It's Illegal To Defend Yourself.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Thats because it isnt your hifistereo. When someone steals something that you have worked to be able to possess, they have essentially stolen those hours from your life. Saying "omg its only a TV fuk u human life is more valuable than anything in the universe YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON IT YOU CANT!" is just dumb.

Anyway, I take it from this post youd be prepared to sacrifice most of your physical possessions just to save the life of someone you didnt know? Because like, the loss of his life is more of a tragedy than the loss of your things man.

The next question is the one of 'Why doesn't he sell his Hi-Fi set so he can donate money to the needy, and thus save lives?'

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Where are you inferring all of this from?

I'm quite mystified.

Nodrog stated sarcastically that it would have been justice if the burglar had shot Qazok, to which I replied with the question of whether it was justice that a 16-year old had to kill a burglar. You responded that the burglar had no right to claim that moral point as he had already broken the law, so I was now wondering if it then is your opinion that justice has been served.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The next question is the one of 'Why doesn't he sell his Hi-Fi set so he can donate money to the needy, and thus save lives?'

If the needy broke into his house he would gladly hand over his television and playstation. The homeless have themselves to blame for not showing initiative.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
Nodrog stated sarcastically that it would have been justice if the burglar had shot Qazok, to which I replied with the question of whether it was justice that a 16-year old had to kill a burglar. You responded that the burglar had no right to claim that moral point as he had already broken the law, so I was now wondering if it then is your opinion that justice has been served.

Justice is never served. This is true of any fixed criminal justice system.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Thats because it isnt your hifistereo. When someone steals something that you have worked to be able to possess, they have essentially stolen those hours from your life. Saying "omg its only a TV fuk u human life is more valuable than anything in the universe YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON IT YOU CANT!" is just dumb.

Anyway, I take it from this post youd be prepared to sacrifice most of your physical possessions just to save the life of someone you didnt know? Because like, the loss of his life is more of a tragedy than the loss of your things man.

These things are called "emotions". If the big bully at school beats you, you also want to "kill" him. And if you were carrying a gun at that moment, and he pushed you far enough, you'd probably pull the trigger.
But common sense and civilisation has tought us (we hope) that killing without thinking and in a pure emotional state isn't the "right" thing to do, as often mistakes are made in such a situation.

If the big bad man walked into my house with his shotgun, out for my stereo, and I accidentally had a gun one me, I'd shoot him. Definately.... At that moment it doesn't matter if I'm for or against gun-control. But I feel that it's the task of the government to prevent killing by emotion, and also to limit the amount of guns on the street.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Justice is never served. This is true of any fixed criminal justice system.

So the police arresting someone and taking him to court is just as good as a kid shooting someone? After all, justice isn't served in both cases.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
So the police arresting someone and taking him to court is just as good as a kid shooting someone? After all, justice isn't served in both cases.

The latter is less stable for society.

The courts do not deal in justice, they deal in stability.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Nodrog
If the needy broke into his house he would gladly hand over his television and playstation.

Nice attempt in swaying an argument from one extreme to the other. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't let them get away with it. But I wouldn't pull out a gun and kill them either.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
fair enough jonny, you're right as usual, but we cannot know for certain that the earth is not composed of small green leprechauns who drink and swear heavily. His statement was not equally as certain as a mathematical truth. see?

This sort of "reasoning" is why philosophy has run around in circles biting itself in the ass for the past 2000 years (with a few notable exceptions). We will never be certain, and we can always be more certain, however philosophy and morality at this stage in human development lack the precision (or rather we lack the necessary tools) to achieve full and irrefutable understanding. Instead we must sacrifice certainity in the knowledge that to do nothing would be far worse than some of the actions we can carry out. We do not claim to be totally correct, we are merely correct in so far as we can understand. When someone offers a wholly new piece of evidence we will re-evaluate, but you have offered nothing beyond temporization and procrastination.

