Any surprise this happens at bastions of liberalism?

[Aimless]

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?

You seem to acquired a bizarre belief that this is some sort of loophole that gets you off the hook. It's not about whether or not Enoch would prefer a theocracy. It's about whether or not you should have the attitude you seem to have towards criminals and suspected criminals and people who got shot who may or may not have been criminals. Ie. an attitude characterised by hatred, bloodthirst and utterly merciless viciousness.

In this thread, as well as in others, you have told us two separate things. One is that you believe in extremely harsh punishments for made-up reasons x, y, z with no regard for consistency, practicality etc. The other is that you basically get boners at the thought of suspected thieves getting raped to death without a trial.

The former may make you a spectacular hypocrite, but it's possible Jesus doesn't GAF. The latter is in direct conflict with the faith to which you claim to adhere. Obviously you're not even a moderately good Christian, and I can't help but wonder if you actually tell yourself that you are.

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?

Who said anything about blood? Unlike you, we don't think it's a good thing to rape people who break the law. I'd personally be satisfied with seeing people who actually break the law--or take it into their own hands--go to jail. I don't want to kill a person who, in the defense of his life or the lives of his loved ones, ends up killing a criminal. I just want to jail the person who sets a trap in his garage and ends up catching and killing a kid on the hunt for booze. I want to jail the guy who jumps a black kid and then shoots that kid when he fights back. I want to jail the cops who kill people for "running away" or kill people who aren't posing a threat at the time. Oh wow such bloodthirst

[Aimless]

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?

No numbskull. In practice you have the right to claim self-defense. In your ideal world you have the right to get away with killing a person by claiming self-defense without even being investigated. When you kill the only other witness, you also end up, in practice, having the right to make false accusations.

[LittleFuzzy]

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?

Every single person whose death you've cheered is potentially a victim of false accusations. They were killed before anyone got to hear them say a single word in their defense. That's one of the fundamental problems with your "civil freedom to execute." You have no basis beyond the killer's bare word and even when courts don't find that word to be particularly defensible, you still insist the killer(s) were in the right. Because they said they were.

[Lewkowski]

No numbskull. In practice you have the right to claim self-defense. In your ideal world you have the right to get away with killing a person by claiming self-defense without even being investigated. When you kill the only other witness, you also end up, in practice, having the right to make false accusations.

I have no problems with investigating people claiming to be acting in the defense of their property and life. Anytime someone dies by violence an investigation should take place. Satisfied?

[Lewkowski]

Every single person whose death you've cheered is potentially a victim of false accusations. They were killed before anyone got to hear them say a single word in their defense. That's one of the fundamental problems with your "civil freedom to execute." You have no basis beyond the killer's bare word and even when courts don't find that word to be particularly defensible, you still insist the killer(s) were in the right. Because they said they were.

"Potential" but highly unlikely on the stories I've posted. So unlikely in fact that no one is even making the claim in any of the stories I've shared! The one I can recall where there was some doubt (the guy lured his neighbor over when they were bickering for years) I did not post.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's no less likely than any of these women you're attacking. You have nothing to base your rejection of their claims on other than that the person they're accusing has denied them (one of the fundamental problems with rape cases, they're so often a matter of he said/she said). You use the most ephemeral of excuses in either case to justify your position. All you're really doing is finding pretexts to reach conclusions which suit your biases.

[Enoch the Red]

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?

I think it perfectly acceptable for Christians to advocate for a system of law that reflects basic core tenants of their beliefs. Beliefs like the sanctity of life, the importance of mercy and forgiveness, and repetence that does not require a blood sacrifice. That you can not imagine a system of laws that provide this without instituting a theocracy speaks to your incredibly limited imagination, not the impossibility of the task. Thankfully our founding fathers had no such trouble.

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?

