What is the cash value of a single human life?

[Surlethe]

I suppose if one is being ignorant, this is an acceptable claim. Unfortunately, I'm not ignorant, so it's not.

Well, then: is "you" referring to Chmee, or to some hypothetical robber?

The robber. It would be rather bizarre to be arguing I don't need IR eyes to see a weapon pointed right at me. Well, maybe not that bizarre, Chmee has demonstrated the level of ignorance required for that sort of patient explanation.

Ah. Ha ha.

It appeared you were referring to Chmee--hence, my pointing out you had failed to account for concealed weapons on the robber. And--well, it looked like Chmee thought you were referring to him, as well. That clears a lot up.

*grumble* How much I still have to learn... .

[SirNitram]

The whole concept of rights is that they exist independantly of the permission of others. The only way to take them is to initiate force against another person. A person only has rights if they are willing and able to defend those rights against those who initiate force against them.

Essentially, we should abandon civilization as it has existed for the last twelve thousand years and return to the era of living in caves and beating off those who come by our cave with sticks and rocks. Legal systems of all kinds are extraneous.

A person who initiates force against another person does so at the risk that the victim will defend their rights. It is a concious choice on their part. Sort of like sticking their tongue in a lightsocket. They know the risk, and do so anyway, thus they relinquish their right to life de-facto.

Only if we accept the preposterous premise that unarmed robbery carries the death penalty. Since it does not, you're full of the brown stuff.

[qote]If the victim does not defend their rights, then they may as well not have them. The police can act retrocactively, but the right to property is already violated. [/quote]

'Police are no good, we should all be armed vigilantes'. Again, nothing but arguing for the dismantlement of civilization.

The property itself is not what is worth more than the criminal, that is what needs to be understood. It is the RIGHT to property. Not to say the right to property is worth more than the right to life. However if one cannot use lethal force to defend their rights against someone who initiates said force in the first place, the entire concept of rights may as well not exist because we cannot defend them. That is the problem. The right of a person to own property and make a living for themselves is destroyed ifn they are not permitted to defend what they own.

And here we see the absurdity of the arguments in full view: In your braindamaged view, it's not even physical, tangible, objects we're defending, but an abstract, an unproven and unverifiable we're supposed to shed human blood for.

Is lethal force preferable? in a perfect world no. But a perfect world does not exist, and in many cases lethal force is all that can be realistically used by a person defending their rights. Government, where cooler heads and more sheer manpower prevails and is available, can place nin-lethal sanctions against those who initiate force against others more effectively, however those sanctions are after the fact, and the violation of rights has already taken place.

'..So slaughter all them damn fuckers who look at you funny.'

Simply put, your entire argument is that civilization is bad, vigilantism is good.

[SirNitram]

Well, then: is "you" referring to Chmee, or to some hypothetical robber?

The robber. It would be rather bizarre to be arguing I don't need IR eyes to see a weapon pointed right at me. Well, maybe not that bizarre, Chmee has demonstrated the level of ignorance required for that sort of patient explanation.

Ah. Ha ha.

It appeared you were referring to Chmee--hence, my pointing out you had failed to account for concealed weapons on the robber. And--well, it looked like Chmee thought you were referring to him, as well. That clears a lot up.

*grumble* How much I still have to learn... .

Alright, so it was an honest misunderstanding. Good, I was wondering if it was time to write you off already. But yes, that was my intention; when he mentioned IR vision, I assumed he was talking about concealed weapons, not him being blind as fuck and not even taking the minute precaution of light to prevent burglary.

[aerius]

I wonder how many people here have had someone break in. My experiences have been entirely with the unarmed, whose only potential danger to my life has been from the sheer fucking stench. Waving a stick of sufficient heft is generally enough to solve the problem, a few warning smacks solve it the rest of the time.

Lucky you. You've had peaceful thieves so far

I don't doubt I've had good luck. I'm just wondering whether anyone playing the macho-man bullshit is speaking from anything but a comfy position of abject, total ignorance.

In my case I have to admit my viewpoint is rather skewed by my life experiences. We had a rather traumatic (for me) break-in at our home when I was around 3-5 and that feeling of fear and helplessness has stuck with me. My parents' house where I lived until the end of last year is also near a high crime area with government subsidized housing, and there's been to me at least, a disturbingly high number of break-ins in our area. There were also a couple home invasions in our area which resulted in the home owner being severely beaten or killed. Because of that and some other things I don't particularly feel like getting into, I'm rather paranoid about people trying to break into my home, and have developed a shoot first ask questions later mindset. Can I justfy it ethically? When I think about it, no. But that's just the way it is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If someone breaks into your house, steals your TV, and generally fucks with your life, from in your home, but you or your family are not around to see it happen, could you still shoot them later?

You couldn't do that with any crime. Even if someone came to your house killed your entire family you still could not go out and kill them later.

[Wicked Pilot]

Even if someone came to your house killed your entire family you still could not go out and kill them later.

Well with that scenario hopefully the death penality will at least allow your tax dollars to go towards doing the job.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Much as pulling a Frank Castle in such a dire situation may server our best interests for justice, it's still illegal and would lead to all sorts of problems. Sometimes you've just go to play by the rules and accept that we don't live in that perfect world we wish for.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Even if someone came to your house killed your entire family you still could not go out and kill them later.

Well with that scenario hopefully the death penality will at least allow your tax dollars to go towards doing the job.

One can only hope. Honestly, I don't know how familes of murder victims cope when the killer is still alive.

Maybe it's just me, but that small fact would eat at my daily.

One thing I've learned from this thread is this isn't black and white like a lot of people want it to be. Property in certain circumstances may be more valuable than the life of a criminal. Sure, these circumstances are rare, but why not explore them all?

[Chmee]

Even if someone came to your house killed your entire family you still could not go out and kill them later.

Well with that scenario hopefully the death penality will at least allow your tax dollars to go towards doing the job.

One can only hope. Honestly, I don't know how familes of murder victims cope when the killer is still alive.

Maybe it's just me, but that small fact would eat at my daily.

One thing I've learned from this thread is this isn't black and white like a lot of people want it to be. Property in certain circumstances may be more valuable than the life of a criminal. Sure, these circumstances are rare, but why not explore them all?

Once I got over the blind rage desire to vengeance? I could live with the guy doing life without possibility of parole ..... I'd be mailing him photos of beaches and mountains that he'd never get to visit again ... of beautiful women he'd never be touching again ... of delicious meals he'd never taste again ...

He should suffer, as Inigo Montoya might say, "humiliations galore." Like Yellowbeard says .... "Them's what dies are the lucky ones!"

[Alyrium Denryle]

Essentially, we should abandon civilization as it has existed for the last twelve thousand years and return to the era of living in caves and beating off those who come by our cave with sticks and rocks. Legal systems of all kinds are extraneous.

No, they arent. But defending your domicile is a riught that we all have. You have yet to show how this form of defense is wrong Nitram you just spout vigilanteism.

Only if we accept the preposterous premise that unarmed robbery carries the death penalty. Since it does not, you're full of the brown stuff.

Legal systems and a person defending their rights as they are being violated are two completly seperate entities. One punishes retroactively, the other prevents the crime from taking place you compare apples to oranges.

'Police are no good, we should all be armed vigilantes'. Again, nothing but arguing for the dismantlement of civilization.

False dillema. Police are good, but they are neither perfect nor omnipresent. They cannot prevent burglaries. They can only possibly punish a criminal retroactively and they can only very very rarely recover the stolen property. The victim is still harmed. In a situation in which the victim uses force(even non-lethal which IS preferable) the victim who is innocent and did not initiate force is unharmed. A simple utilitarian calculation follows.,

And here we see the absurdity of the arguments in full view: In your braindamaged view, it's not even physical, tangible, objects we're defending, but an abstract, an unproven and unverifiable we're supposed to shed human blood for.

The next time someone tries to take something from you, just give it up nitram. because might makes right and you have no right to your own stuff.

[SirNitram]

Strawman are bad, Aly, stop usin' 'em. Declaring how the only means to ensure your rights is violence from your own hand, then declaring the other guy is saying 'Might Makes Right' is so ridiculously hypocritical that it's obvious you're not debating sensibly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Strawman are bad, Aly, stop usin' 'em. Declaring how the only means to ensure your rights is violence from your own hand, then declaring the other guy is saying 'Might Makes Right' is so ridiculously hypocritical that it's obvious you're not debating sensibly.

