I guess there may be some appeal to Lewk's fantasy-world where these women could have (in theory. Women, after all) shot and killed truly innocent men and then gotten away with it by claiming they were defending themselves against rape. Perhaps that would in some strange way be better than (maybe) letting them (occasionally) get away with getting an innocent man off of their campus (for a while). I guess
No, wait, that sounds insane. And dumb
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You've got just the same problem that Loki, Fuzzy, Enoch and anyone else has who has ever tried to make sense of Lewkowski's positions - you're looking for consistency and an underlying coherent world view in the ideas he expresses on this forum when there simply isn't any.
He just says stuff he thinks will "outrage liberals". Nothing more.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
The knowledge that you'll likely be invaded. If you've had things stolen from you multiple times it is quite likely you'll have the thief return when he sees something valuable inside your open garage.Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If someone tries to grab your wallet do you have the right to try to hold it? The thief gets violent... do you have the right o defend yourself? It escalates further and the thief tries to kill you, do you have the right to fight back with lethal force? Now given the fact that the first person who escalates the fight to lethal terms often wins (ie pulls a gun) wouldn't it make sense to allow the would be victim to immediately defend themselves against the thief with lethal force? Absolutely! Thus the castle doctrine. Something goes bump in the night on your property you get the right to defend yourself even if you aren't certain the vile scumbag is there to kill you.You don't have less right to your property than a thief does. However, the importance of your right to your property pales in comparison to the thief's right to his life, not to mention everyone's right to live in a society governed by law rather than by your sick fetishes and whims. You believe that thieves have no right to life; that they have, through their actions, forfeited the most basic--and, indeed, inalienable--right a human can have. You are obv kinda wrongthe murderer who shot that kid has obv forfeited the right to be free though.
The straw-man here is conflating two separate issues.
1. You have the right to defend yourself.
2. You don't have the right to defame someone's character and a college should definitely not abandon all common sense and automatically assume an accuser is telling the truth where there is no other evidence to substantiate the truth.
These ideas are not contrary. They aren't in any way working at cross purposes.
This is like the idea that someone is in favor of less government and some ass hat on a forum goes "LOLbetarian I guess you just want no laws because that is less government!"
If I have the knowledge that you'll probably say something stupid about getting "criminal scum" "off the streets" if I continue this conversation (and I do), which will cause me physical discomfort in the form of a mild headache, which would be the most reasonable method of self-defence?The knowledge that you'll likely be invaded. If you've had things stolen from you multiple times it is quite likely you'll have the thief return when he sees something valuable inside your open garage.
1) Not responding to your nonsense
2) Shooting you in the face
????
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
The problem is that you have no idea what 'self-defence' means in a kind of legal or moral framework, and refuse to accept any kind of limitation on the behavior of anyone who claims to be acting in self-defence, whether they provoked the initial confrontation, wildly over escalated or simply acted in "self-defence" long after the danger to themselves or their property is passed. You also refuse to acknowledge any kind of unintended consequences encouraging such behaviour might have where over-eager would-be self-defenders misinterpret a situation and kill or injure someone who had no violent or criminal intent whatsoever.The straw-man here is conflating two separate issues.
1. You have the right to defend yourself.
2. You don't have the right to defame someone's character and a college should definitely not abandon all common sense and automatically assume an accuser is telling the truth where there is no other evidence to substantiate the truth.
These ideas are not contrary. They aren't in any way working at cross purposes.
This is like the idea that someone is in favor of less government and some ass hat on a forum goes "LOLbetarian I guess you just want no laws because that is less government!"
This leads naturally to all kinds of internal contradictions in your supposed world-view which people like Enoch or Fuzzy seem to think they can get you to acknowledge if they can some how come up with the right way to frame their arguments. However, I'm merely trying to get them to understand that this is futile, because your entire M.O is to repeat the same tired nonsense over and over again, then vanish for the thread only to repeat the the same farcical performance again in another new thread a few weeks later and that you have no consistent worldview and that your sole purpose is to "outrage" people by posting about killing criminal scum or whatever, i.e you are nothing but a troll.
I've know you, or at least your online persona, for over a decade. I kind of think I know your bag of tricks by now.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
You don't have the right not to be discomforted an on-line discussion (or a real life discussion for that matter). You DO have the right not to have your property invaded. This is really not a hard concept. You have an inalienable right to the property you own. It is yours. It is not up for grabs and considering the % of time police actually catch thieves you absolutely cannot depend on the government to do it for you.
Not like that they haven't. It's not self-defense if you set-up the conflict and carried out any escalations in force. Premeditation is irreconcilable with self-defense. Being the person pushing events is irreconcilable with self-defense. There exists no doctrine (nor should such a doctrine exist) whereby you have universal license to kill, Lewk, no matter how circumscribed the context.
