Poll

Self Defense (Not Gun Related), Do you think self defense is valid?

Yes95%95% - 246
No4%4% - 11
Total: 257
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6986
Oh, I'm sorry if, after re-iterating the same pointing over and fucking over again a accidently said it in a way you didn't like.  Allow me to clarify:

The UN deems defending one's rights to be acceptable, but does not deem this ability to be a right, as that would allow any and all people to do so, including those whose rights are being illegaly impinged (i.e. criminals).
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|7189

SlightlySto0pid wrote:

P581 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

......Thats not self defense since the fighting had stopped, you are making this too political of an issue.  It is not a case of revenge when someone is trying to kill me with a knife/gun and I am able to punch them in the head/ or shoot them, before they KILL ME.  That is not revenge, that is called saving my own life.
Let me ask you something; how did you know that they were going to kill you?

I think you will find that there is no answer to that question, you don't know. Because a man is in your house and has a gun doesn't mean he will kill you. Ever try to pet a dog and he backs into a corner and growls? Do you know why he does that? It's because he doesn't know what you are, or if you mean him harm. Are you an animal that can't make a decision better than "Fight him, or run away?". YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL, you do not have to act like one. You were given the intelligence to solve problems. It is why you are top of the food chain. Fear is the cause of violence, not the sense of protecting your loved ones.

A smart man would look at the gun in his cabinet and realize a few things before shooting a bugler.

"If I miss, he will kill me, and perhaps my family as revenge"
"If I kill him, his loved ones may suffer"
"If I am wounded in the fight, I may have to spend a lot of time in the hospital"
"The police may or may not retrieve my personal items, but my life is worth more"

An even smarter man would be compassionate for the situation that makes someone rob houses

"Does he have a drug problem?"
"Is this the only thing he's qualified to do?"
"How can I help him and people like him?"

The smartest man would ask him to stay for dinner.

It take no courage to cause violence, it takes all the courage you can muster to act like a human being in the most difficult times.
Wow.
Wow is right, you'd never know if someone is going to kill you till its too late.  There is accurate no way to discribe how awful these above paragraphs are. 

In the United States you are given freedoms.  We live at some greater risk for the offbalance of freedom.  No matter where you go, "bad men" will follow and exploit the system.  It happens everywhere, but the United States has the greatest freedoms, and also some of the greatest risks along with it.

Just because we have these risk does not mean that we should be unable to protect ourselves.  A man who has a drug problem and is robbing to get drugs is not going to stay for dinner; they are edgy, erratic, and desperate. 

If robbing people is the only thing someone is qualified to do it is because they have failed themselves.  Sure some people can use a little outside encouragement to go down the right path, but most don't want to.  They want to blame the system for their failures and miserable life because it is so much easier to blame someone else then yourself. 

I've seen this firsthand, I lived in the Southeast of the United States in South Carolina, ranked 48th - 50th in various aspects of education.  It has the single highest high school dropout rate of any state to my knowledge.  I also have divorced parents which statically reduced my odds of graduating from high school significantly.  Not only did I graduate, I scored a 1260 on the SAT without prep, study, etc.  That was just knowledge I had from one of the absolute worse programs in the country.  I now attend a four year university [Univ. of Nevada - Reno] and am working on a dual major of history and political science.  The difference between myself and the dropouts was that I didn't quit working in high school.  People can blame anything they want to, but if they are only qualified to steal then they have failed themselves.

As for helping these people, there are many programs out there but first they have to want to go to these programs. And then too often you hear of mishandled funds or someone exploiting the system so that they don't have to work.  I spend time trying to think of ways to help other people, but it has always come back to will they take the help and go with it or will they squander the opportunity given to them when we (soceity) have to step away and let them take the reigns?

There is also another option for so many people in the United States that they just ignore.  A short contract with the military, everything from the Coast Guard to the Marine Corps recruits.  A four year service contract usually comes with base housing, pay, training, etc.  This can help just about anyone get on their feet and start over again.

And lastly but not least: fight or flight.  You make it sound like we degrade ourselves to that of sludge when it is incorporated in everyone and everything.  I promise you that you go into fight or flight in just about every "dangerous" situation.  Remember the playground bullies? Your first thought being can I take them or should I run?  You didn't try and reason with them, and if you did you either got lucky because a teacher was near or you did what the bully wanted.

