most ridiculously biased question wording i've ever seen
Poll
Self Defense (Not Gun Related), Do you think self defense is valid?
| Yes | 95% | 95% - 246 | ||||
| No | 4% | 4% - 11 | ||||
| Total: 257 | ||||||
No. Self-defense is not vigilanteism. Finding someone's house and blowing their head off after the fact is not the same as blowing their head off to prevent them from accomplishing murderous goals against you and your kin. And by 'blowing someone's head off,' I don't necessarily mean by firearms. It could be anything from a Chuck Norris roundhouse to a stray Zeussian thunderbolt.P581 wrote:
Self defense is just another term for revenge? No? Are you saying that instead of having a court system we should just let citizens measure out the punishment that their "assailant" deserves?
I realize this is a late post, but this thread was brought to my attention once again by a bit of random karma.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-30 17:00:41)
If self defense is a right, then criminals can't be charged for shooting police officers attempting to apprehend them.lowing wrote:
Hey a moment of clarity from bubbalo, I don't agree with it, however.
Self defense is a right by nature. It is an instinct dictated by nature NOT governed, by man. Man merely needs to decide if your action WAS self defense or not.
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.Bubbalo wrote:
If self defense is a right, then criminals can't be charged for shooting police officers attempting to apprehend them.lowing wrote:
Hey a moment of clarity from bubbalo, I don't agree with it, however.
Self defense is a right by nature. It is an instinct dictated by nature NOT governed, by man. Man merely needs to decide if your action WAS self defense or not.
By that logic, nobody has the right to defend their civil rights.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.Bubbalo wrote:
If self defense is a right, then criminals can't be charged for shooting police officers attempting to apprehend them.lowing wrote:
Hey a moment of clarity from bubbalo, I don't agree with it, however.
Self defense is a right by nature. It is an instinct dictated by nature NOT governed, by man. Man merely needs to decide if your action WAS self defense or not.
An individual defending themselves against unjust violence from another individual is not a detriment to society. A violent criminal who seeks to hurt and kill people is.
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.Bubbalo wrote:
If self defense is a right, then criminals can't be charged for shooting police officers attempting to apprehend them.lowing wrote:
Hey a moment of clarity from bubbalo, I don't agree with it, however.
Self defense is a right by nature. It is an instinct dictated by nature NOT governed, by man. Man merely needs to decide if your action WAS self defense or not.
Please show me a definition of self defense that has it as, an "infringement of another's right".
A criminal will lash out when cornered, he is defending himself, so will a dog. That doesn't mean when they catch him he won't be put down. Also, if you can not see the difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail. Well then, you are truly lost.
An argument over my right to keep people from hurting me or my kids, and NOBODY can figure out why I hate LIBERALS????? JESUS!! I mean could you POSSIBLY be any more cowering or submissive?? These are the people that claim they don't want to appease terrorists, they just want to "understand them" and make it allllllllll better........Ya right!!...........All better for the terrorists maybe.
No wonder you won't defend your countries, hell, you won't even defend yourselves!!!
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-31 05:19:43)
Neither of you deserve the right to exist.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.Bubbalo wrote:
If self defense is a right, then criminals can't be charged for shooting police officers attempting to apprehend them.lowing wrote:
Hey a moment of clarity from bubbalo, I don't agree with it, however.
Self defense is a right by nature. It is an instinct dictated by nature NOT governed, by man. Man merely needs to decide if your action WAS self defense or not.
Malloy must go
Done letting off steam? Good. Now:lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.Bubbalo wrote:
If self defense is a right, then criminals can't be charged for shooting police officers attempting to apprehend them.
Please show me a definition of self defense that has it as, an "infringement of another's right".
A criminal will lash out when cornered, he is defending himself, so will a dog. That doesn't mean when they catch him he won't be put down. Also, if you can not see the difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail. Well then, you are truly lost.
