Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10

 

Poll

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

Yes95%95% - 246
No4%4% - 11
Total: 257
2007-01-01 10:44:30
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6918|Connecticut

Stormscythe wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I can read, I just think storm said what he wanted to say wrong. He said self defense should only apply when death is the next step.
... and I though we were talking about lethal self-defence here. No lethal consequence for the attacker, as long as he didn't intend to kill me.
If it's just about 'you get what you wanted to give' I'm pro, of course. I will engage in a fight brought upon me as long as I stand a chance - but I think everyone would engage in a superior position...

And right, I was a bit astonished when you addressed me with 'Bubbalo'...
I was being sarcastic is all.
Malloy must go
2007-01-01 10:45:22
Stormscythe
Aiming for the head
+88|6975|EUtopia | Austria

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Self defense is a right. That is my opinion.
I'm about to say, it's a duty - everything else is negligent.

EDIT: Although surrender might be one way of self-defence, eventually.

Last edited by Stormscythe (2007-01-01 10:47:41)

2007-01-01 10:45:32
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6956|The lunar module

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I think it does have relavance, some people maintain a certain view until an experience changes their line of thought. I am wondering wether that is the case or not.
For the last time:

I AM NOT DISPUTING WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND ONESELF

Besides which, even if an event does change your opinion, it doesn't mean you were wrong to start with.
Then what is your arguement?
For crying out loud, man, please familiarize yourself with at least the OP and the last couple of pages. You're embarrassing yourself
2007-01-01 10:46:38
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7142

Bubbalo wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


Who's derailing the thread?
You and Deeznutz.
What the fuck are you on?
Vodka, Jaegemeister, Bailey's, Jack Daniels. What I'm seeing here is you two derailing the thread with such BS it's not even on topic anymore. But anyways, carry on with the debate.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2007-01-01 10:52:25
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6918|Connecticut
Hey, I tried getting back on topic a while ago with a relevant question and the response had something to do with anal fried chicken. And second you people seem to forget I am one of the last to in the world to celebrate New Years because of the time zone. In other words I am still drunk.
PS---Bailey's and Jager? *instant vomit mix 4 me*

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2007-01-01 10:53:27)

Malloy must go
2007-01-01 10:54:25
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

You and Deeznutz.
What the fuck are you on?
Vodka, Jaegemeister, Bailey's, Jack Daniels. What I'm seeing here is you two derailing the thread with such BS it's not even on topic anymore. But anyways, carry on with the debate.
I would be on the shitter all day with that combo.
2007-01-01 10:55:03
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7142

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Hey, I tried getting back on topic a while ago with a relevant question and the response had something to do with anal fried chicken. And second you people seem to forget I am one of the last to in the world to celebrate New Years because of the time zone. In other words I am still drunk.
PS---Bailey's and Jager? *instant vomit mix 4 me*
I don't blame you that much. I blame Bubbalo more for starting it.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2007-01-01 10:56:11
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6918|Connecticut

apollo_fi wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


For the last time:

I AM NOT DISPUTING WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND ONESELF

Besides which, even if an event does change your opinion, it doesn't mean you were wrong to start with.
Then what is your arguement?
For crying out loud, man, please familiarize yourself with at least the OP and the last couple of pages. You're embarrassing yourself
I am not embarrassing myself. My beef with Bubbalo is exclusive to his comments on whether or not the police have a right to apprehend a criminal, and whether or not the criminal has the right to defend. Him and I know what we are talking about, you astroanut, so shut up.
Malloy must go
2007-01-01 10:56:18
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7142

usmarine2007 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


What the fuck are you on?
Vodka, Jaegemeister, Bailey's, Jack Daniels. What I'm seeing here is you two derailing the thread with such BS it's not even on topic anymore. But anyways, carry on with the debate.
I would be on the shitter all day with that combo.
Pretty much one shot of each.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2007-01-01 11:08:23
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6956|The lunar module

deeznutz1245 wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Then what is your arguement?
For crying out loud, man, please familiarize yourself with at least the OP and the last couple of pages. You're embarrassing yourself
I am not embarrassing myself. My beef with Bubbalo is exclusive to his comments on whether or not the police have a right to apprehend a criminal, and whether or not the criminal has the right to defend. Him and I know what we are talking about, you astroanut, so shut up.
oh... sorry, didn't understand that.

You've got such a pretty smile and all, I didn't want you to suffer an embarrassment.













ps. ditch the monkey-boy in the red shirt. You can do better.
2007-01-01 11:28:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

I think the big issue here is that a lot of people are failing to properly comprehend the passage.  It states that self-defence is not a right in and of itself, but that violating another's rights if they are attempting to violate yours is justifiable.  Which makes perfect sense: defending your rights isn't a specific right, but the whole concept of a right implies that such a right can be defended.
and if you look up the definition of "right" the word "just" helps in defining it. A point of which went ignored by you.