How else can one secure their rights Nitram? The cops cant do it but retroactively, and while it is preferable to nothing is no substitute fro stopping the violation in the first place. If one is not allowed to use lethal force, then the bigger man wins. Might makes right, which is then retroactively sorted out by cops while the innocent party is still harmed.

[Chmee]

Strawman are bad, Aly, stop usin' 'em. Declaring how the only means to ensure your rights is violence from your own hand, then declaring the other guy is saying 'Might Makes Right' is so ridiculously hypocritical that it's obvious you're not debating sensibly.

Where did he *ever* say it was the 'only means'? Being a valid means and being the sole means are not the same thing.

You can repeat 'strawman' all you want, but I'm starting to think that you use it so much because you must hear it so often.

[SirNitram]

Strawman are bad, Aly, stop usin' 'em. Declaring how the only means to ensure your rights is violence from your own hand, then declaring the other guy is saying 'Might Makes Right' is so ridiculously hypocritical that it's obvious you're not debating sensibly.

Where did he *ever* say it was the 'only means'? Being a valid means and being the sole means are not the same thing.

You can repeat 'strawman' all you want, but I'm starting to think that you use it so much because you must hear it so often.

That this post comes after one where he blindly asserts this for the third or so time in this thread just makes your pathetic attempt to lie all the more poignant, Babbling-Incoherently-To-Wise-Men.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I wonder how many people here have had someone break in. My experiences have been entirely with the unarmed, whose only potential danger to my life has been from the sheer fucking stench. Waving a stick of sufficient heft is generally enough to solve the problem, a few warning smacks solve it the rest of the time.
.

I don't doubt I've had good luck. I'm just wondering whether anyone playing the macho-man bullshit is speaking from anything but a comfy position of abject, total ignorance.

I have some near-personal experiences with it, but for privacy's sake I'll put it in small type.

[size=0]One of my sisters in law was raped by a home intruder, as was a college friend of mine while she was in Texas.
Also, I had an aunt who was committed, but before she was locked up, she came over to our house and tried to start some violent shit. My brother and I had to have a weapon ready downstairs at all time in case she tried to break in while we were home alone.
I have dated women who've had similar experiences and I'm really not going to go into any more detail about anyone closer to me than that. I'll just say that my wife and I are armed when we are at home.

Also, I've been threatened 3 times in Oakland (that I was able to flee from) and generally stay out of dangerous areas. However, my roommate in college was stabbed in the head by some random gangbanger on drugs. Someone was stabbed to death right outside my front door a short time after that, so I moved. In my next apt, we found out that two people had been shot and killed a block away and a serial killer was cornered and caught in a beauty salon right next to where we got off the bus whenever we came home at night.
[/size]


I admit I myself have never been violated or seriously injured by an attacker (not since Highschool), but I know that shit happens and it makes me paranoid. I always try to flee or avoid conflict if I can, but if someone breaks into my home, where am I going to flee to?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ifd you have an alternative method to prevent your rights from being violated Nitram, I invite you to state it. Please. By all means my ears are yours.

[SirNitram]

Strawman are bad, Aly, stop usin' 'em. Declaring how the only means to ensure your rights is violence from your own hand, then declaring the other guy is saying 'Might Makes Right' is so ridiculously hypocritical that it's obvious you're not debating sensibly.

How else can one secure their rights Nitram? The cops cant do it but retroactively, and while it is preferable to nothing is no substitute fro stopping the violation in the first place. If one is not allowed to use lethal force, then the bigger man wins. Might makes right, which is then retroactively sorted out by cops while the innocent party is still harmed.

Uh-huh. This is sort of amusing given I've managed to drive off invaders one or twice without, in fact, killing them.(Maybe without even spilling blood, never found any on the stick I used, but I digress.) So we just have you blindly asserting you're right, and in the most contradictory way possible: Criticizing the idea of Might Makes Right while simulataneously asserting that only through Might(weaponry) can we keep our Right.