Hounding for blood? Attacking a home? Was there a weapon involved that I was not aware of? Substantial damages that were not presented by the defense? Do you typically protect your home, and your loved ones by purposefully leaving the garage door and placing your valuables in plain sight? Are you really unable to see the difference between someone protecting their family from a legitimate intruder with malicious intent and someone itching to kill? As a gun owner I can tell you that those who carry that burden of responsibility seriously will do everything in their power to prevent a dangerous situation from occuring before it starts. It is why I lock my doors every night, keep valuables hidden, and stay out of places that are known for trouble. It is not waiting at my back door with a shotgun waiting for someone to pick up the hundred dollar bill I left in my yard so I can murder them.

[Lewkowski]

Enoch if the past has taught us one thing it is that the mixing of secular and religious authority is dangerous. Morality based laws cause all sorts of problems. Now you suggest the key tenants should be focused. Tell me than should we focus our efforts on the greatest commandment or the one that came after? If you say "Adultery should be illegal" why wouldn't you say "Worshiping other gods should be illegal?"

In regards to the garage situation, keep in mind he had already had his property stolen from him on several occasions, the police were of no help. What was he supposed to do? Move away? Nah the law abiding citizens shouldn't be fleeing the criminals should be. People are always so short sighted on things like this. Every criminal that dies helps create a deterrent effect that leads to fewer criminals and less people dying as a whole. That is why we should be celebrating the criminal's death, just like we would be celebrating the death of an evil dictator - the benefits outweigh the costs.

[Enoch the Red]

Enoch if the past has taught us one thing it is that the mixing of secular and religious authority is dangerous. Morality based laws cause all sorts of problems. Now you suggest the key tenants should be focused. Tell me than should we focus our efforts on the greatest commandment or the one that came after? If you say "Adultery should be illegal" why wouldn't you say "Worshiping other gods should be illegal?"

On what foundation are you building your laws Lewk? How are you even determining that theft is wrong. Why is murder wrong? If you want only look to nature, there are few such natural laws. The powerful prey on the weak. If not nature then what? Western civilization? Roman laws? Greek laws? The The Code of Hammurabi? Philosophers or kings? Secular philosophy or can we include philosophers that have been influenced by religion? If secular philosophy is the only acceptable basis for law, are you then saying that there is no secular philosophy that can conclude that theft is not deserving of a death penalty? I think we are going about this backwards. The foundation of our legal system and the social contract we share as a society are pretty widely studied and understood. What is the reasoning behind and benefit of your thirst for blood? Deterrence? If petty theft is deserving of death in order to deter criminals, why shouldn't speeding be punishable by death? Why not summarily execute jaywalkers? What about marijuana possession? Why should every offense not be a capital one in your mind?

In regards to the garage situation, keep in mind he had already had his property stolen from him on several occasions, the police were of no help. What was he supposed to do? Move away? Nah the law abiding citizens shouldn't be fleeing the criminals should be. People are always so short sighted on things like this. Every criminal that dies helps create a deterrent effect that leads to fewer criminals and less people dying as a whole. That is why we should be celebrating the criminal's death, just like we would be celebrating the death of an evil dictator - the benefits outweigh the costs.

Sure, if someone comes into the home I lock up at night and wakes me from my sleep, I would feel justified using deadly force if I felt threatened. If I left my garage open I would be much happier to lose some power tools, or a frosty beverage than take another's life.

[RandBlade]

I think the thing we've all learnt is that due process is meaningless to Lewkowski. The ideal reaction to the Duke Lacrosse controversy would have been for someone to react by killing everyone in the team accused of rape. Then Lewkowski could have created a thread celebrating whichever individual had killed off these criminals and we could live happily ever after. Except the Duke students who'd be dead but they're criminals.

[Aimless]

Nah man, black woman vs white men

[Lewkowski]

I think the thing we've all learnt is that due process is meaningless to Lewkowski. The ideal reaction to the Duke Lacrosse controversy would have been for someone to react by killing everyone in the team accused of rape. Then Lewkowski could have created a thread celebrating whichever individual had killed off these criminals and we could live happily ever after. Except the Duke students who'd be dead but they're criminals.