With someone in a threating position in adult life the stakes a little bit higher.  As a young adult I've already had a pistol and knives pull on me.  There are two things that went through my head, can I take them if this gets ugly or can I get away if I run.  Being in a crowded public area for both the running was just going to get others hurt and I was a varsity athlete since 10th grade and now a U.S. Marine, I stood my ground, called their bluff and things fizzled luckly.  I didn't have to pull a weapon on them, but I was prepared to physically engage them if my ploy didn't work.  Tea and crumpets were certainly not on the menu either, I more then likely would not have walked away from either incident if I had done the "smart things" listed above.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Oh, I'm sorry if, after re-iterating the same pointing over and fucking over again a accidently said it in a way you didn't like.  Allow me to clarify:

The UN deems defending one's rights to be acceptable, but does not deem this ability to be a right, as that would allow any and all people to do so, including those whose rights are being illegaly impinged (i.e. criminals).
Apology accepted, so you now agree with me that based on what you wrote in the post in question. I am right good boy.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6986
No, I admit that the phrasing was poor.

It's funny, y'know.  You go on and on about how all I ever do is try to trick you, but you only argue to the point where you can claim victory for some reason, whereas I recognise that this isn't a game, it's a discussion, there is no victory.
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|7189
Sorry about all the confusion Bubbalo but in the United States we think of defending ourselves as a right, consider it an effect of propoganda that we have had since birth.  Let me get this straight though.  The UN is saying that we can defend ourselves but that is is not a right so that criminals are not able to resist arrest as  form of self defense?

[edit: spelling]

Last edited by Ridir (2007-01-01 19:48:18)

Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6986

Ridir wrote:

Sorry about all the confusion Bubbalo but in the United States we think of defending ourselves as a right, consider it an effect of propoganda that we have had since birth.
This has nothing to do with propaganda.  I have an opinion, others have a different opinion.  The problem is that whilst I can understand and accept the view that it should be a right, even though I don't agree with it, lowing insists on being dense.

Ridir wrote:

The UN is saying that we can defend ourselves but that is is not a right so that criminals are not able to resist arrest as  form of self defense?
That's basically how I read it.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

No, I admit that the phrasing was poor.

It's funny, y'know.  You go on and on about how all I ever do is try to trick you, but you only argue to the point where you can claim victory for some reason, whereas I recognise that this isn't a game, it's a discussion, there is no victory.
Yeah, sucks don't it? Just a taste of how you, yourself, debate on here.......Can be frustrating debating you can't it?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Ridir wrote:

Sorry about all the confusion Bubbalo but in the United States we think of defending ourselves as a right, consider it an effect of propoganda that we have had since birth.
This has nothing to do with propaganda.  I have an opinion, others have a different opinion.  The problem is that whilst I can understand and accept the view that it should be a right, even though I don't agree with it, lowing insists on being dense.

Ridir wrote:

The UN is saying that we can defend ourselves but that is is not a right so that criminals are not able to resist arrest as  form of self defense?
That's basically how I read it.
And basically I think he is an idiot if he doesn't think we can have the right to defend ourselves, WITHOUT extending that right to criminals being arrested.


Me and bubbalo have history, we get get like this sometimes. Actually, he is about the only one that can get my blood boiling in this forum. He can take that as a compliment if he so chooses. It was meant to be anyway.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6986

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

No, I admit that the phrasing was poor.

It's funny, y'know.  You go on and on about how all I ever do is try to trick you, but you only argue to the point where you can claim victory for some reason, whereas I recognise that this isn't a game, it's a discussion, there is no victory.
Yeah, sucks don't it? Just a taste of how you, yourself, debate on here.......Can be frustrating debating you can't it?
Except you're the one doing the exact thing that you claim I do.  So, really, all you've done is prove that, in your opinion, you're an ass.  I've never taken someone's statement to mean something which I know it doesn't.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

No, I admit that the phrasing was poor.

It's funny, y'know.  You go on and on about how all I ever do is try to trick you, but you only argue to the point where you can claim victory for some reason, whereas I recognise that this isn't a game, it's a discussion, there is no victory.
Yeah, sucks don't it? Just a taste of how you, yourself, debate on here.......Can be frustrating debating you can't it?
Except you're the one doing the exact thing that you claim I do.  So, really, all you've done is prove that, in your opinion, you're an ass.  I've never taken someone's statement to mean something which I know it doesn't.
LMAO...........BULLFUCKIN'SHIT......God Damn bubbalo, that is all you do!!!
Ridir
Semper Fi!
+48|7189
Wow, been here done this gig before.  I remember why I quit posting on forums so much.  I use to troll and post so much I had the title of post whore on 3 different forums at once.  The debates that get your blood boiling are the ones that I figured out I need to step back and take a look at it. 

