Because a society that depends on the government for all of its protection is a society that has given up its freedom. The police are 5 minutes too late to save you from a murderer. The threat of violent defense is a deterrent. Why would you want to make it easier for criminals by forbidding people from defending themselves?Originally Posted by Loki
No, Lewk, the proper question is "under what justification do you deny me the right of self defense?" It doesn't even have anything to do with the criminals, but everything to do with the tyranny of the majority stripping away more of our rights under flimsy pretenses.
If Loki would rather flee and/or allow himself to be raped at the first threat of violence, that's his choice, but it's no reason to deny everyone else the choice to fight back if that's their preference.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I actually have no idea what you are talking about.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Running away instead of escalating a violent disputed doesn't have anything to do with the government; the main purpose is to protect your own life. The secondary goal is to prevent unnecessary taking of anyone's life. I don't see how you can equate fleeing if the option is available to forbidding people to defend themselves. A ) Flight is a form of defence. B ) If you can't flee, you're free to use force.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not to mention that fleeing is more effective at saving your life than standing your ground most of the times.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
C: Its unnatural and unrealistic. You shouldn't judge someone else who through no fault of their own is put in an instantaneous life-or-death situation. It's very easy to judgementally from a calm high horse say flee but if you're actually in that situation your adrenaline takes over and your body goes into "flight or fight" mode. If you're deliberately put by somebody else into that situation then whether you flight or fight should be acceptable.
When I found an intruder in my property I ran after him. In the end thanks to doing that he ran away and I got his reg plate and he was arrested. Had I ran away he would never have been arrested. Had he not ran away though and I'd reached him, I have no idea what I would have done. I can tell you though that I did NOT sit down and analyse the situation before making a decision.
Had you not chased him, a thief would be on the streets a month before he otherwise would be. By chasing him, you created a non-zero probability that either you or the robber would be killed. Good job.
Hope is the denial of reality
So, what's next? We don't punish murder in the 2nd degree anymore because in those cases the murderer acted without thinking as well?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
So you're saying I was wrong to chase him?
Second degree murder still carries an intent to do harm. That is not the same as self-defence.
In the sense of risking your life: Yes.
Material possessions can be easily replaced.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
And I repeat, it's easy to say that in the cold light of day when you're not under attack.
Responsibility should lie with the criminal who created the situation. Just as if you rob a bank, an accomplice kills a Police Officer before getting shot and killed, you can and should be tried for the Officers murder yourself.
you were never under attack...
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Really? I certainly felt I was. I had an intruder who'd broken in, that felt like an attack and I stand by it. In the cold light of day, he could have been armed etc for all I know and I'd seen his face. Who knows in that snap instant how it plays out, it was an attack.
Now if that was an attack (or not) going back to the topic of those who have their actual life in imminent danger, they are under an attack. And I can easily see why in that situation a lofty "you should have ran away" is inappropriate.
Would it make you and your loved ones feel better that the responsibility lies with the criminal had you been killed?
Hope is the denial of reality
Absolutely not. Which is why if I'd had a gun in my hands the second I'd seen him, I can't tell you I wouldn't have shot first and asked questions later.
Had you asked me before what I'd have done, I'd say I'd hide and call the police. In that flight or fight adrenaline moment though, that's not what happened.
Do I think that as a nearly-naked, unarmed and half asleep individual it was smart to choose to chase a potentially armed probably hardened criminal? No! I'm glad he ran and I never caught him. Do I think it was natural? Definitely.
you don't know how anything could have played out, and yet you insist it was an attack. not at any time was his behavior reported to be shown threatening. I'm not disputing that you may have spent that time and the time in between now and then convicing yourself that your reaction was appropriate and justified. The more important part is how your example touches on the bigger issue with how people approach these situtations. Your usual me-centric view on life tinted your understanding of the situtation, and thats a big driving factor behind the fight over flight.
maybe if the victim had fought and lost, the answer would be "should have run away", but what we're discussing here is that flight should be the expected and encouraged first response, not the only response.Now if that was an attack (or not) going back to the topic of those who have their actual life in imminent danger, they are under an attack. And I can easily see why in that situation a lofty "you should have ran away" is inappropriate.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Forget it, he's hell-bent on this "responsibility" scheme and thinks himself a superhero and an upstanding member of the community, rather than acknowledge that this was a pretty severe risk he was taking and that the underlying attitude is what lead to the shooting of Martin.