At the present time there is a reason we have law courts and juries, precisely because we have not examined all possible contexts. Various sets of circumstances in which the 'normal' course of action would be incorrect can always be offered. We must accept and go forward, based on what we do know and not on what we do not know. That is life and that is humanity. What you propose is doubt and scepticism, and if you wish to adopt it in your private life where it can only affect you so well and good. In public circumstances and in cases of interaction between two or more human beings we need, or else chaos results, to act to the best of our abilities and to the highest degree of our understanding.


I am sorry for perhaps going beyond the boundaries of this discussion. This is something that is vital though.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
Nice attempt in swaying an argument from one extreme to the other. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't let them get away with it. But I wouldn't pull out a gun and kill them either.

But if they had no alternative but death, that mean's you've been shock INCONSISTENT!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Thats because it isnt your hifistereo. When someone steals something that you have worked to be able to possess, they have essentially stolen those hours from your life.

I don't get this. If this was the case (i.e. the main problem was the theft) then :

It would be OK (or at least much, much better) to break into someones house but not steal anything, just wander around with a gun looking through your stuff

Or, it would be OK if they stole something with no material value

Or it would be OK if you have contents insurance (which as I stated elsewhere, almost everyone has, or should have for other - e.g. fire/flood reasons).

When someone breaks into your home, the last thing you think about is the loss of the material goods. In my last home, a guy tried to climb through a living room window (presumably to rob us). My brother in-law was asleep (with his wife) in the living room at the time, and he woke up and managed to scare the guy aware. The man managed to steal a mobile phone.

The thing that affected us wasn't the stupid mobile phone. (Lo insurance). It was the idea of someone entering our home. My wife found it difficult to sleep the next nights. We had to check the window was closed/locked 14 times a night before we can sleep safely. Fortunately we were leaving the property that month anyway, but if we had stayed there I would have found it quite difficult.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
But if they had no alternative but death

That's your hypothesis, not mine.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
That's your hypothesis, not mine.

It was a given.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Structural Integrity
These things are called "emotions". If the big bully at school beats you, you also want to "kill" him. And if you were carrying a gun at that moment, and he pushed you far enough, you'd probably pull the trigger.
But common sense and civilisation has tought us (we hope) that killing without thinking and in a pure emotional state isn't the "right" thing to do, as often mistakes are made in such a situation.
.

Killing to protect your life or property is not an emotional decision, it is a rational one. Hunting down the burglar (if he got away) and killing him would be an enotional decision. Choosing to 'fight' in a fight or flight situation is not emotional in the sense you mean. Shooting the school bully when he came at you with a knife would not be an "emotional" decision.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It was a given.

At the risk of sounding like Nondescript Human: in your opinion.

It is your opinion that whenever someone engages in armed robbery, he is also going to kill someone. That is an opinion not shared by me, nor is it a given.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Leshy
Nice attempt in swaying an argument from one extreme to the other. If someone broke into my house, I wouldn't let them get away with it. But I wouldn't pull out a gun and kill them either.

If people arent macho enough to protect themselves with their bare hands, they dont deserve to be allowed to carry weapons.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by ItotheDtotheI
you're a **** troll. you cant read and i doubt any of what you said is true. **** off.

Poor. And nothing I wrote was particularly controversial, so hardly trolling.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
At the risk of sounding like Nondescript Human: in your opinion.

What the hell are you talking about now?

I was talking about the point you replied to, which was the 'If the needy broke' etc.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Nodrog
If people arent macho enough to protect themselves with their bare hands, they dont deserve to be allowed to carry weapons.

Now who's trolling?

[Judge]

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
im sick of all you pissy liberals lately.

HELLO. ****WITS. BREAKING INTO SOMEONES HOUSE IS A CRIME.
NO DOUBT TO FEED HIS POT ADDICTION WHICH YOU ALL APPROVE OF AS WELL.

Yes it is a crime, but not a capital crime.

It is for the law to convict and prosecute, not anyone_who_owns_a_gun.