And in the one (not several) state that allows anything of the sort, that law is used for purposes like this
You don't. But you do have less right to your property than anyone does to their own lives. Your propery, Lewk, is nowhere near as important as you think it is.[In what world do you have LESS right to your property than the person stealing from it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I and like five other people have been over this with you at least 35 times. Do you think we'd just forget about them when you start a new thread? Discussing anything with you is a waste of time.You don't have the right not to be discomforted an on-line discussion (or a real life discussion for that matter). You DO have the right not to have your property invaded. This is really not a hard concept. You have an inalienable right to the property you own. It is yours. It is not up for grabs and considering the % of time police actually catch thieves you absolutely cannot depend on the government to do it for you.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
There is a consistency in his positions. It's also about protecting the people like him and slaking his bloodthirst through the people who aren't.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If your store has been robbed multiple times there is a high likelihood that it will be robbed again. Deciding to arm yourself so that you will be prepared next time you are robbed is absolutely premeditation and it is still self defense. Ditto for your own home. I really don't you get what it is like in certain parts of the community (I personally don't either) but in huge swathes of the country theft and armed robbery is a big deal.
Actually we do have the right to defend property and use force to do so. That is the law in Texas. Hell you can shoot people running away and the grand jury won't return an indictment. :0 (I posted this several years ago under the thread Texas Hero I believe).
It's weird, it's like you don't realise that there's a difference between you/your life and your property. Self-defense is when you defend yourself.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Is this supposed to be a clever example? The obvious alternative is to not try to hold on to the wallet, ie. to literally do wjwd.
You have the right to own property in general, and you have the right to have that right be safeguarded by eg. a police force and a criminal justice system. But, at the point where your right to any particular item collides with another person's right to 1. his life and 2. due process, or to everyone else's right to live in society where the rule of law reigns rather than the whim of man, one right will have to trump the other.
If you believe that some rights are truly inalienable then you have to be able to decide which inalienable rights are the most inalienable and absolute. Do you believe your right to keep the paltry contents of your wallet is more important than your own right to live? Would you rather die than give up your wallet? Unless you're completely insane you'd probably choose life over property. This isn't about rights being inalienable, it's about you believing that some people are in fact subhumans who have no rights, or have forfeited their rights due to some violation or other. In other words, you believe every single right you imagine you have and deserve trumps a suspected thief's right to life and to due process.
Incidentally, I believe that a man who takes the law into his own hands and murders a suspected thief has forfeited his own right to freedom. Glad he won't be able to vote ever again
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Lewk is consistent even though his worldview isn't internally consistent or honest or informed and well-reasoned or even decent. We can't change that, but I derive some small pleasure from the thought that, somewhere deep down inside, he actually feels some small discomfort at being embarrassed/shamed at every turn
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Let's at least be honest here. Your position is clearly that you have the right to kill people and then get away with it by claiming it was in self-defense. Your position is literally that you should be able to get away with murder without even being put on trial. You want a world where a person can get away with killing an innocent person by claiming self-defense. Ie. you think it would be good if we lived in a world where these women could get away with killing the innocent men they have allegedly framed, even though you object to them almost (but not really) getting away with getting these men expelled or whatever. That's not a straw-man, it's quite literally what your position is. You're trying to solve the obvious problems with that retarded view by saying "only guilty people will get killed hooray", just like you've tried to get around the obvious problems with your retarded religious views by telling yourself "it's okay to follow blindly without thinking because we're only told true things in the Bible". Obv that's kinda dumb, because, if you think about it, you may end up being right sometimes but you'll often end up being disastrously wrong.
Okay but just for the record you don't really want laws, it's clear that your views are antithetical to the rule of law.This is like the idea that someone is in favor of less government and some ass hat on a forum goes "LOLbetarian I guess you just want no laws because that is less government!"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
God Bless Texas.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42
1. If someone LIES about self-defense they aren't entitled to using it. IE if they absolutely lured someone into their home under false pretenses (ie come over for some beers) and then shoots them and lies about it than absolutely that shouldn't be legal. I get *proving* it happened may be difficult but under no circumstances am I condoning people falsely claiming the facts of the situation. Hell if this thread is any indication of my views you should see this! I think those who lie to the police should absolutely have jail time (ie if you falsely accuse someone of something).
2. I actually am in favor of laws that protect people from the criminals. Harsh sentencing for rapists thieves and arsonists is one of the few parts of the government I completely support. I want thieves to be scared shitless of being arrested by the police. I want thieves to be scared shitless of the citizenry who defend themselves against their parasitic attacks. And I do mean parasitic. Thieves are scum, they are parasites that attempt to transfer wealth from the law abiding to themselves. I frankly cannot imagine a punishment that I would ever deem too harsh for those animals. I want society to view them as the completely worthless pieces of garbage that they are. I believes in deterrence - in the end (outside the completely insane) people are motivated by consequences. Thieves (having no moral code) are unswayed by ethical considerations. The only way to prevent their pillaging is create consequences for their actions. Be it death or imprisonment. At the hands of their victims or at the hands of the state. When that happens you will see LESS crime (which may even save more lives than are lost!).