You also maintain that the the UN will not recognize the right to self defense, but deems it "acceptable". You agree with this. For you to agree, then you must also agree, that it is "acceptable" for a criminal to fight off cops based on what you are trying to pass off as "self defense". If you do not agree with this, then you must accept the fact that we are talking about 2 different things. If you accept that fact, then 100% of your argument is bullshit.
2007-01-01 12:10:39
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6918|Connecticut

deeznutz1245 wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not embarrassing myself. My beef with Bubbalo is exclusive to his comments on whether or not the police have a right to apprehend a criminal, and whether or not the criminal has the right to defend. Him and I know what we are talking about, you astroanut, so shut up.
oh... sorry, didn't understand that.

You've got such a pretty smile and all, I didn't want you to suffer an embarrassment.
*laughing* I know I smile like old people fuck, but hey...I still have my thousand yard stare.


The shirt is not red...its peach....ha!









ps. ditch the monkey-boy in the red shirt. You can do better.
Malloy must go
2007-01-01 12:33:25
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6956|The lunar module

deeznutz1245 wrote:

The shirt is not red...its peach....ha!
Well, whaddayaknow... it is Peach. I stand corrected
2007-01-01 12:35:11
jonsimon
Member
+224|6921

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

I think the big issue here is that a lot of people are failing to properly comprehend the passage.  It states that self-defence is not a right in and of itself, but that violating another's rights if they are attempting to violate yours is justifiable.  Which makes perfect sense: defending your rights isn't a specific right, but the whole concept of a right implies that such a right can be defended.
and if you look up the definition of "right" the word "just" helps in defining it. A point of which went ignored by you.

You also maintain that the the UN will not recognize the right to self defense, but deems it "acceptable". You agree with this. For you to agree, then you must also agree, that it is "acceptable" for a criminal to fight off cops based on what you are trying to pass off as "self defense". If you do not agree with this, then you must accept the fact that we are talking about 2 different things. If you accept that fact, then 100% of your argument is bullshit.
Lowing, those examples with criminals fighting in self-defense, those were anaolgies meant to make your position look silly and unreasonable. They were not his opinions. If you don't understand that, you're a dolt because that is common practice in a debate or argument.
2007-01-01 12:43:48
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


and if you look up the definition of "right" the word "just" helps in defining it. A point of which went ignored by you.

You also maintain that the the UN will not recognize the right to self defense, but deems it "acceptable". You agree with this. For you to agree, then you must also agree, that it is "acceptable" for a criminal to fight off cops based on what you are trying to pass off as "self defense". If you do not agree with this, then you must accept the fact that we are talking about 2 different things. If you accept that fact, then 100% of your argument is bullshit.
Lowing, those examples with criminals fighting in self-defense, those were anaolgies meant to make your position look silly and unreasonable. They were not his opinions. If you don't understand that, you're a dolt because that is common practice in a debate or argument.
If you want to make my postion look "silly or "unreasonable" DON'T use "silly unreasonable, dumbass analogies". If you have to do such things, then maybe you better double check your position to see if your argument can really hold water.

Happy New Year by the way jonsimon
2007-01-01 14:22:01
jonsimon
Member
+224|6921

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:


and if you look up the definition of "right" the word "just" helps in defining it. A point of which went ignored by you.

You also maintain that the the UN will not recognize the right to self defense, but deems it "acceptable". You agree with this. For you to agree, then you must also agree, that it is "acceptable" for a criminal to fight off cops based on what you are trying to pass off as "self defense". If you do not agree with this, then you must accept the fact that we are talking about 2 different things. If you accept that fact, then 100% of your argument is bullshit.
Lowing, those examples with criminals fighting in self-defense, those were anaolgies meant to make your position look silly and unreasonable. They were not his opinions. If you don't understand that, you're a dolt because that is common practice in a debate or argument.
If you want to make my postion look "silly or "unreasonable" DON'T use "silly unreasonable, dumbass analogies". If you have to do such things, then maybe you better double check your position to see if your argument can really hold water.

Happy New Year by the way jonsimon
The point is that the analogy sounds unreasonable, but is logically sound if taken from your perspective. When effectively constructed they imply that the opposing party in an argument is unreasonable and mistaken.

Happy New Year
2007-01-01 14:42:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Lowing, those examples with criminals fighting in self-defense, those were anaolgies meant to make your position look silly and unreasonable. They were not his opinions. If you don't understand that, you're a dolt because that is common practice in a debate or argument.
If you want to make my postion look "silly or "unreasonable" DON'T use "silly unreasonable, dumbass analogies". If you have to do such things, then maybe you better double check your position to see if your argument can really hold water.