"Durr! Criminal in the vicinity! No time to stop and think! Hulk Must Smash!"
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
WTF how is somebody breaking into a locked home "not threatening" or "not an attack"?
The second you break in it is by definition threatening.
Khen I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but there is "no time to stop or think" when it happens. It's all over in a matter of heartbeats.
You're confusing your property with yourself. Its the same attitude I was addressing that skewed your initial response.
Its the difference in understanding when to chase down a assailant cause you felt attacked, and when to offer to buy him lunch cause you know his actions had nothing to do with yourself.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
As much as we loathe each other, I kind of have to side with Randy here, on a purely emotional level
If someone messed with my lab in a bad way, I would no holds barred try and murder that bitch. No questions asked. You do not mess with what is mine.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I'm sure if you an intruder broke into your locked home while Brandy and the kids were asleep you wouldn't remotely feel that it was an attack on your family.
Once the instance was over I had no intent of going all vigilante and tracking him down, was quite intent to leave it to the Police and courts. But there's a major difference between after the fact and while it's happening.
Thank you Nessus, I think
The sole difference between us is that my lab is for and by the Finnish nation, and your premises are for whatever corporation you serve. But the principle is the same, we both serve higher purposes than ourselves. And I would die for mine.Thank you Nessus, I think
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
If it was us in your place, I would hope that I consider the whole thing bad timing, which if I'm not mistaken, did come up if your original thread. Something about it being a new home and the robber thinking the place still empty.
Again, I'm not arguing this claim. I was only pointing out one of the driving factors for why people feel attacked when they by definition aren't, and why some people choose to fight instead of flee. That me-centric attitude you display in most of the debates.But there's a major difference between after the fact and while it's happening.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No the house was visibly live in. We'd just move in so no curtains were up yet. The issue of it being new was that we had no neighbours.
I really don't think I'm me centric. I care a lot for charities etc. I just have IMO a strong sense of justice.
Not in my experience. Besides, it's the mindset that's important.
If you tell yourself that it's okay to act in this manner, you will act in this manner.
That's why my martial arts trainers told us repeatedly and several times that, despite our training, we were not to think of ourselves as invincible and to run away if we had the chance.
Besides: Running after the guy only took a few heart beats? I'm impressed. So, you only ran after him for 2 seconds?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
That's because at a gut level, for most people and particularly most males their space IS part of themselves. That's got nothing to do with your decision to label Rand self-centered.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
You know, there's a difference between what is good advice in violent or potentially violent situations (running away or deescalate if at all possible) and what should be legally required of the victim.
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
If your property is under attack YOU are under attack.
The salient point.
Whether Rand was foolish to chase off a home-invader or not has no bearing on whether he should be criminally charged for not fleeing first.
Frankly, the few people here that would interject their ignorant opinions into life-and-death situations and want to punish people who decide differently about the best course of action is just sickening. Morally depraved petty tyranny that's no different than Mr. Zimmerman deciding to kill himself a nigglet.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I'm not quite sure how you can actually twist logic into such a knot, Cain, that at one point you can condemn the actions of Zimmerman while at the same time demanding absolute freedom to act in (perceived) self-defense.
At some point you'll have to limit what exactly constitutes self-defense and what doesn't.
Escalating the situation further is not a smart thing to do and, while understandable, should also not be granted exemption from the law.
Because otherwise, using that very same logic, we'd also have to allow other kinds of vigilantes.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote