Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:50:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
684 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > I know from previous posts that you embrace the idea of personal
> > responsibility, so I confess that I'm puzzled at the apparent shift.
>
> Well in this case "personal responsibility" falls on the person that breaks
> into someone elses home and winds up dead for it.
That's where I believe you're making an unsubstantiated leap. Even within the
bounds of this discussion, you appear unwilling to consider any response other
than "kill the intruder/it's his own fault" when other options truly are
available to you.
> The fact that the person was killed by the homeowner (who in my view is only
> defending their lives from the possibility of attack by intruder) does not
> mean the homeowner is responsible for that person breaking into their home
> and dying.
This, too, is an improper logical shift. The intruder is responsible for
breaking into your home; *you* are responsible for killing him. You may or may
not be *justified* in killing him, but you are still responsible for doing it.
> The only one responsible is the person that risked their life by breaking
> into the home of someone else. This is a case of the law not equalling what
> is morally right.
But you must recognize that you're still committing the fallacy of "the false
dilemma" by asserting, in effect, that the only options are "let the intruder do
whatever he wants to me and my property" and "kill the intruder."
By what logic do you claim the authority to act as judge/jury/executioner
simply on the basis that someone has entered your home? Here are a few
possibilities worth considering:
1. The "intruder" is mentally incompetent and has entered your home
inadvertently
2. The "intruder" is your daughter's boyfriend who is sneaking out of the house
after a late-night visit *authorized* by your daughter
3. The "intruder" is your daughter who has sneaked down to the kitchen for a
glass of water during the night
4. The "intruder," in desperation, has sought refuge from an attacker by
entering your home. In the heat of the moment she had no time to knock and wait
for you to answer, which surely would have allowed her attacker to reach her
5. The "intruder" has entered your house in error while intending to visit a
friend who owns a similar home (granted, we're assuming that your door was
unlocked)
6. The "intruder" thought that you were a politician who had usurped his
rights, and he broke into your home to perform what he considered to be
appropriate retaliation
7. The "intruder" is a Canadian liberal who likes "THe West Wing" too much.
Okay, I'll give you #7.
In any case, these are obviously hypothetical examples, but none of them is
really infeasible, is it? And the fact that I can readily present alternatives
to "he broke in with the intent to kill/rob me" demonstrates that you are not
justified in assuming outright that your conclusion is correct or that you are
free of responsibility for making that choice. If you're willing/able to take
the time to identify your daughter, then why are you unwilling to pursue other
courses besides "shoot him and kick him in the head"?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