Sigh... seriously RB? Accusing someone of something doesn't give you free reign to attack them. Defending your property does.

Look you guys are arguing against a clear strawman. Your contention with my view is that even with FULL surveillance (ie no doubt about what occurred) of the event you don't think a homeowner should shoot people trying to steal his stuff and should be prosecuted for it.

[Lewkowski]

On what foundation are you building your laws Lewk? How are you even determining that theft is wrong. Why is murder wrong? If you want only look to nature, there are few such natural laws. The powerful prey on the weak. If not nature then what? Western civilization? Roman laws? Greek laws? The The Code of Hammurabi? Philosophers or kings? Secular philosophy or can we include philosophers that have been influenced by religion? If secular philosophy is the only acceptable basis for law, are you then saying that there is no secular philosophy that can conclude that theft is not deserving of a death penalty? I think we are going about this backwards. The foundation of our legal system and the social contract we share as a society are pretty widely studied and understood. What is the reasoning behind and benefit of your thirst for blood? Deterrence? If petty theft is deserving of death in order to deter criminals, why shouldn't speeding be punishable by death? Why not summarily execute jaywalkers? What about marijuana possession? Why should every offense not be a capital one in your mind?


Sure, if someone comes into the home I lock up at night and wakes me from my sleep, I would feel justified using deadly force if I felt threatened. If I left my garage open I would be much happier to lose some power tools, or a frosty beverage than take another's life.

Enoch certainly secular law found its origins in religious law however we need to separate the two. I'm a HUGE proponent of freedom. To me government is a necessary evil. And only necessary because of human nature. Government is needed to protect us from internal and external threats. Thieves, rapists, invaders, murderers and the like. Every criminal that exists gives rise to a larger government which is frustrating in itself.

It isn't an exchange between someone's life and your power tools. Deterrence DOES play a factor. If thieves thought they had a high likelihood of dying if they robbed a house they wouldn't do it as often.

[GGT]

Sounds to me like Fuzzy and Aimless got it right, Lewk. Your definition of due process and/or 'false accusations' is biased toward white middle-class men (like you). And Enoch makes a good point about how you use/misuse Christian doctrine when it suits you, even when it's inconsistent.

You started this thread to whine about "bastions of liberalism" but picked a bad example. Then you got frustrated that people don't agree with your shoot-first attitude toward property theft, and suggest it's more of that evil lib'rulism. And now it's expanded into an argument about the dangers of morality laws?



But wait! It's really just an anti-government screed! And since criminals just make government larger....it'd be better if civilians just shot them first. Think of all the time and tax money it would save in police dept. and courts costs, not to mention jail/prison and administrative overhead. Now that's Freeeedom!

[Enoch the Red]

Enoch certainly secular law found its origins in religious law however we need to separate the two. I'm a HUGE proponent of freedom. To me government is a necessary evil. And only necessary because of human nature. Government is needed to protect us from internal and external threats. Thieves, rapists, invaders, murderers and the like. Every criminal that exists gives rise to a larger government which is frustrating in itself.

It isn't an exchange between someone's life and your power tools. Deterrence DOES play a factor. If thieves thought they had a high likelihood of dying if they robbed a house they wouldn't do it as often.

You understand of course the difference between robbery, theft, and burglary right? And once again, that logic could be used for just about any crime. Jaywalkers would likely be less interested in jaywalking if they were summarily executed. That does nothing to balance the punishment with the crime. Or are we only interested in deterring crimes that Lewk care about?

[Lewkowski]

You understand of course the difference between robbery, theft, and burglary right? And once again, that logic could be used for just about any crime. Jaywalkers would likely be less interested in jaywalking if they were summarily executed. That does nothing to balance the punishment with the crime. Or are we only interested in deterring crimes that Lewk care about?

The logic could be used for any crime but jaywalking isn't a parasitic act like stealing is. I'm suggesting that it is a *good* thing for criminals to be afraid of the citizens they want to prey on. Not only does it deter crime but when a criminal dies imagine how much crime DOESN'T HAPPEN because the criminal can't go after other victims anymore.

Now you can take any argument to its extreme but I'm not advocating for all thieves to be shot. What I'm advocating for (and not really even on this thread) is that homeowners have the right to defend their property with lethal force even if they are not in immediate danger. This creates a safer environment for law abiding citizens (they don't have to hesitate for fear of legal reprisals, which may end up getting them killed if they hesitate instead of taking immediate action), a less safe environment for criminals, fewer criminals in the first place (deterrence effect) and less crime in the future because the criminal is dead.

What you and other people on this thread are saying is that being a proponent of being able to defend your life and property is somehow contradictory to holding people accountable for making false accusations. That's pretty ridiculous. Hell even beyond that the thread was about how stupid colleges are with their tribunals - which means it has NOTHING to do with self defense since the actors are not the 'rape' victim but the actual school itself.

[Lewkowski]

Nah man, black woman vs white men

The subtle (and not so subtle) jabs at me about being a racist is also getting old. I frankly don't give two flying shits about race, my ideal society is one that is color blind. If a black homeowner defends against a white intruder I'll back them up just as much if the races were reversed. Considering I'm one of the few folks on the board who aren't actually in support of blatantly racist policies (Affirmative Action) its particular absurd and just goes to show how liberals use race as a knee jerk reaction/crutch in an argument.

[Timbuk2]

Considering I'm one of the few folks on the board who aren't actually in support of blatantly racist policies (Affirmative Action) its particular absurd and just goes to show how liberals use race as a knee jerk reaction/crutch in an argument.

No, it just shows how strawman your liberal argument is. Nobody on this board has stated that affirmative action is a good policy.

[RandBlade]

Sigh... seriously RB? Accusing someone of something doesn't give you free reign to attack them. Defending your property does.

You've repeatedly supported the death of alleged criminals who were killed after the fact, based on an accusation alone not in the defence of property. Do you recant that?

Look you guys are arguing against a clear strawman. Your contention with my view is that even with FULL surveillance (ie no doubt about what occurred) of the event you don't think a homeowner should shoot people trying to steal his stuff and should be prosecuted for it.

No I don't. I believe in self-defence, though I wouldn't celebrate a death that occured due to it. I object to summary killings of people based on accusations that have nothing to do with self-defence, which you have supported and would logically support the killing of the Duke accused.

Considering I'm one of the few folks on the board who aren't actually in support of blatantly racist policies (Affirmative Action) ...

I think almost everyone here is against affirmative action so get off your low horse.

[Enoch the Red]

The logic could be used for any crime but jaywalking isn't a parasitic act like stealing is. I'm suggesting that it is a *good* thing for criminals to be afraid of the citizens they want to prey on. Not only does it deter crime but when a criminal dies imagine how much crime DOESN'T HAPPEN because the criminal can't go after other victims anymore.

Now you can take any argument to its extreme but I'm not advocating for all thieves to be shot. What I'm advocating for (and not really even on this thread) is that homeowners have the right to defend their property with lethal force even if they are not in immediate danger. This creates a safer environment for law abiding citizens (they don't have to hesitate for fear of legal reprisals, which may end up getting them killed if they hesitate instead of taking immediate action), a less safe environment for criminals, fewer criminals in the first place (deterrence effect) and less crime in the future because the criminal is dead.

So as long as a crime is parasitic in nature it warrants death? Tax evasion? Death. Intellectual property violations? Death. Breach of contract? Death. Wage theft? Death. Should tax payers, corporations and people who listen to music on YouTube, small businesses and employers all be living in constant fear of Hollywood, the US government, rights holders, or their employees knocking on their door and throttling them if they have been wronged? A violent robbery is very different from a kid shoplifting which is very different from a home invasion, which is very different from trespassing. In all those instances you believe death is an appropriate punishment. When you understand why we think it is ridiculous to put employers who steal wages from their employees to death, or teens listening to music on the internet, you may then also understand why we think putting a shoplifter to death is equally asinine.