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Killing to protect your life or property is not an emotional decision, it is a rational one. Hunting down the burglar (if he got away) and killing him would be an enotional decision. Choosing to 'fight' in a fight or flight situation is not emotional in the sense you mean. Shooting the school bully when he came at you with a knife would not be an "emotional" decision.

"debatable"

I think there is little to choose when you hold a gun, and someone armed comes at you. I think the first reaction would be to defend with whatever you have available, rather than considering the options you have (ie: fight or run).

Ofcourse, I've never been in such a situation, so I can only think about what I'd have done. But I THINK I'd shoot the guy, and run away then just incase he didn't die.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Leshy
At the risk of sounding like Nondescript Human: in your opinion.

It is your opinion that whenever someone engages in armed robbery, he is also going to kill someone. That is an opinion not shared by me, nor is it a given.

However it is a rational assumption. Either he brought it along to intimidate or he brought it along to shoot anyone who got in his way (or a host of various other rather improbable reasons unless he's insane and thinks it's his pet guinea pig named Fred). Seeing as have no way of determing which of the aforementioned is correct in each situation we must assume, unfortunately, that he brought it along to kill anyone who attempted to stop him, otherwise we are risking more for less which is clearly an idiotic approach to life. Possibly after we invent mind-scanning criminal detecting devices we should re-evaluate our opinions though.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

I think you missed my meaning. I never claimed that the most important factor in a buglary was the loss of property. I was arguing that the loss of property itsself cannot be dismissed with a casual wave of the hand on the grounds that "the life of one human trying to steal from you is more important than everything you own and worked for", or whatever other apologism was being used.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I was talking about the point you replied to, which was the 'If the needy broke' etc.

You are drawing up a theoretical and unrealistical scenario with a limited set of boundaries, based on a hypothesis I do not agree with.

The 'fact' that it's a given that someone has to die in any scenario that contains guns is something that you devised, and hence is true in your opinion.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Either he brought it along to intimidate or he brought it along to shoot anyone who got in his way

Even if the burglar had brought the weapon for the second reason, then it would still have been possible to avoid confrontation, and for example call the police.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
You are drawing up a theoretical and unrealistical scenario with a limited set of boundaries, based on a hypothesis I do not agree with.

The 'fact' that it's a given that someone has to die in any scenario that contains guns is something that you devised, and hence is true in your opinion.

Do you actually read what you reply to?

Nod's comment was based on your thing of 'Human life is always more important than possessions. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF GUNS.

You're like Judge (I think it was) on the conscription thread.

You can't state that a hypothetical doesn't work because you don't accept the hypothesis.

[Chrism]

Serves the idiot right really.

[Nodrog]

Btw, the "OMG U SHUD HAV INSURANCE" argument doesnt work. If you claim that letting people steal your physical possessions if they are insured is "ok", then you have to accept that people without insurance have the right to defend their possessions. Of course you could say that "everyone should have insurance anyway", but youre essentially turning the government into a protection racket; eg "buy our insurance policy or we wont help protect you against burglars". As state protection cannot justly be a matter of purchasing power within a centralised monopoly on force (if the state is making me pay for protection over and above the standardised rate of taxation, what right does it have to deny me the opportunity to pay someone else for the same protection?), yourei indirectly advocating anarchy and the placement of protective force onto the free market.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Leshy
Even if the burglar had brought the weapon for the second reason, then it would still have been possible to avoid confrontation, and for example call the police.

How possible? Why avoid confrontation? He's in the wrong. You are protecting yourself and maybe your family. You must take action or else you may lose your life.

[W]

Originally posted by NEWSBOT3
im sick of all you pissy liberals lately.

HELLO. ****WITS. BREAKING INTO SOMEONES HOUSE IS A CRIME.
NO DOUBT TO FEED HIS POT ADDICTION WHICH YOU ALL APPROVE OF AS WELL.

Newsflash: being a criminal does not allow anyone to kill you. How would you feel if I killed you?