Robbers murder marine. http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/F...309376531.html
Robber murders pregnant woman. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1103070
Oh but hey let's worry about the robbers - lets worry about their 'rights.' When the police are minutes away you have seconds to act. Hell check out this story of a 14 year old boy whose father WAS KILLED BY A ROBBER!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...andmother.html
Good damned thing the boy was armed or he might have joined his father in death. Yup that's right robbery can be so prevalent that not only did his father die in one but six years later his house is also burglarized! And you 'ivory tower liberals' look down at people who defend themselves against intruders? Should the boy have waited to make sure the robber was actually going to kill him before shooting? Should if he asked "Oh do you want our stuff, please take it I'll just leave you alone but if you try to attack me I'll shoot you." Bull shit. he pulled the trigger and killed the pathetic waste of space. Is this a good news story? HELL YES! A kid and his grandma are safe and a completely worthless human being is dead.
What's "contrary" here is your attitude toward victims of crime. You place more value on things than one's body (as property goes). And you'll give the benefit-of-doubt to people who shoot and kill thieves, even though they're bypassing the legal system of adjudication....yet, you presume coeds who use the college "tribunal" system to address their assault/rape complaints are out to defame a guy's character because they're not set up like real courts. (Besides, there's a statute of limitations on assault and rape charges, so stop complaining that victims sometimes have a gap in reporting to the "real" police.)
What seems to be at "cross purposes" are your ideas about criminal justice, and who should use the official legal court system, or not. If you were criticizing the campus tribunal system -- instead of demonizing the victims who use it -- we could agree that's not a good way to address crime. But that's not what you're doing.
If we replaced the college scenario with a big corporation treating sexual assault or rape "in-house", which ultimately led to a firing and 'bad reputation' for one of its employees....I doubt you'd say it's because corporations are bastions of liberalism.
33And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. 35And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. 38And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Appealing to Lewk's "Christian" beliefs probably won't matter much, Enoch. You could quote from the Bible all day long, but there will always some religious interpretation that gets in the way.
What I find more interesting and challenging....is how we can make public education work better for more people....and how can we build a better judicial system.....and guys like Lewk wouldn't be calling either a bastion of liberalism as a slur.
Enoch are you in favor of a theocracy? Do you believe every Christian must be in favor of a theocracy?
I would rather live in a theocracy run by the Jesus Christ of the Bible than a democracy that was based on the policies advocated by Lewkowski of the TWF forums, yes. But then again, it is abundantly clear that you put your own morality before the morality as codified very clearly by your God. If Jesus Christ, the son of your God could find value in a thief, (the ones you baselessly claim have no moral code or worth) do you not think that your own judgment might be something less than righteous?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 06-25-2015 at 11:50 AM.
Well of course a theocracy run by God himself would be fantastic. Sadly we humans muck it up. Can you name a theocracy that has worked out well? The issue with combining secular and religious authority is that you attract non-religious people who pretend to be religious merely to gain power. Popes selling indulgences and the Spanish Inquisition are some great examples. You assume that simply because I am a Christian I believe morality has a place in law. I'm not in favor of morality laws such as laws against gambling, prostitution, drug use or the most important commandment of all. My stance on dealing with criminals is grounded in the common sense belief that deterrence works.
Uh, no, it's grounded in hatred, which I suspect is what Enoch was getting at
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No it's not. If it were, you'd be cheering these women and institutions whose work deters potential rapists. No one is going to commit rape if it's guaranteed to get them thrown out of school and their lives ruined, by your logic. But you don't support that, because then it might be middle and upper class white men being impacted and that's a demographic you actually care about.
Your attitude toward rape prevention on campus and toward fighting theft cannot be reconciled. You take such diametrically opposite stances because this is about you always believing the people who are exactly like you, to outward appearances, whether they are the alleged victims of a crime or its alleged perpetrators. They're the only people's testimony that you ever use to decide what the "truth" of any particular matter is.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Right, you are a Christian who believes they know better than God the heart of man, and believe your judgment to be more righteous than his. There is no room for grace, mercy, or justice tempered in your moral-less law, and that is why it appeals to you, not because you believe it protects an individuals freedom or liberty.
I'll ask you again if you think all Christians should be advocating for the destruction of all idols of false gods as part of legislation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. There are two possible choices.
1. Theocracy where biblical morality is made into law.
2. A secular government where biblical morality is not made into law.
Which one do you support? And do you really think that in order to be Christian you have to advocate for possibility #1?
Funny story here - it is you and the rest of the board hounding for blood of the people who choose to defend themselves. YOU are the one's demanding vengeance for the 'murder' of the criminal attacking a home. Where is your mercy now?
Amazing. I'm not sure how many other ways I can explain it.
1. You have the right to defend yourself.
2. You don't have the right to make false accusations.
Easy enough?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote