What do you do with Hugh in "I, Borg?"

[Captain Seafort]

Hugh was an enemy combattant. He displayed no signs whatsoever of having been assimilated against his will, or of disagreeing in any way with Borg political doctrine. Indeed, he displayed confusion at the concept of an individual. While he later changed his views, and expressed disaproval of the Borg, this does not change the fact that his return was an opportunity to strike a severe blow against the Federation's greatest enemy, in a discriminating manner, with a weapon that wouldn't even have directly effected the organic parts of the collective - the death of the Borg contracting the virus would have been due to the loss of their artificial components. I find it odd that you're complaining about Hugh's death, but not about the billions of other Borg, many of whom would have been assimilated against their will, who would also have died.

[Thorin]

Which definition I should ask first. As there is atleast one per person on earth and there have been many billions of people on earth. What is murder to a man who kills to save his family vs a man who is just looking for some quick cash? You "categorically state" is worthless when lives are on the line and you have the chance to save them.

The fact you think murder is the meaningless killing of another being is utterly wrong. I can't state how much more wrong you could be.
Murder is killing another individual without lawful cause.
Going by your definition, nearly every action film we've ever seen with a mafia drugs lord killing people to get their money isn't murder. It's not meaningless - the drug lord gets their money. So that means it's not murder?

The facts of the matter is, in the eyes of modern day law;
Hugh is an innocent being (not in control of his actions in the Borg)
Knowingly killing an innocent being is murder
Killing Hugh is murder

Everything else is conjecture and opinion, but those are undisputable facts by today's law, and is what would be official.

[Thorin]

I find it odd that you're complaining about Hugh's death, but not about the billions of other Borg, many of whom would have been assimilated against their will, who would also have died.

The Borg, as a whole, was a direct, immediate threat the Federation.
Hugh, as a whole, was no threat to anyone.
To use other modern day examples - killing a mentally ill person (who has no control of their actions), just before they're about to kill you is 'lawful' - it was self defence.

I have absolutely no dispute that it is a huge opportunity and could potentially cripple the borg. But setting a number on how many people can be murdered before something is considered wrong, is, to me, wrong.

[Sionnach Glic]

Of course there is no set number of murders it would take for something to become 'wrong', a lot of it depends on what the circumstances were.
In this instance killing this one man would be justified, but in other situations it would not.

[Thorin]

Of course there is no set number of murders it would take for something to become 'wrong', a lot of it depends on what the circumstances were.
In this instance killing this one man would be justified, but in other situations it would not.

Says who?

Would killing 10 sentient innocent beings be alright?
1000?
A million?
A trillion?

In all seriousness - answer each one of those questions and tell me your answer, whether you think killing that many are justified.

[Deepcrush]

Of course there is no set number of murders it would take for something to become 'wrong', a lot of it depends on what the circumstances were.
In this instance killing this one man would be justified, but in other situations it would not.

Says who?

Would killing 10 sentient innocent beings be alright?
1000?
A million?
A trillion?

In all seriousness - answer each one of those questions and tell me your answer, whether you think killing that many are justified.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes for good luck.

[Thorin]

So you'd be willing to wipe out yourself and the entire population of earth to save 10 alien planets? Right now?

It's also worthy to note that the act of choosing a victim means you are guilty of murder. For example, if everyone is going to die from oxygen deprivation in 10 minutes, and killing someone will allow you to live, if you choose someone to kill, you are guilty of murder. If they die naturally you're 'fine', though.

[Captain Seafort]

Says who?

Would killing 10 sentient innocent beings be alright?
1000?
A million?
A trillion?

It depends on the situation - I would say yes in all cases on the provisio that in each case the deaths were in order to prevent greater suffering. So in your last example, if the deaths of those trillion people saved the lives of quadrillions or quintillions then yes, they're justified.

[Thorin]

Says who?

Would killing 10 sentient innocent beings be alright?
1000?
A million?
A trillion?

It depends on the situation - I would say yes in all cases on the provisio that in each case the deaths were in order to prevent greater suffering. So in your last example, if the deaths of those trillion people saved the lives of quadrillions or quintillions then yes, they're justified.

The law disagrees - also answer my previous question; right now, look around you, in the real world, you're willing to sacrafice your life, your families life, and the entire population of earth, to save 10 billion alien life forms in another galaxy?

[Deepcrush]

Sometimes you show a mass of IQ and sometimes things just go right over your head. Sad, but anyways we're moving along. What country are you reading your crap in? I'd just like to know. When did meaningful or meaningless refer to drug money over saving lives or stopping an enemy from killing billions. I'm thinking you don't have a basic understanding what has allowed you to live the life you have and thus in return do not know what people do in order to give you that life.

