Would you negotiate with terrorists?

[FatAndFaithless]

Bolded mine.  Are you serious?  You're equating grief-stricken loved ones paying a ransom in an attempt to save a life with the kidnappers?

Read my post to "abaris." I didn't say it would be an easy thing to do, it would be heart wrenching. Where is the logic in paying when the result will be that the kidnappers are not going to leave witnesses behind, they've already threatened to kill them if they don't get the money so we would have to assume they would have no problem with killing them if it means they can't be identified. Self preservation is just as important to them as it is to you wanting to save a loved one. The money becomes useless if they can't spend it.

GC

My question to you is, based on what you literally just said, you think those paying a ransom aren't any different from the kidnappers?  You really believe that?  This isn't a question about how hard the decision would be, this is a question about how you view the people involved.

[Catholic_Lady]

With that being said, I'm not sure why GC in particular is getting so much crap. There are plenty of other people saying they too would not pay.

[FatAndFaithless]

With that being said, I'm not sure why GC in particular is getting so much crap. There are plenty of other people saying they too would not pay.

Saying you wouldn't pay is one thing.  Saying that those paying a ransom in an attempt to save their loved one's life are no different than the kidnappers is another thing entirely, CL.  You have to at least acknowledge that.

[Godscreated]

OK, so you would let them perish for sure instead of taking the one and only. Good to know for future reference. In case you feel like riding the high religious morality horse again.

The likelihood of getting them back is small, at somepoint we have to take a stand for the greater good of the community, if all acts are selfishness then society will fall apart. This has nothing to do with religious morality, I'm trying to say we need to consider the consequences of our actions for the sake of all people. When we give in to evil we just feed it and it will grow and the cycle becomes worse because it has grown.
I could state several things about Christian morality here but, that's not what the discussions about. Christian morality would only apply to Christians in this situation and the question was posed to everyone, for once I'm trying to keep this from becoming an argument between atheist and Christian beliefs.

GC

---

With that being said, I'm not sure why GC in particular is getting so much crap. There are plenty of other people saying they too would not pay.

It's because they believe I'm taking a Christian stance, when in reality my stance is a rational one for the good and betterment of our society. One that would hopefully deter this horrible situation from occurring to others. Thanks for the support.

GC

PS I've got to go the screen is bothering my eyes I'll be back later to address other posts.

[Athene]

Let me preface this by that stating that I am NOT the government. 

Right or wrong, I would probably negotiate/pay if one my children's lives was at stake. Ideals, odds, statistics: All pretty much meaningless shit when faced with the prospect of one of my sons languishing in a hole, suffering ghastly torment/torture.

Would that make me a bad person? Perhaps.

Would I care? No, not at the time.

[Jesster]

I don't know. It's not something I've put quite that much thought into. It's a big situation which I've never been near. I don't do well with hypotheticals I have no experience in.

[Divinity]

Then how are you any different from them, first you give them incentive to go and do the same thing to someone else then you would take matters into your own hands and treat them as you were treated. There are reasons for the rule of law. I will admit when I read the scenario my first thought was to take them out but, with some thought I realized that's not the right choice in this situation. The situation as presented leaves one with no control and at a great disadvantage.

GC

Because I'm not going after them fucking unprovoked.

Of course I'm going to pay to save one of my loved ones--but they better fucking hope I don't find out who they are because if they do, I'm going to destroy everything they hold dear.  What makes me different is that I'm not going after them for money.  I'm going after them because they did something to me--so they deserve whatever they fucking get.  I'm a vengeful motherfucker.  Deal with it.

[Jesster]

Because I'm not going after them fucking unprovoked.

Of course I'm going to pay to save one of my loved ones--but they better fucking hope I don't find out who they are because if they do, I'm going to destroy everything they hold dear.  What makes me different is that I'm not going after them for money.  I'm going after them because they did something to me--so they deserve whatever they fucking get.  I'm a vengeful motherfucker.  Deal with it.

[abaris]

With that being said, I'm not sure why GC in particular is getting so much crap. There are plenty of other people saying they too would not pay.

He gets crap from me since he's the one quoting me arguing for not attempting to save their loved ones.

[Catholic_Lady]

With that being said, I'm not sure why GC in particular is getting so much crap. There are plenty of other people saying they too would not pay.

Saying you wouldn't pay is one thing.  Saying that those paying a ransom in an attempt to save their loved one's life are no different than the kidnappers is another thing entirely, CL.  You have to at least acknowledge that.

I see what you are referring to, but I really don't think he meant that literally you are as bad of a person as the kidnappers/terrorists. It seemed like he was speaking in the context of it being as bad of a move, in general, because it enables the bad guys to keep doing this to other people.