An argument over my right to keep people from hurting me or my kids, and NOBODY can figure out why I hate LIBERALS????? JESUS!! I mean could you POSSIBLY be any more cowering or submissive?? These are the people that claim they don't want to appease terrorists, they just want to "understand them" and make it allllllllll better........Ya right!!...........All better for the terrorists maybe.
No wonder you won't defend your countries, hell, you won't even defend yourselves!!!
You're foaming at the mouth over nothing. Yes, nothing. There's not a single post in this thread that says self-defense is wrong. I cannot find a single post that is against the use of potentially lethal force as self defense in extreme circumstances.
Can't you see that the argument is not over self defense? The argument is over the definition of a 'basic right', and there actually is not much left to argue about.
A basic right is something that is independent of circumstance, and not conditional. A basic right applies always, to the model citizen and to the criminal alike. This is important.
You argue that there's a 'difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail'. And I'm fully with you on this one. Now, does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to a fair trial? No.
Does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to defend themselves?
Not, because that would violate my right to live free from harm, and I would be justified in defending that right.lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.
Exactly.apollo_fi wrote:
Done letting off steam? Good. Now:lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.
Please show me a definition of self defense that has it as, an "infringement of another's right".
A criminal will lash out when cornered, he is defending himself, so will a dog. That doesn't mean when they catch him he won't be put down. Also, if you can not see the difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail. Well then, you are truly lost.
An argument over my right to keep people from hurting me or my kids, and NOBODY can figure out why I hate LIBERALS????? JESUS!! I mean could you POSSIBLY be any more cowering or submissive?? These are the people that claim they don't want to appease terrorists, they just want to "understand them" and make it allllllllll better........Ya right!!...........All better for the terrorists maybe.
No wonder you won't defend your countries, hell, you won't even defend yourselves!!!
You're foaming at the mouth over nothing. Yes, nothing. There's not a single post in this thread that says self-defense is wrong. I cannot find a single post that is against the use of potentially lethal force as self defense in extreme circumstances.
Can't you see that the argument is not over self defense? The argument is over the definition of a 'basic right', and there actually is not much left to argue about.
A basic right is something that is independent of circumstance, and not conditional. A basic right applies always, to the model citizen and to the criminal alike. This is important.
You argue that there's a 'difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail'. And I'm fully with you on this one. Now, does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to a fair trial? No.
Does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to defend themselves?
Although, to be fair, foaming at the mouth seems to be about all that Conservatives do.
Sorry buddy,not exactly foaming at the mouth over anything. I am quite sure you could be disgusted without foaming at the mouth.apollo_fi wrote:
Done letting off steam? Good. Now:lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.
Please show me a definition of self defense that has it as, an "infringement of another's right".
A criminal will lash out when cornered, he is defending himself, so will a dog. That doesn't mean when they catch him he won't be put down. Also, if you can not see the difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail. Well then, you are truly lost.
An argument over my right to keep people from hurting me or my kids, and NOBODY can figure out why I hate LIBERALS????? JESUS!! I mean could you POSSIBLY be any more cowering or submissive?? These are the people that claim they don't want to appease terrorists, they just want to "understand them" and make it allllllllll better........Ya right!!...........All better for the terrorists maybe.
No wonder you won't defend your countries, hell, you won't even defend yourselves!!!
You're foaming at the mouth over nothing. Yes, nothing. There's not a single post in this thread that says self-defense is wrong. I cannot find a single post that is against the use of potentially lethal force as self defense in extreme circumstances.
Can't you see that the argument is not over self defense? The argument is over the definition of a 'basic right', and there actually is not much left to argue about.
A basic right is something that is independent of circumstance, and not conditional. A basic right applies always, to the model citizen and to the criminal alike. This is important.
You argue that there's a 'difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail'. And I'm fully with you on this one. Now, does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to a fair trial? No.
Does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to defend themselves?
I never said, THEY said self defense was wrong. They maintain I don't have the "RIGHT " to defend myself. That my doing so would be an "infringement of the rights" of my attacker. Anyone that denies the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to another automatically forfeits his rights to the same and is then subject to due process, which dictates a criminal has a right to a fair trial, and various other rights. But his rights as a free man are gone for the duration.
