen many Jackie Chan/ Steven Seagal/ Jet Li/ Hau Zu/ Ruck Zuck movies then

However. The point was there are actually ways to take a weapon from someone without hitting him.

 

Of course, though, there's always the possibility of failure. What if, during the attempt, you don't disarm him? If you're unable to, then he's a bit more angry and cautious and still has his finger on the trigger. You could say that failure can also occur while using deadly weapons, but at the same time the chance for it is lower(doing a jackie-chan style move, despite how easy it looks in the movies, is probably quite a bit more difficult than aiming for the chest).

[Nancy Allen``]

And frankly, in those situations if you don't think "**** morality" and do whatever is necessary to stop the assailent or escape the chances of you dying are drastically increased.

[Ray Jones]

Of course, though, there's always the possibility of failure. What if, during the attempt, you don't disarm him? If you're unable to, then he's a bit more angry and cautious and still has his finger on the trigger. You could say that failure can also occur while using deadly weapons, but at the same time the chance for it is lower(doing a jackie-chan style move, despite how easy it looks in the movies, is probably quite a bit more difficult than aiming for the chest).

I know, but the scenario was that I was going to die anyway.

[Nancy Allen``]

You would rather die and be moral than save your life using violence and be immoral?

[Ray Jones]

Did I say that?

[Nancy Allen``]

Answer the question.

[Ray Jones]

No please?

[Nancy Allen``]

Then based on what you have said then I would say that you would rather be killed than be immoral.

[Ray Jones]

No please :/

 

Okay, means short version: no.

[Nancy Allen``]

No, you wouldn't rather be killed or no would won't answer the question?

[Ray Jones]

I did answer the question.