The fact you think murder is the meaningless killing of another being is utterly wrong. I can't state how much more wrong you could be.
Murder is killing another individual without lawful cause.
Going by your definition, nearly every action film we've ever seen with a mafia drugs lord killing people to get their money isn't murder. It's not meaningless - the drug lord gets their money. So that means it's not murder?

What are you trying to say? That stopping the borg is wrong because it upsets your movie night?

I have absolutely no dispute that it is a huge opportunity and could potentially cripple the borg. But setting a number on how many people can be murdered before something is considered wrong, is, to me, wrong.

I like how you talk yourself up about law the bring out the "IS, TO ME, WRONG" statement. Good work by the way, don't ever get into law. If one innocent person dies to allow ten innocent people to live then yes, I have no problem to it. Would I be willing to die for such a cause, to save my family, to save ten families. The answer is yes. You speak so much about law but who's law are you talking about? Its not law in the US or Japan or Germany or Italy or Israel or Italy. Just to name a few. To kill a man trying to kill you can still be murder in all of those countries yet all above also allow for the deaths of innocent people if it serves a greater good. Maybe you should look up everything that your own government does to protect you and you might lose a little bit of that cartoon hero dream. The real world is a lot different. People die, lots of them, I work for people who send many of those people to their deaths, some even my family. They serve just like others knowing that there is a price to pay for the freedoms that we all get to enjoy.

Remember something very important kid. The law can change its mind and it doesn't care if it hurts your feelings or not. If you die so that ten can live you had better bet that its going to happen.
Do you disagree with bombing Germany in WWII? Or maybe Japan? How about the advance through France? Innocent people died then too. I guess you would rather have left the nazis in control.

[Thorin]

Sometimes you show a mass of IQ and sometimes things just go right over your head. Sad, but anyways we're moving along. What country are you reading your crap in? I'd just like to know. When did meaningful or meaningless refer to drug money over saving lives or stopping an enemy from killing billions. I'm thinking you don't have a basic understanding what has allowed you to live the life you have and thus in return do not know what people do in order to give you that life.

Rich.

What are you trying to say? That stopping the borg is wrong because it upsets your movie night?

What? I'm trying to say that what you said; 'Murder is the meaningless killing of another' is categorically wrong. Which it is.

I like how you talk yourself up about law the bring out the "IS, TO ME, WRONG" statement. Good work by the way, don't ever get into law. If one innocent person dies to allow ten innocent people to live then yes, I have no problem to it. Would I be willing to die for such a cause, to save my family, to save ten families. The answer is yes. You speak so much about law but who's law are you talking about? Its not law in the US or Japan or Germany or Italy or Israel or Italy. Just to name a few. To kill a man trying to kill you can still be murder in all of those countries yet all above also allow for the deaths of innocent people if it serves a greater good. Maybe you should look up everything that your own government does to protect you and you might lose a little bit of that cartoon hero dream. The real world is a lot different. People die, lots of them, I work for people who send many of those people to their deaths, some even my family. They serve just like others knowing that there is a price to pay for the freedoms that we all get to enjoy.

Your talking out of your ar$e, to be blunt. Read up on necessity, self-defence and murder. Then come back and have a proper discussion. It's law in everyone of those countries - the act of murdering someone to save 10 others is not lawful - if you believe this to be the case you're living in space.
If you think murdering one innocent being to save 10 others is okay - that's your perogative. But the law and myself disagrees. Don't give me more bull$hit about knowing what the law is - you clearly don't; as your paragraph above, and your definition of murder shows. The people you work with choose to risk death. These innocent people who you are murdering to save others are not.

Remember something very important kid. The law can change its mind and it doesn't care if it hurts your feelings or not. If you die so that ten can live you had better bet that its going to happen.
Do you disagree with bombing Germany in WWII? Or maybe Japan? How about the advance through France? Innocent people died then too. I guess you would rather have left the nazis in control.

Innocent people died in accidents. I disagree with certain elements, but not as a whole. If there was no intention to kill innocent people, I agree with it - very rarely was there an intention to kill innocent people. The guilty people in this case, include people who helped the Nazi war effort.

From now on I will not respond to anymore of your points - you're too ill educated to know what you're talking about and while I may be no better at this moment, resort to be the first to throw out insults. If you wish to continue, PM Seafort or Rochey who might be willing to translate your posts into something that has a point.

[Deepcrush]

Innocent people died in accidents. I disagree with certain elements, but not as a whole. If there was no intention to kill innocent people, I agree with it - very rarely was there an intention to kill innocent people. The guilty people in this case, include people who helped the Nazi war effort.