So your "basic rights NOT being conditional" theory is as much bullshit as their belief that I have no right to defend myself.
still waiting on that definition that says that self defense "BY DEFINITION" is an infringement on another's rights.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-31 06:46:51)
In other words, you have the right to defend yourself.........Bubbalo wrote:
Not, because that would violate my right to live free from harm, and I would be justified in defending that right.lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-31 06:44:44)
Ya right, go make your bed.Bubbalo wrote:
Exactly.apollo_fi wrote:
Done letting off steam? Good. Now:lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.
Please show me a definition of self defense that has it as, an "infringement of another's right".
A criminal will lash out when cornered, he is defending himself, so will a dog. That doesn't mean when they catch him he won't be put down. Also, if you can not see the difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail. Well then, you are truly lost.
An argument over my right to keep people from hurting me or my kids, and NOBODY can figure out why I hate LIBERALS????? JESUS!! I mean could you POSSIBLY be any more cowering or submissive?? These are the people that claim they don't want to appease terrorists, they just want to "understand them" and make it allllllllll better........Ya right!!...........All better for the terrorists maybe.
No wonder you won't defend your countries, hell, you won't even defend yourselves!!!
You're foaming at the mouth over nothing. Yes, nothing. There's not a single post in this thread that says self-defense is wrong. I cannot find a single post that is against the use of potentially lethal force as self defense in extreme circumstances.
Can't you see that the argument is not over self defense? The argument is over the definition of a 'basic right', and there actually is not much left to argue about.
A basic right is something that is independent of circumstance, and not conditional. A basic right applies always, to the model citizen and to the criminal alike. This is important.
You argue that there's a 'difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail'. And I'm fully with you on this one. Now, does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to a fair trial? No.
Does the difference between the victim and the attacker have an effect on their right to defend themselves?
Although, to be fair, foaming at the mouth seems to be about all that Conservatives do.
No, because if a right to defend oneself is required to be justified in defending ones rights, then rights are meaningless in and of themselves, and ought not be codified.lowing wrote:
In other words, you have the right to defend yourself.........Bubbalo wrote:
Not, because that would violate my right to live free from harm, and I would be justified in defending that right.lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.
The the king king of of double double talk talk has has spoken spoken. gimme gimme a a fuckin' fuckin' break break.Bubbalo wrote:
No, because if a right to defend oneself is required to be justified in defending ones rights, then rights are meaningless in and of themselves, and ought not be codified.lowing wrote:
In other words, you have the right to defend yourself.........Bubbalo wrote:
Not, because that would violate my right to live free from harm, and I would be justified in defending that right.
No personal attacks please lowing. You know the rules.lowing wrote:
The the king king of of double double talk talk has has spoken spoken. gimme gimme a a fuckin' fuckin' break break.Bubbalo wrote:
No, because if a right to defend oneself is required to be justified in defending ones rights, then rights are meaningless in and of themselves, and ought not be codified.lowing wrote:
In other words, you have the right to defend yourself.........
Pointing out the obvious, is hardly a personal attack.jonsimon wrote:
No personal attacks please lowing. You know the rules.lowing wrote:
The the king king of of double double talk talk has has spoken spoken. gimme gimme a a fuckin' fuckin' break break.Bubbalo wrote:
No, because if a right to defend oneself is required to be justified in defending ones rights, then rights are meaningless in and of themselves, and ought not be codified.
Hows about you read my responses to your post and launch a counter strike?....
...it's not 'my theory'.lowing wrote:
So your "basic rights NOT being conditional" theory is as much bullshit as their belief that I have no right to defend myself.
For example, see the definition of human rights on britannica.com: 'rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals as a consequence of being human.'
At your request: :)lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.Bubbalo wrote:
If self defense is a right, then criminals can't be charged for shooting police officers attempting to apprehend them.
Please show me a definition of self defense that has it as, an "infringement of another's right".
