user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, assassination is always bad no matter what.
The ends never justify the means.
Voted : No, assasination is not always bad.
If only German plotters had better timing during World War II.
I really don't know, but Hitler for example, how many lives would have been saved? tricky question to answer.
^ and what skylab said, sorry we must have been typing at same time
Voted : Yes, assassination is always bad no matter what.
I don't think assassination is an option or a solution - assassinating Hitler wouldnt have necessarily stopped a major conflict in Europe - the culture, the society, the political systems all enabled someone like Hitler to rise to power - assassinating one man would probably just have cleared the way for a whole category of like-minded tyrants to take his place within the next year or decade - maybe not necessarily the same way, or with the same details, but close enough.
Voted : No, assasination is not always bad.
The act itself is bad. But I can see where in some cases it would be for the better of the people under the control of the person assasinated.
Though in many cases, when you rid the neighborhood of the top dog, there's always going to be one just as bad to take his place.
Voted : I'm mixed
This is a difficult question. In theory, yes, but in practical terms, it might sometimes be the only solution. The scenario I'm thinking of would be if a leader of a country is so horrendous and so cruel, that it's the fastest way to help alleviate the situation.
Voted : Yes, assassination is always bad no matter what.
What Goes around comes around...we can always argue it can be a good thing, like what if Saddam was assassinated, and how many lives might have been saved, (money too) but you have to understand you are opening a Pandora's box when you decide to use that method...established Countries with the means to get close to dignitaries could utilize that method on anyone in retaliation so it's better to arrest and charge people, even leaders if it is warranted, so while there may be "authorized Hits" it is not the way to go unless you don't mind living in an anarchaic world...anyone "deserving" of assassination should be "eligible" of legally being held accountable...
Voted : No, assasination is not always bad.
The world would be better off without certain people. I'll go simple math on this one: if offing someone causes less pain to fewer people than not doing it, they need a bullet in their head.
"The ends never justify the means." Anyone with half a mind can conjur up half a bajillion scenarios where that's just not true. Just because it's a popular cliche doesn't mean it is worth anything. That was not an insult, I'm just sayin.
The world would be better off without certain people. I'll go simple math on this one: if offing someone causes less pain to fewer people than not doing it, they need a bullet in their head.
"The ends never justify the means." Anyone with half a mind can conjur up half a bajillion scenarios where that's just not true. Just because it's a popular cliche doesn't mean it is worth anything. That was not an insult, I'm just sayin.
P.S.- Oops if I double posted.
Can't believe Bubs hasn't mentioned Boosh!
|
|