[queball]

Originally posted by ItotheDtotheI
You were being deliberatly obtuse.



yes thats totally right, its ok for people to break into your house and its ok for them to take things that have no material value and yes its ok for them to steal things if you have insurance.

IM GLAD IVE CLEARED THAT UP FOR YOU RETARD!

And you dont have to be contraversial to be a troll.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
THERE WAS NO MENTION OF GUNS.

If you think that guns aren't the subject in this thread, then I suggest that you are the one who has some reading up to do.

You can't state that a hypothetical doesn't work because you don't accept the hypothesis.

And you can't state that your hypothesis defines a fully certain outcome.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
However it is a rational assumption. Either he brought it along to intimidate or he brought it along to shoot anyone who got in his way (or a host of various other rather improbable reasons unless he's insane and thinks it's his pet guinea pig named Fred). Seeing as have no way of determing which of the aforementioned is correct in each situation we must assume, unfortunately, that he brought it along to kill anyone who attempted to stop him, otherwise we are risking more for less which is clearly an idiotic approach to life.

But surely the chance of a death occuring if the resident decides to shoot is greater than the chance of a death occuring were the resident not to shoot?

Originally posted by Leshy
At the risk of sounding like Nondescript Human: in your opinion.

risk? is this a bad thing?

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
risk? is this a bad thing?

It's never really good to copy someone else's arguments and/or statements

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
If you think that guns aren't the subject in this thread, then I suggest that you are the one who has some reading up to do.

And you can't state that your hypothesis defines a fully certain outcome.

I didn't say the thread wasn't about guns, I was saying the hypothesis wasn't.

The hypothesis was that

IF your statement that human life is much more important than possessions to you
THEN you would give up your possessions to save human life.

Yet you obviously do not do this.

Why?

[queball]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Btw, the "OMG U SHUD HAV INSURANCE" argument doesnt work. If you claim that letting people steal your physical possessions if they are insured is "ok", then you have to accept that people without insurance have the right to defend their possessions. Of course you could say that "everyone should have insurance anyway", but youre essentially turning the government into a protection racket; eg "buy our insurance policy or we wont help protect you against burglars". As state protection cannot justly be a matter of purchasing power within a centralised monopoly on force (if the state is making me pay for protection over and above the standardised rate of taxation, what right does it have to deny me the opportunity to pay someone else for the same protection?), yourei indirectly advocating anarchy and the placement of protective force onto the free market.

Rubbish. Any decent economic system will always make people pay the protection for their own property, otherwise you get negative externalities. Anyone, no-one's paying for extra actual protection, they're paying for insurance. In fact, this whole post doesn't make any sense at all to me. Of course the "OMG U SHUD HAV INSURANCE" argument is stupid, but the post makes me sad.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human
But surely the chance of a death occuring if the resident decides to shoot is greater than the chance of a death occuring were the resident not to shoot?

If his goal is to protect himself, family and property, if you want to include that, he is less likely to kill than someone who has already shown his willingness to break the law.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by queball
Rubbish. Any decent economic system will always make people pay the protection for their own property, otherwise you get negative externalities

Notice I said "over and above the standardised rate of taxation". If people are paying extra to be entitled by state enforced justice in their own home, then there is no need for taxation to exist, or at least not in its present form.

Originally posted by queball

Anyone, no-one's paying for extra actual protection, they're paying for insurance. In fact, this whole post doesn't make any sense at all to me. Of course the "OMG U SHUD HAV INSURANCE" argument is stupid, but the post makes me sad.

"You have no right to use force in defence of your property, because it should be insured. If it isnt insured, then that is your fault and we will lock you in jail for using force. Again, if you had it insured, you would have not had to use force to protect it and we would not be locking you in jail."

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
IF your statement that human life is much more important than possessions to you
THEN you would give up your possessions to save human life.

So you followed nodrog like a puppy onto the largely irrelevant trolling side-track then.

In that case, I present you with a counter-hypothesis.

IF selling possessions allows the saving of human life
THEN does that make everyone who doesn't sell everything he owns a mass murderer?