A criminal will lash out when cornered, he is defending himself, so will a dog. That doesn't mean when they catch him he won't be put down. Also, if you can not see the difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail. Well then, you are truly lost.
An argument over my right to keep people from hurting me or my kids, and NOBODY can figure out why I hate LIBERALS????? JESUS!! I mean could you POSSIBLY be any more cowering or submissive?? These are the people that claim they don't want to appease terrorists, they just want to "understand them" and make it allllllllll better........Ya right!!...........All better for the terrorists maybe.
No wonder you won't defend your countries, hell, you won't even defend yourselves!!!
Of course I would fight back, but I don't necessarily have the civil right to do so. I am well justified assuming it was you who threw the first punch, but I don't have a right to hit you back.
As for my earlier comment, I was slightly narrow in my definition of self-defense, and I will have to revise my position. Self-defense is a right so long as it does not infringe the rights of another person. In other words, any non-violent means of obstruction or self-defense is the civil right of any person. However, any violent means of self defense, such as punching, is an infringment of another parties rights and cannot be protected as a civil right without contradicting the system of civil rights.
As for the example of a criminal, a criminal is still a person and is technically innocent even when caught (by US law at least), so he is still entitled to his civil rights. If violent self-defense is one of those rights, and retaliation against persuers is protected under his civil rights and he cannot be punished for killing any persuer in self-defense.
As for your obviously hot-headed attacks on liberals, I'll excuse you and assume those were not your express opinions or were not intended for the current thread of discussion.
Legally speaking, I would advocate rational self-defense, including violent self-defense, unpunishable by law. However, violent self-defense cannot be considered a civil right without introducing paradox into our system of civil rights.
Even your "human rights" is conditional on your behavior as a frickin' human. Is that all you wanna refute in my post??apollo_fi wrote:
...it's not 'my theory'.lowing wrote:
So your "basic rights NOT being conditional" theory is as much bullshit as their belief that I have no right to defend myself.
For example, see the definition of human rights on britannica.com: 'rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals as a consequence of being human.'
You are using the words "right" and "justifiable" as if they meant 2 different things. So let me help ya out and put this to bed once and for all.jonsimon wrote:
At your request:lowing wrote:
SO I assume you both will stand still, while I beat the ever living shit out of you, for being so ridiculously stupid in your beliefs that we have no right to self preservation.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. Self-defense is by definition the infringment of another's rights, and thus cannot be a right itself if civil rights are not going to be contradictory.
Please show me a definition of self defense that has it as, an "infringement of another's right".
A criminal will lash out when cornered, he is defending himself, so will a dog. That doesn't mean when they catch him he won't be put down. Also, if you can not see the difference between a victim defending his hearth and home, and a criminal NOT wanting to go to jail. Well then, you are truly lost.
An argument over my right to keep people from hurting me or my kids, and NOBODY can figure out why I hate LIBERALS????? JESUS!! I mean could you POSSIBLY be any more cowering or submissive?? These are the people that claim they don't want to appease terrorists, they just want to "understand them" and make it allllllllll better........Ya right!!...........All better for the terrorists maybe.
No wonder you won't defend your countries, hell, you won't even defend yourselves!!!
Of course I would fight back, but I don't necessarily have the civil right to do so. I am well justified assuming it was you who threw the first punch, but I don't have a right to hit you back.
As for my earlier comment, I was slightly narrow in my definition of self-defense, and I will have to revise my position. Self-defense is a right so long as it does not infringe the rights of another person. In other words, any non-violent means of obstruction or self-defense is the civil right of any person. However, any violent means of self defense, such as punching, is an infringment of another parties rights and cannot be protected as a civil right without contradicting the system of civil rights.
As for the example of a criminal, a criminal is still a person and is technically innocent even when caught (by US law at least), so he is still entitled to his civil rights. If violent self-defense is one of those rights, and retaliation against persuers is protected under his civil rights and he cannot be punished for killing any persuer in self-defense.
As for your obviously hot-headed attacks on liberals, I'll excuse you and assume those were not your express opinions or were not intended for the current thread of discussion.
Legally speaking, I would advocate rational self-defense, including violent self-defense, unpunishable by law. However, violent self-defense cannot be considered a civil right without introducing paradox into our system of civil rights.
from dictionary.com......
right /raɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb
–adjective 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or JUST: right conduct.
–noun 18. a JUST claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, JUSTice, morality, or ethics.
Notice how they use the base word JUST in the definition of "right" the base word JUST as in JUSTifiable.
You have literally backed yourself into a corner with your own words.........having the right, and being justifiable is the same damn thing. Per the OFFICIAL definition of the word!!
A person under suspect and arrest has his rights suspended for the duration until he is put through due process, then, he is able to exercise rights that he normally wouldn't need to exercise but were always available to him.
As for my "hot- headed attack on liberals"......there was nothing hot headed about it. I was speaking as quit a matter of factually and meant every word, based on this thread. I am not trying to get a rise out of anyone. I really do hate the liberal mentality toward the world around them. It is unrealistic and quite pussified. Peace at any price is an appeasement mentality that I do not agree with.
Yer turn
OK, I'm not getting through, it seems.lowing wrote:
Even your "human rights" is conditional on your behavior as a frickin' human. Is that all you wanna refute in my post??apollo_fi wrote:
...it's not 'my theory'.lowing wrote:
So your "basic rights NOT being conditional" theory is as much bullshit as their belief that I have no right to defend myself.
For example, see the definition of human rights on britannica.com: 'rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals as a consequence of being human.'
Apparently you don't agree that there exists an idea of rights which are inviolable. And I am rather surprised that you, as an American, find the idea so strange.
Inviolable rights are those that apply to white men, black men, and convicted lesbian serial killers alike.
These rights are not conditional on your behaviour as a frickin' human. Being a frickin' human is enough for these rights to apply. These rights are the human rights.
There are other rights than human rights, e.g. civil rights, fishing rights and Jus Prima Noctis. These can apply or be suspended, depending on your behaviour and other applicable attributes. The right to defend oneself is one of them.
You are confusing a right with a privilege. You do not have the privilege to self defense, you have the right to it. See a few posts up on the definition.apollo_fi wrote:
OK, I'm not getting through, it seems.lowing wrote:
Even your "human rights" is conditional on your behavior as a frickin' human. Is that all you wanna refute in my post??apollo_fi wrote:
...it's not 'my theory'.
For example, see the definition of human rights on britannica.com: 'rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals as a consequence of being human.'
Apparently you don't agree that there exists an idea of rights which are inviolable. And I am rather surprised that you, as an American, find the idea so strange.
Inviolable rights are those that apply to white men, black men, and convicted lesbian serial killers alike.
These rights are not conditional on your behaviour as a frickin' human. Being a frickin' human is enough for these rights to apply. These rights are the human rights.
There are other rights than human rights, e.g. civil rights, fishing rights and Jus Prima Noctis. These can apply or be suspended, depending on your behaviour and other applicable attributes. The right to defend oneself is one of them.
I would love to know an example of "human rights" that is not conditional on your behavior to act humane. I mean I am a supporter of capitol punishment. Nothing much worse that you can do to someone than take away their breathing rights.
Damn straight it's excessive force. But then it raises another question. If the officers had missed, would it have been right for the youth to have used lethal force in self-defense, i.e. to kill the policemen who were trying to kill her?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
This recently happened about 15 minutes from where I live. Excessive force, or self-defense?
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/ne … 269369.php
How is it within the guidelines of self protection when a 18 year-old girl is wielding a pocket knife and two officers shoot her, citing their own defense as a reason? To me, that is excessive force, and the two policemen should go to jail for manslaughter at least. Anyone disagree? If you do, please tell me how you rationalize this violent act.
Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again!
I love the 'shoot first, ask questions later" law, however it only applies if someone goes INSIDE your property ... I wanna shoot burglars outside!
I know the thread isn't gun related but I had to say it .
Last edited by |=-sL-=|.Cujucuyo. (2006-12-31 14:32:06)