From now on I will not respond to anymore of your points - you're too ill educated to know what you're talking about and while I may be no better at this moment, resort to be the first to throw out insults. If you wish to continue, PM Seafort or Rochey who might be willing to translate your posts into something that has a point.

Aww, the poor boy wishes to run and hid, how cute.

Accidents? What accidents kid? We bombed those cities to kill as many people as possible! That was PLANED not a silly little accident. Between 9 and 11 million germans died little buddy, not all of the troops on a battlefield (In fact only a third were combatants though that number goes up and down by source). The law bends in all things, understand that and then you'll understand the world just a little better. The ill educated bit was a nice touch by the way. I liked it, almost an insult minus having any value just like your movie tag.

It seems to me you just don't understand how this works and or have forgotten the question as a whole.

It is murder but is it justified homicide? Yes, why? Because there are things out there more important then one persons life.

Does killing hugh serve the needs of the UFP? Yes, why? It removes a threat to billions if not trillions of lives.

Is it wrong to take one man's life to save others? Yes, why? Because it violates the basic rights of all living beings.

Do I care if one person dies to protect the lives of billions? (This is a personal question, not for everyone.) No, I don't care. Innocent people die everyday that the borg are aloud to exist. Killing off the borg will pay off in the end and like all wars sometimes your morals have to take a backseat to what is needed at the times.

If you can't maintain your disagreement with me then I have a question for you. Are you willing to watch everyone you love, everyone on earth, everyone in the whole of the AQ - as if it were real - die because you can't get over the letter of the law vs the meaning of the law? What is the law if everyone who believes in it die because someone isn't willing to bend to reality? Its a fair enough pair of questions that makes no insult, so I don't see why you can't answer it.

[Sionnach Glic]

Says who?

Says common sense. If killing one man can save quintillions, would you not say that it is justified? Sure, it's still murder, but that's not my point.

Would killing 10 sentient innocent beings be alright?
1000?
A million?
A trillion?

Yes to all. Why? Because the deaths of those people would save many times more people. The death of so many people is still a tradgedy, but in this case it's justified.

So you'd be willing to wipe out yourself and the entire population of earth to save 10 alien planets? Right now?

Me? No, not at all. Then again, if it came down to me sacraficing myself to save the world's population, I'd probably still leg it, so I'm not the best example.
If, however, some aliens came along and BDZ'd Earth, killing us all, to save ten of their planets each with an equivalent population to Earth, I'd say that's justified. I'd be pissed off at being killed, no doubt about it, but I'd still agree with what they did (after I got over being pissed off at them, that is).

It's also worthy to note that the act of choosing a victim means you are guilty of murder.

Of course it's murder. Just as war is murder. Just as killing someone in self defence is murder. It's sanctioned murder, but murder none the less.

[Deepcrush]

I think he just doesn't understand the difference between murder of need vs murder of want. Its a tough thing to understand, he may have as much trouble with the topic of murder as I do math.

I so hate math! So many years and I still just hate math! It never goes away!

[Thorin]

Says common sense. If killing one man can save quintillions, would you not say that it is justified? Sure, it's still murder, but that's not my point.

The fact it is murder is the point. It's justified to the extent, but no power in the universe gives you the right to choose to kill that particular man to save quintillions. To say it's 'justified' is an absolute.

Yes to all. Why? Because the deaths of those people would save many times more people. The death of so many people is still a tradgedy, but in this case it's justified.

What about murdering 10 innocent, nice human beings to save 11 innocent, nice human beings? Is that fully justified? To an extent - but then again, every action ever taken is justified to an 'extent'.
What about murdering 10 innocents to save another 10?

Me? No, not at all. Then again, if it came down to me sacraficing myself to save the world's population, I'd probably still leg it, so I'm not the best example.
If, however, some aliens came along and BDZ'd Earth, killing us all, to save ten of their planets each with an equivalent population to Earth, I'd say that's justified. I'd be pissed off at being killed, no doubt about it, but I'd still agree with what they did (after I got over being pissed off at them, that is).

Of course it's murder. Just as war is murder. Just as killing someone in self defence is murder. It's sanctioned murder, but murder none the less.

Killing someone in self defence isn't murder, because murder is only applicable to non lawful killing.
While everyone has their opinions, today's law agrees with Picard - the murdering of one innocent cannot justify the survival of millions.
Officially, by the law, Picard did the correct thing. Whether you disagree with the law or not is another matter, but officially, Picard was right.

And Deepcrush, whenever you say anything about anyone's intelligence in the future, it'll always remind me that you think murder is a meaningless killing