So. Um. You're a flaming idiot, Alyrium. You're divulged from logic. You're running headlong into LaLa land with no experience, just really braindamaged ideals which, now that you've been thrown in front of logical individuals, is blow-torched clear to show that you're just arguing 'Might Makes Right.. For Me!'. Hopefully, this'll break through whatever they lined your skull with after your Libertarian indoctorine.

[Chmee]

Strawman are bad, Aly, stop usin' 'em. Declaring how the only means to ensure your rights is violence from your own hand, then declaring the other guy is saying 'Might Makes Right' is so ridiculously hypocritical that it's obvious you're not debating sensibly.

Where did he *ever* say it was the 'only means'? Being a valid means and being the sole means are not the same thing.

You can repeat 'strawman' all you want, but I'm starting to think that you use it so much because you must hear it so often.

That this post comes after one where he blindly asserts this for the third or so time in this thread just makes your pathetic attempt to lie all the more poignant, Babbling-Incoherently-To-Wise-Men.

I'd graciously acknowledge that he posted it right after your predictive post ... but then you wouldn't recognize anything like that so, never mind. What an unhappy person you must be.

[SirNitram]

Ifd you have an alternative method to prevent your rights from being violated Nitram, I invite you to state it. Please. By all means my ears are yours.

Reading? It's a good thing. Meet the invader with a weapon. If you can immediately ascertain he's unarmed(As they quite commonly are without any kind of weapon.. Do you think the clever ones want to be blown away?), drive him off or force a surrender.

And despite Chmee's persistant strawmanning and bullshit, it's not that hard to see someone's hands.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok, so you managed to drive off invaders without the use of lethal force. But how much bigger were these people than you? Were they armed?
You will notice I specified that non-lethal force is in fact preferable. But of course you selectively ignore it.

[SirNitram]

I'd graciously acknowledge that he posted it right after your predictive post ... but then you wouldn't recognize anything like that so, never mind. What an unhappy person you must be.

I see you're as bad at judging people as you are at arguing anything at all, Chmee. Ta, cretin.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ifd you have an alternative method to prevent your rights from being violated Nitram, I invite you to state it. Please. By all means my ears are yours.

Reading? It's a good thing. Meet the invader with a weapon. If you can immediately ascertain he's unarmed(As they quite commonly are without any kind of weapon.. Do you think the clever ones want to be blown away?), drive him off or force a surrender.

And despite Chmee's persistant strawmanning and bullshit, it's not that hard to see someone's hands.

I have already agreed that non lethal force is preferable, so there is no argument there. But if it is the ONLY OPTION it should be used. If they are visibly armed or if you have reason to believe that they are, they probably have the willingness and ability to use those armaments against you.

[SirNitram]

Ok, so you managed to drive off invaders without the use of lethal force. But how much bigger were these people than you? Were they armed?
You will notice I specified that non-lethal force is in fact preferable. But of course you selectively ignore it.

Actually, without any force. Threat of force is quite enough when the average burglar isn't expecting anyone home.

Seriously, what is this 'How big were they?' bullshit? The threat of force is quite well enough no matter what the size these days. But no. Let's mindlessly advocate the only way to get our rights is to take them by brute force instead, because 12,000 years of civilization? Has to be wrong.

[SirNitram]

I have already agreed that non lethal force is preferable, so there is no argument there. But if it is the ONLY OPTION it should be used. If they are visibly armed or if you have reason to believe that they are, they probably have the willingness and ability to use those armaments against you.

Then what the fuck are you arguing against, you insipid little twit? This thread has never stated don't fire if you are in direct danger. My fucking God, did you not read, or is this some asshatted attempt to save face?

[Alyrium Denryle]

[quote]Seriously, what is this 'How big were they?' bullshit? The threat of force is quite well enough no matter what the size these days. But no. Let's mindlessly advocate the only way to get our rights is to take them by brute force instead, because 12,000 years of civilization? Has to be wrong.[/quote

Ok will give you threat of force, no disagreement. It that is an option it should be used.

You should not confuse my position of "lethal force should be permitted" with "lethal force should be the first option" that would be a strawman.