I think most people support some form of self-defense, even if the form it takes it isn't necessarily realistic, both on this board and in the wider population. What most of us aren't is blood thirsty. We just don't want people to have to be put in a position where they have to use deadly force, and we don't find it necessary to dehumanize the criminal.

What you and other people on this thread are saying is that being a proponent of being able to defend your life and property is somehow contradictory to holding people accountable for making false accusations. That's pretty ridiculous. Hell even beyond that the thread was about how stupid colleges are with their tribunals - which means it has NOTHING to do with self defense since the actors are not the 'rape' victim but the actual school itself.

I don't recall making that argument. Maybe you can show me where I did.

[Lewkowski]

No, it just shows how strawman your liberal argument is. Nobody on this board has stated that affirmative action is a good policy.

I can't recall all the specifics but I do recall multiple people arguing that it was NOT racist to support policies like Affirmative Action.

[LittleFuzzy]

What you and other people on this thread are saying is that being a proponent of being able to defend your life and property is somehow contradictory to holding people accountable for making false accusations.

You've only said one line in the whole thread about holding people accountable for false accusations. Most of it is just you making the assumption that rape accusations are false based on next to no evidence besides the accused's own word and declaring how unjust it is that someone suffer to such a degree based on the claim of an accuser. Because you're completely blind as to how that is exactly what happened to each of those people whose deaths you cheer. Because they're not upper or middle class men.

The subtle (and not so subtle) jabs at me about being a racist is also getting old. I frankly don't give two flying shits about race, my ideal society is one that is color blind. If a black homeowner defends against a white intruder I'll back them up just as much if the races were reversed. Considering I'm one of the few folks on the board who aren't actually in support of blatantly racist policies (Affirmative Action) its particular absurd and just goes to show how liberals use race as a knee jerk reaction/crutch in an argument.

It's mostly not been jabs of racism Lewk, though socio-economic demographics being what they are in the US it does tend to be hard to make a distinction between the two. It's about classism and a degree of sexism. It's about how the primary correlation about whose bare word you believe has to do with how much they are like you in appearance and standing. Men over women, a possible tendency of white over black and above all, people of property over lower class scum.

[Lewkowski]

Enoch - You have to draw the line somewhere of course. I'm more than happy with drawing the line at not being so quick to judgement and push for harsh sentencing on people who are defending their property from intruders. It seems like you and several others are quick to want to imprison and punish those people - while I being the magnanimous person I am... am all for giving them mercy.

Bottom line as far as my thoughts on people defending their property is that they have every right to do so. They have every right to take lethal action if they deem it necessary. I'm not going to second guess the *VICTIM* of the crime.

Eh you may not have made that argument but I'm responding to 3-4 folks so sometimes overlap occurs. If you aren't making that argument - my bad.

[Lewkowski]

You've only said one line in the whole thread about holding people accountable for false accusations. Most of it is just you making the assumption that rape accusations are false based on next to no evidence besides the accused's own word and declaring how unjust it is that someone suffer to such a degree based on the claim of an accuser. Because you're completely blind as to how that is exactly what happened to each of those people whose deaths you cheer. Because they're not upper or middle class men.



It's mostly not been jabs of racism Lewk, though socio-economic demographics being what they are in the US it does tend to be hard to make a distinction between the two. It's about classism and a degree of sexism. It's about how the primary correlation about whose bare word you believe has to do with how much they are like you in appearance and standing. Men over women, a possible tendency of white over black and above all, people of property over lower class scum.

The rape accusation in the story I posted here is likely false. Let's take it back to where this thread started. Do you support the universities actions in this case? If you do explain why. Now when you reference back to people who have died from self defense and say that it is similar I call BS. It isn't. No one is suggesting the robber wasn't stealing. The entire argument that the prosecutor made was in regards to life > property and entrapment. In NONE of the self defense stories I've posted have there been any accusations that the homeowner lied and lured in the criminal to be shot. That is why the two are completely different scenarios.