Basically the UN has done what the UN does.  It said we can protect ourselves while criminals cannot claim selfdefense as a right.  It means that somewhere someone, probably an American Lawyer tried to pull this on in an international case.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6986

lowing wrote:

LMAO...........BULLFUCKIN'SHIT......God Damn bubbalo, that is all you do!!!
In that case I'd take this statement to mean that you have a very high opinion of me.

Seriously though, when you're ready to debate properly, feel free.  Until then, you're welcome to continue making an idiot of yourself.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

LMAO...........BULLFUCKIN'SHIT......God Damn bubbalo, that is all you do!!!
In that case I'd take this statement to mean that you have a very high opinion of me.

Seriously though, when you're ready to debate properly, feel free.  Until then, you're welcome to continue making an idiot of yourself.
And was it your "proper" debate skills that had you facing a permanent ban on this forum?? You remember, the one that had you start a thread of apology, if you wanna call it that.

From I read, most people think I am an asshole, because they think I am an extreme ultra conservative, liberal hating, anti-socialist who puts personal responsibility above all else, when dealing with social issues, and they don't agree with me.

As for you, from what I read, most people think that you are just a smart ass.

I bow to the fact that I could be wrong in my assumption.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6986
Lowing, I don't think you're an asshole because of your views.  Their are lots of people whom I disagree with on ideological grounds, yet I have a very I opinion of them.  I think you're an asshole because you never admit that there can be two sides to an argument, and instead claim that I do all sorts of things which you then proceed to do yourself, as you've so clearly pointed out in this thread.

And I feel I ought remind that I wasn't permanently banned, because it wasn't deemed appropriate.  Y'know the whole part where it had more to do with POV than anything else (that, and apparently there are some people on these forums who can spot completely over the top sarcasm).

BTW, how does it feel to not be able to keep to a simple agreement for even a day?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-01-02 05:45:59)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|7076|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Lowing, I don't think you're an asshole because of your views.  Their are lots of people whom I disagree with on ideological grounds, yet I have a very I opinion of them.  I think you're an asshole because you never admit that there can be two sides to an argument, and instead claim that I do all sorts of things which you then proceed to do yourself, as you've so clearly pointed out in this thread.

And I feel I ought remind that I wasn't permanently banned, because it wasn't deemed appropriate.  Y'know the whole part where it had more to do with POV than anything else (that, and apparently there are some people on these forums who can spot completely over the top sarcasm).

BTW, how does it feel to not be able to keep to a simple agreement for even a day?
I gave you a taste of how you conduct yourself in these forums. Now you try and use a reversal of it. Nope.

I always admit there are two sides to an issue, I just happen to speak on behalf of MY side of it. Otherwise, what is the point? You seem upset because you think you are right, and you can't get me to agree with you. Sorry. Keep tryin' one day you might convince me.

Re-read that thread, you will find that I never agreed to be a part of it. So to say I broke a promise I never made seems kinda wrong. Anyway believe me, as far as getting nailed day one on that thread goes. I got a new sound soother from the sharper image for Christmas, I will set that thing on "rain shower" and sleep like a baby.
EVieira
Member
+105|6903|Lutenblaag, Molvania

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Ok, the U.N. just recently released a report stating
20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes designated as a ?right?. There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation. Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
You gotta be kidding me, all gun shit aside, I don't have the right to try and stop someone who is trying to KILL me???  WHAT!?!?!?
You aren't interpreting the text right, it doesn't say you don't have a right to self-defense, it says there is no specific law or right to self-defense. It also says the "nonexistent" right to self-defense is usually played out by using the right to life in protecting your own life, in the following sentence:

"Self-defense is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another."

Therefore, that text is actually protecting self-defense actions.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6986

lowing wrote:

I gave you a taste of how you conduct yourself in these forums. Now you try and use a reversal of it. Nope.
Could you link to a thread which shows an example of this?

lowing wrote:

I always admit there are two sides to an issue, I just happen to speak on behalf of MY side of it.
There's a difference between speaking against a side and acting as if only a brain-dead serial killer terrorists would hold it's view.

lowing wrote:

Re-read that thread, you will find that I never agreed to be a part of it.

lowing wrote:

Jan 1st, go ahead and line my name out.
You seem to think you did.

Either way, I'm done arguing this.  I'm sure I'll see you around.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-01-03 03:29:34)

oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6944|Πάϊ
I really can't tell what you people have been talking about in 10 pages, nor am I interested to find out. So... It is quite clear what this misunderstanding is all about if you focus on this part:

Thus, international criminal law designates self-defence as a rule to be followed to determine criminal liability, and not as an independent right which States are required to enforce.
...unlike freedom of speech for example. Therefore, this poll is misleading and what you voted for is irrelevant.
ƒ³

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard