How fast is fast enough?

[6933]

I consider myself, and wife, well prepared; from upcoming training to heirloom seeds to start crops, to family land way, way back in the mtns. The most distasteful thing I may have to do is kill someone trying to rob me or that even conducts themselves in a shady(sinister) manner in a SHTF situation. Someone that plans to steal/rob/plunder will eventually get taken out by the truly prepared. A plan to take what you need is not a plan, it's an eventual death sentence. I only say this so that everyone really thinks this plan through in a SHTF world. Cooperation and isolation are the way to go.

[mr.scott]

Small communities of around 100 people are what will be needed for long term survival, along with ample farm land.

If you are willing to kill someone for being "shady" you are no better than that person. In the end you are both just trying to survive. There are different methods to this just like there are different methods to everything in life. You may not approve of anothers methods but it does not mean they can not be just as effective or more so than yours.

[6933]

mr.scott-I put sinister behind shady to clarify my remark. If your criteria is effectiveness, you are correct. I feel I can be effective and moral. I do not consider robbery to be moral under any circumstances, therefore I will prepare so that I am not in that situation. If someone's morality is such that robbery is considered okay, then I simply say that that person will eventually be taken out by someone that does not consider it moral. In times of crisis, looting/robbery/brigandage is usually, eventually, punished with death.

[mr.scott]

mr.scott-I put sinister behind shady to clarify my remark. If your criteria is effectiveness, you are correct. I feel I can be effective and moral. I do not consider robbery to be moral under any circumstances, therefore I will prepare so that I am not in that situation. If someone's morality is such that robbery is considered okay, then I simply say that that person will eventually be taken out by someone that does not consider it moral. In times of crisis, looting/robbery/brigandage is usually, eventually, punished with death.

So it would be immoral for a man to steal food to feed his children? If he had no other option, IE SHTF he's a liberal. He stocked up on supplies and got robbed, now has no supplies but has a family/children to feed. Morally, he should do whatever it takes to keep his family alive.

(This is not directed at anyone)
Morals are a tricky thing. You really can't have them set in stone. Morally, killing is bad. but we put stipulations on it like, well if the person is going to do harm to me, or he's a convicted murder, he should get the death penalty.
Being ardently stringent to your morals only allows for you to be trapped in a conundrum at some point. Be the moral high man of the internet, or do what it takes to survive? You'll find when it comes time to survive, your natural instincts will overpower your morals every single time and you will do what is actionably necissary at the time to ensure your survival.

Forgive any typo's ect, I'm posting from my BB.

[6933]

mr.scott-I must respectfully disagree. For me morals do not change when situations change. Morals are set in stone; for me and many others. Robbing to feed your family is wrong. Would you be okay with someone robbing you to feed their family? I went through a terrible hurricane while living on St. Maarten and I was in NOLA for Katrina(wife in Residency). I had to make many decisions during these events and I made them according to my morals. This lead to me not being as comfortable as I could have been. Comfortable meaning many things here. Killing is not immoral. Murder is.

"It's all relative" does not apply to morals. For me, and for many others. However, I realize my morals apply only to me and not to you. We simply would conduct ourselves differently. In other words, we must agree to disagree. No problem. My point is that when considering long term survival, in the end, whatever society that exists, has taken a dim view of robbery and looting. This usually led to the perp. being shot. In the long run, robbery will actually reduce your chances of surviving because someone will most likely make you pay for it, eventually.

[mr.scott]

That's a load of horse stuff. So you say you'd let your family die before you took a piece of bread.
All you have to do is look at 3rd world sh!t holes to see that morals do not keep one alive.
And with that, I'm done with this thread and the morally superior types.

[6933]

It's a load of horse stuff to someone that can't understand what morals are and that doesn't live by them. I'm sure it was perplexing to you. I've been there, lived by them, and made it. So have millions of others. Crime was quite low during the great potato famines, almost non-existent in Appalachia during rough times, and in the siege of Leningrad, with many starving, crime-as in robbery to feed themselves-was almost unheard of.

So, no, it's not horse stuff. I say someone like you will be the first to go when you convince yourself your actions are okay, and someone dispatches you.

I also carried a nice tone during my post and you reply with horse stuff and storm off. Tells everyone all they need to know about you. You would probably be happier at TOS where someone will not question your logical fallacies.

[ZDL]

So it would be immoral for a man to steal food to feed his children? If he had no other option, IE SHTF he's a liberal. He stocked up on supplies and got robbed, now has no supplies but has a family/children to feed. Morally, he should do whatever it takes to keep his family alive.

(This is not directed at anyone)
Morals are a tricky thing. You really can't have them set in stone. Morally, killing is bad. but we put stipulations on it like, well if the person is going to do harm to me, or he's a convicted murder, he should get the death penalty.
Being ardently stringent to your morals only allows for you to be trapped in a conundrum at some point. Be the moral high man of the internet, or do what it takes to survive? You'll find when it comes time to survive, your natural instincts will overpower your morals every single time and you will do what is actionably necissary at the time to ensure your survival.

Forgive any typo's ect, I'm posting from my BB.

ehhhhh. Stop.

You are confusing morals and ethics.

It is unethical to purposely not prepare for a disaster and instead have the plan of stealing from and/or killing others.

You are espousing some ignorant and contradictory sentiments.

No man here is stating they wouldn't do what it took to survive and in a situation as described, it would be the lesser of 2 evils many times. To plan to steal or murder someone because you knowingly chose to no prepare is, immoral. Executing that plan would be, unethical.

What happens when you run across an M4C member and you attempt steal their shit? There are people out there far more bad ass than you. And when you meet these people and attempt to rob them, you will be only be a source of ammo for them when they are finished.

Also, I don't buy the "only a town of 100 people will survive" mantra. Between my land, family, and friends who have the coordinates - their skills, supplies, and equipment, we will do just fine.

I'm not looking to argue or even discuss these points. You are missing the boat here and I encourage you to take a look at that as a real possibility. Good luck.

[RFB]

Mr. Scott,

Killing someone to take what they have because you want it (regardless of your perceived "need"), is murder. You can rationalize it however you want; it does not excuse it.

Advocating murder is far from what the others on this board are suggesting.

I respect Philly and Beat. You Mr. Scott are out of line.

[PA PATRIOT]

I hate to say it but Mr.Scott reminds me of the Crack Heads I deal with on a daily basis on the streets of Philadelphia. He does as they do "Justify" evil acts to satisfy his own needs and the blatant lack of moral character both show in their words or conduct is what currently is destroying society as a whole. Mr.Scott will buy guns, ammo, magazines and support gear not to defend but to rob and pillage from those who may not be able to defend them selfs. My wife wonders why I train so hard and attend advanced tactics classes with the spare money I manage so save here and there. Mr.Scott is the reason.