Aimless's post was pretty clear. Sexism? In what possible way? Are you one of those liberals who believe that no one makes false rape accusations? (Yup prominent liberals have said this). Now you have somewhat of a point in terms of 'classism' I generally do think the 'permanent poor' are poor based on their actions. I also think that that the progressive tax system is inherently unfair and favors the folks who produce the least in society as opposed to the ones who benefit the most. HOWEVER if a rich person broke into someone's house and the poor person shot him dead I'd support the poor person 100%. I judge people based on their ACTIONS not their status. You steal I'm OK with you being shot. I can think of no fairer system than to make consequences equal across the board based on actions.

[Lewkowski]

You've repeatedly supported the death of alleged criminals who were killed after the fact, based on an accusation alone not in the defence of property. Do you recant that?
No I don't. I believe in self-defence, though I wouldn't celebrate a death that occured due to it. I object to summary killings of people based on accusations that have nothing to do with self-defence, which you have supported and would logically support the killing of the Duke accused.
I think almost everyone here is against affirmative action so get off your low horse.

Now we are going far afield here. But yes in general I support society providing harsh punishments on criminals when there is no doubt about their guilt. From a practical perspective 'fry 'em' for things like theft is never going to fly anyway. More grounded in reality is what citizens can or cannot do when it comes to defending their property, their lives and their family.

When Osama Bin Laden died did you celebrate? Obviously robbers aren't on the same scale but considering HOW MANY crimes they do before they are put down and/or put in prison their death has created a huge net positive for society. Not to mention my personal belief that deterrence works quite well and that every story of a criminal dying leads to fewer criminals all together.

They are? I don't have a personal tracker for everyone's positions but I recall most people objecting strongly to my view that supporting Affirmative Action made someone a racist.

[Enoch the Red]

When Osama Bin Laden died did you celebrate? Obviously robbers aren't on the same scale but considering HOW MANY crimes they do before they are put down and/or put in prison their death has created a huge net positive for society. Not to mention my personal belief that deterrence works quite well and that every story of a criminal dying leads to fewer criminals all together.

Saul did far worse than steal some beers from a garage before his conversion. Do you believe there would have been a huge net positive for society had he been killed? You seem to be under the impression that committing a criminal act destroys any positive actions a person has or could do for society. If your son stole a candy bar from a store would he cease to be your son? Could the whole of his life, his past and future be boiled down to that one event? Is that what you want as a father, and is it what you want as a self-described Christian?

[Aimless]

I can't recall all the specifics but I do recall multiple people arguing that it was NOT racist to support policies like Affirmative Action.

You're a bit dumb aren't you. You don't have to believe affirmative action is racist to believe it is problematic. How dumb are you, Jesus

[Lewkowski]

Saul did far worse than steal some beers from a garage before his conversion. Do you believe there would have been a huge net positive for society had he been killed? You seem to be under the impression that committing a criminal act destroys any positive actions a person has or could do for society. If your son stole a candy bar from a store would he cease to be your son? Could the whole of his life, his past and future be boiled down to that one event? Is that what you want as a father, and is it what you want as a self-described Christian?

Under the idea that there can be roadside conversions we shouldn't have gone in to go kill Bin Laden either. Again God can do as he will and his ability to do miracles is limitless but unless you want our laws to be based on biblical principals than that shouldn't change how we handle criminals. And if you do want laws on biblical principals how could you possibly support religious freedom? If you are a 'good' person to other people but don't do honor to God it is meaningless. It always amuses me that people suggest that because I am a professed Christian I should support having mercy and leniency on criminals but still not support outlawing false religions, they want to pick and choose which parts of the religion make it into law which is just silly.

[Lewkowski]

You're a bit dumb aren't you. You don't have to believe affirmative action is racist to believe it is problematic. How dumb are you, Jesus

Racism is discrimination based on race. Affirmative Action is discrimination based on race. Can't seem to get any clearer than that.

[Steely Glint]

racismˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/
noun

• the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
  
  • prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.