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
If his goal is to protect himself, family and property, if you want to include that, he is less likely to kill than someone who has already shown his willingness to break the law.

We know for certain now and could know almost certainly beforehand that the resident enacting the 'shooting' scenario would result in a death.
Had he shown himself to be unarmed and unwilling to resist, this may well also have been the end result, but I believe the chance that the burglar's weapon was only intended for intimidation to be greater than the chance that the resident would avoid killing the burglar in such a tense situation- as stated, there is no time to think 'I know, I'll shoot him in the arm!'. Additionally, the resident could have just legged it, reducing the risk of death to zero (unless he's bloody unlucky and gets run over by a bus just outside his house, or the burglar is such a moron that he drops the gun and shoots himself etc etc). Thus, death is more probable given the presence of and willingness to use a gun.
I do not pretend that this negates nod's argument, but maintain that his objection is nothing more than a matter of differing opinions caused by contrasting value systems.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
IF selling possessions allows the saving of human life
THEN does that make everyone who doesn't sell everything he owns a mass murderer?

No.

Murder is proactive.

And it was my point, not nod's (That specific one anyway)

[queball]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Notice I said "over and above the standardised rate of taxation". If people are paying extra to be entitled by state enforced justice in their own home, then there is no need for taxation to exist, or at least not in its present form.

Well, you pay once for a transport service, then pay car insurance. If such a home insurance policy were to exist, I wouldn't argue against it on monetary grounds. The local police here are paid for largely by council tax, which is proprtional to house size anyway. If council tax were optional, and linked to police defence, even though standard taxes were still mandatory, I wouldn't consider that worse than the present system.

"You have no right to use force in defence of your property, because it should be insured. If it isnt insured, then that is your fault and we will lock you in jail for using force. Again, if you had it insured, you would have not had to use force to protect it and we would not be locking you in jail."

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
And it was my point, not nod's (That specific one anyway)

Originally posted by nodrog
Anyway, I take it from this post youd be prepared to sacrifice most of your physical possessions just to save the life of someone you didnt know? Because like, the loss of his life is more of a tragedy than the loss of your things man.

Nope, it was definitely Nodrog who raised this point.

And a small amendment to my hypothesis then:

IF selling possessions allows the saving of human life
THEN does that make everyone who doesn't sell everything he owns guilty of mass death-by-guilt*?

* = I'm not sure what the exact English legal term is for causing another person's death by not taking any action to prevent it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
I'm not sure what the exact English legal term is for causing another person's death by not taking any action to prevent it.

As far as I know, it's not illegal and from that description never could be without hideous legal nightmares over what constitutes a viable possible course of action.

It removes free will.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
As far as I know, it's not illegal

If you have a company dealing with dangerous materials or hazardous machines, and do not take enough safety precautions resulting in the death of people, you are legally responsible.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Leshy
If you have a company dealing with dangerous materials or hazardous machines, and do not take enough safety precautions resulting in the death of people, you are legally responsible.

After creating danger in the first place.

That's proactive, not passive.

[queball]

Originally posted by Leshy
If you have a company dealing with dangerous materials or hazardous machines, and do not take enough safety precautions resulting in the death of people, you are legally responsible.

That's (professional?) negligence. You were talking about failure to prevent a death before, which is different. I can't remember the word right now either, but both can be illegal here.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nondescript Human

I view a person who hasn't broken the law as more valuable to society than one who has. From a purely objectivist standpoint he runs the risk by taking the initial action. Of course I'd also punish someone who does shoot and kill another human being. Maybe it seems a bit daft but it seems to me to be the best way of minimising deaths, the armed robber knows he can be killed, and the person being robbed knows he can be punished for taking unnecessary actions.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
After creating danger in the first place.

That's proactive, not passive.

this has the postential to become a very boring argument, nitpicking about minor legal details.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
After creating danger in the first place.

We're causing people to die by funding their governments, supplying dictatorships with weapons, as well as sending cheap food destroying the local economies.

That's pretty proactive too.