Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:13:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1062 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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 • is not grounds for shooting them. (How did that happen?)
>
> 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.
You misunderstand due to me not being more clear in that post. She was attacked
by 7 different people. After the first 4 she bought a gun which was registered
and she obtained a permit to carry it. 3 attackers later they arrested her. I
am sorry but that is just plain crazy. If everyone did that there would not be
crime. (except for the occasional nutcase whom we can never stop)
>
> 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.
Yup, I do realize that the vast majority of people are not capable of operating
in such a society. In fact I would argue that if everyone were, there would be
no need for it in the first place. (Translation: Yes I realize that won't work
in practice.)
>
> 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.
I am not talking about the people making the laws I am simply talking about the
mechanics of the Government. They are not the same thing.
> > 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?
No, none of those cases actually affect someone unwillingly. There is no
malicious intent or even any threat. (Except maybe the cable monopoly.)
> This is not about what "is" is (which, by the way, is a legitimate topic
> of discussion in legal proceedings)
Ok so we should shoot all the lawyers (I was being sarcastic) Seriously you
have got to be kidding me. Anyone who does not know the meaning of "is" should
go back to kindergarden.
> --this is about why you feel free to kill
> someone just because you feel free to kill someone.
No I would never kill somone unless they posed an actual danger to someone's
life. That is the only "legal" reason to kill someone (even that is debatable
whether it is legal) despite a handful of other morally correct reasons. I have
no interest in doing harm to an innocent life. (going to prison might be an
incovience too) That is why we have a Judicial system of "innocent until proven
guilty" and fair trials and such. The problem is the courts argue over the
meaning of "is" and do not do what is morally right.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right and just because
something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. That is the problem with our
society as a whole right now.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