Happy New Year by the way jonsimon
The point is that the analogy sounds unreasonable, but is logically sound if taken from your perspective. When effectively constructed they imply that the opposing party in an argument is unreasonable and mistaken.

Happy New Year
Nothing logically sounding about it, if you have to go that over the edge to try and torpedo someone's point, then you have no point to make at all. To be valid you should be able to refute someones post at face value. NOt bombard it with a shit load of unreasonable "what if" bullshit. This is the tactic Bubbalo tries and uses all the time. He can not go head to head with a post and make a point, he has to introduce a bunch of way the fuck out there scenerios to it, until he comes up with a combination of shit that works for him. Yet still has very little to do with the topic at hand.

Last edited by lowing (2007-01-01 14:43:33)

2007-01-01 15:51:46
SlightlySto0pid
Member
+7|6875|New York

P581 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

P581 wrote:

"Okay Todd, since he hit you, hit him back."
As some Scottish song goes "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, till we're all blind and have no teeth."
......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.
2007-01-01 16:31:30
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6918|Connecticut

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.
I wouldnt ask anything, my dog would eat HIM for dinner. That is a good dog.
Malloy must go
2007-01-01 18:16:59
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6987

deeznutz1245 wrote:

I am not embarrassing myself. My beef with Bubbalo is exclusive to his comments on whether or not the police have a right to apprehend a criminal, and whether or not the criminal has the right to defend. Him and I know what we are talking about, you astroanut, so shut up.
But I don't feel that criminals have a right to defend themselves from police.
2007-01-01 18:17:54
jonnykill
The Microwave Man
+235|7105
I got into a discussion with some idiot on the board here that said you have no right to kill someone thats trying to kill you. Eurowussies.
2007-01-01 18:20:27
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6987

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Hey, I tried getting back on topic a while ago with a relevant question and the response had something to do with anal fried chicken. And second you people seem to forget I am one of the last to in the world to celebrate New Years because of the time zone. In other words I am still drunk.
PS---Bailey's and Jager? *instant vomit mix 4 me*
I don't blame you that much. I blame Bubbalo more for starting it.
And when lowing started an argument in another thread you blamed me for starting it, after I'd done the right thing and stopped arguing, which was the the thing lowing, not me, had agreed to do.  You blame everything on me, regardless of the situation, because you have an intense, personal hatred of me.
2007-01-01 18:20:44
djphetal
Go Ducks.
+346|6761|Oregon
I voted "no" because i didn't understand the question...

of course someone has a right to self defense....
2007-01-01 18:23:41
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6987

lowing wrote:

and if you look up the definition of "right" the word "just" helps in defining it. A point of which went ignored by you.
Oh, well, if the word just helps in defining it then everything that's just must be right .

lowing wrote:

You also maintain that the the UN will not recognize the right to self defense, but deems it "acceptable". You agree with this. For you to agree, then you must also agree, that it is "acceptable" for a criminal to fight off cops based on what you are trying to pass off as "self defense". If you do not agree with this, then you must accept the fact that we are talking about 2 different things. If you accept that fact, then 100% of your argument is bullshit.
Can you not fucking read?  The UN does not consider self-defence a right, but does deem it acceptable to defend onself against a violation of one's rights if they are being illegally impinged.  Self-defence can be limited to these situations specifically because it is not a right.
2007-01-01 18:55:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

and if you look up the definition of "right" the word "just" helps in defining it. A point of which went ignored by you.
Oh, well, if the word just helps in defining it then everything that's just must be right .

lowing wrote:

You also maintain that the the UN will not recognize the right to self defense, but deems it "acceptable". You agree with this. For you to agree, then you must also agree, that it is "acceptable" for a criminal to fight off cops based on what you are trying to pass off as "self defense". If you do not agree with this, then you must accept the fact that we are talking about 2 different things. If you accept that fact, then 100% of your argument is bullshit.
Can you not fucking read?  The UN does not consider self-defence a right, but does deem it acceptable to defend onself against a violation of one's rights if they are being illegally impinged.  Self-defence can be limited to these situations specifically because it is not a right.
YOU not the UN was suggesting that a criminal is defending himself against a cop trying to arrest him, and that having a right to self defense allows this.

You also said that the UN deemed self defense acceptable, you agree with this.

I say, you can not deem self defense as "acceptable" without using the SAME argument that a criminal using self defense is "acceptable". If you are unable to do so, then you acknowledge that we are talking about 2 different things. Which pretty much sinks your whole argument about self defense not being a right.

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard