Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 20:13:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1136 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > I'm concerned about your willingness to shoot anyone you judge to have
> > wronged you, even when your life is not in danger. Is that your perception
> > of Our Grandparents' Good Ol' Days? In this post you want to shoot a
> > broker, in a previous post you applauded the shooting of politicians, and in
> > an earlier post you expressed support for a woman who decided that the best
> > way to handle things was to shoot men whom she perceived as a threat.
> > So when I get the better of you in this debate, are you going to open fire?
>
> In each case I advocated shooting someone they either would have or did cause
> physical harm or were violating basic freedoms. Disagreeing with someone
Care to finish that thought? But even without the finish I can take issue
with your point. You're advocating the preemptive murder of people whom you
perceive to violate your basic freedoms, am I right? Doesn't that sound a
trifle insane to you? What gives you the right to take away someone's life
(or even to assault him) just because you perceive him to have wronged you?
The exampe that you gave of the woman is no better, and unless you can cite
the exact article, I'm going to hold you to the story you told here:
> There was a news story about 2 or 3 years ago about a 20ish women who simply
> going from school to work to home was mugged 4 times in 2 months. She bought a
> handgun and 3 times over the next month reached in her purse (to "give the
> mugger her wallet") and shot the guy. The third time she was arrested and
> charged and convicted for vigilantism or some such nonsense. That right there
> is the major problem, it is illegal to defend oneself.
from http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19277
In that post you advocated willful 3rd degree murder as if it were the most
efficacious solution to the threat of assault. Rather than walking with a
friend, or riding a bus, or changing her walking route, or asking for a
school escort (which most universities provide), she decided to go on a
hunt. Your anecdote doesn't indicate whether the man she shot was the man
who mugged her any of the four times, and you don't indicate what he was
doing when she shot him, nor do you indicate what action was taken against
him by the police, nor how she identified him so clearly that she could be
sure that he was the exactly right person to kill. Any prosecutor in the
land would first of all throw out your story as hearsay (lacking any news
citation) and could readily secure the woman's conviction for 3rd degree murder.
Do you see why your "shoot first and don't ask questions later" attitude is
untenable? You're advocating a system of murder-with-impunity as long as
the killer professes a perceived threat or infraction of rights.
Keep in mind that my argument is *not* about gun control, which (believe it
or not) I advocate less and less.
> Prohibition is stupid regardless of who supported it and who didn't, much like
> the war on drugs. How does this relate to the current operation of the
> government versus before?
If you'll remember, I was making the point that the previous operation of
government (which you recall with fondness) was responsible for Prohibition,
while the later government (FDR-and-later, by your reckoning) repealed that
stupid amendment. I'm making the point that your rose-colored-legislature
was hardly as rose-colored as you want it to have been, and the later
government is hardly as uniformly demonic as you paint it to be.
> the solar panels that are efficient enough to power a house even
> in cloudy conditions are illeagal for ordinary citizens to purchase in the US.
Really? That's actually news to me--can you give a web citation? But the
underlying point remains; build yourself a wind turbine or some equivalent.
> > And while we're at it, you must demonstrate that the installation of
> > millions (billions?) of solar cells and home-generators will be cheaper and
> > more efficient IN THE AGGREGATE than the current system.
>
> The initial cost would be the major hurdle. But the savings over the long run
> would more than make up the cost. 40% of domestic oil consumtion is from
> power generation. Factor in the major reduction in pollution and it is hard to
> imagine why we are not allowed to do this even on a voluntary basis. Oh thats
> right it would screw up the oil industry. Maybe Hop-Frog is right, everything
> is all about the oil.
You're arguing by assertion; you must provide evidence that your proposed
system will actually be cheaper in practice than the current one. That
includes the initial cost, as well as routine maintenance, not to mention
the acquisition, storage, and handling of propane. You also have to
remember that a lot of the railroad system, as well as a lot of our
roadways, were established by government subsidization. You propose
largescale installation of expensive solar cells, presumably without that
same subsidy.
> Here in the US we are allowed to do whatever we want provided we are not
> affecting other people unwillingly. Anyone who is mentally competent (and
> speaks english reasonably well) knows exactly what I mean.
Really? I find the cable company, which controls the market in my area,
is affecting me unwillingly--can I shoot the CEO? The newspaper delivery
boy is impoverished and, due to an illness, he was unable to deliver my
Sunday Times; his poverty prevents him from compensating me, so am I free to
shoot him? An Arabic family makes somebody feel unsafe while shopping at
the grocery store; is that frightened person authorized to kill the family,
since they're affecting him unwillingly?
This is not about what "is" is (which, by the way, is a legitimate topic
of discussion in legal proceedings)--this is about why you feel free to kill
someone just because you feel free to kill someone.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Stand your ground (ie., go ahead and shoot)
|
| (...) What had been a primarily theoretical debate for Mike and me has turned into policy in the great state of Florida: (URL) the kicker--now you can shoot someone in the street just because you *feel* threatened! So when that apparently middle (...) (19 years ago, 6-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
