92-year old vet kills a man with one shot page 5

110 posts

Flag Post

Inventions are not usually accidental.

Maybe a little mixup of words. I was more referring to the fact that getting born later reduces your chances to invent something ground-breaking in the sense that many of those already exist. Nevertheless, this is an uninteresting side-point. It was made to discuss whether or not someone has the “right” to own a certain object. I argue we currently do, even though wealth distribution is extremely unfair from a default point of view. But even with the right to own certain objects, it shouldn’t make you want or allowed to kill someone to protect those owned objects.

 
Flag Post

i’m not defending it. but just because someone does something bad doesn’t mean they aught to be killed. that kind of absolutist thinking is dangerous, that’s what i’m protesting.

gosh, what’s so hard about this? i can understand the old man’s actions, but i disagree that someone deserve to die just for being stupid. he runs the risk willingly, so i’m not too sorry for him, but i am a little yes, and so i also protest dangerous absolutism.

many people have argued that the old man should probably have tried non-lethal means of keeping himself safe. there is also the sentiment from other people that this would not be necessary because of black-and-white burglar bad burglarised good thinking. it’s the latter that i was countering.

so what’s all this fuss about? i don’t get it.

 
Flag Post

Omega, it is the cleaning of the gene pool.

Seriously, in most cases of self-defense you do not have a lot of time to think about if the criminal is just stupid or a real danger. You react before he does and you win. If you do too much analyzing, you lose.

 
Flag Post

ah, it’s just Eugenics.

 
Flag Post

Yeah, it is. LOL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

well i’m at least half serious. if we’re talking moral right, legal right isn’t a good argument to base it on, because that’s reverse.

and jhco made the worked hard for it argument. i just said the burglar is also working hard for it, which is true. the claim that a burglar’s work is a “big difference” from the work done by this “homeowner” is not a good argument. show me in what way that guy’s work is more valid or meritable or whatever than the burglar’s?

Look, I’ll concede that jhco’s arguments tend to be offputting and drive away supporters, but the fact remains that when someone owns property and expects to be safe within the confines of their own property (be it their home, car, etc.) they should be. No one who decides to steal or pose a threat to that should have equal rights to it; it’s more than legality, it’s common sense.


even if the guy’s work is legal, doesn’t mean it’s useful to society.

so the question still remains: what gives the old man the right to claim it his property? other than blanket claims and begging the question.

Maybe some people who do legally own property aren’t great contributors to society, but the fact remains that they own it. Not to paint it too black and white, but geez, someone who burgles that property is committing a wrong and really taking their chances. Make no mistake about it; they are in the wrong.

two centuries ago, people did not think burglars were bad people. in fact, the people were on the side of all of the famous burglars, which havfe always had a Robin Hood status.

Robin Hood is a fantasy though, and was based in a medieval, near anarchist society. It bears little resemblance to say, someone breaking into a home who is stealing to obtain goods to sell and support a drug habit. Don’t get me wrong either, I understand that people can fall on hard times, but stealing is not the answer; there are already numerous government aid programs out there to help with shelter, food, and medical needs.

 
Flag Post

well sure, but but you also seem to have assumed that it’s a drug addict that was gonna use it for drugs. and Robin Hood is more than a fantasy. many robbers have had that reputation.

in fact, when they were trying to find out which person it was based on, they found several people living in that era in England called Robert of Hood or some other such variant with such a reputation to choose between.

the people at large were always on the side of robbers. robbers, of course, never stole from them, because they had nothing to steal.

but i was countering dangerous black and white thinking, which now, since jhco actually came forward with Eugenics, has become all to clear was really necessary.

oh, and property is theft, btw.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

well sure, but but you also seem to have assumed that it’s a drug addict that was gonna use it for drugs. and Robin Hood is more than a fantasy. many robbers have had that reputation.

in fact, when they were trying to find out which person it was based on, they found several people living in that era in England called Robert of Hood or some other such variant with such a reputation to choose between.

the people at large were always on the side of robbers. robbers, of course, never stole from them, because they had nothing to steal.

but i was countering dangerous black and white thinking, which now, since jhco actually came forward with Eugenics, has become all to clear was really necessary.

oh, and property is theft, btw.

Under what intentions is the burglar’s actions justifiable? I see almost nothing realistic in this situation.

 
Flag Post

well, maybe some crazy theories about how this old man stole from them first or such or so. maybe the old man was gonna burn the only original copy left of The Frogman, and they’re huge fans.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator