StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What about when there's nowhere to run?

Darth Wong wrote: And a brick thrown from 60 feet away is a more credible threat to life and limb than a rifle ... how?

You're the fucking engineering grad. You should realize
that a brick weighing 1 kg being thrown by a rioter has
as much KE in joules as a 9mm pistol round.

People have been KILLED by bricks before, so don't
handwave them away like nothing, twit.

That's why you run away instead of playing Custer. Property can be replaced. People can't.

What if you CAN'T run away? What if they have you trapped in your store,
huh?

Darth Wong wrote:If they didn't have insurance, they were idiots. If they had insurance, they were shooting people for little reason. Once again, property < human life .

--When it comes to a contest of power one must be willing to go all the way or give the advantage to others that will. I do agree that limited force should be used when possible, however, that is not always possible. If someone knowingly breaks into your house to steal your stuff, you don't have insurance (for whatever reason), you don't have a means of defense less lethal than a gun (because you are weak or can't count on a bat), and there are no other fairer solutions, then you are justified in using a gun to stop the intruder (of course a warning is appropriate where possible). The idoit in this case is the intruder (for this to be true we must assume that the law of the land is fair and the intruder is breaking that law).
-The analysis comes down to this. One friend of mine and I used to play strategy games. He would love to try to take advantage of me by making minor/limited attacks against me that could not be returned without significant escalatioin. By doing this he hoped to take the advantage (which works against most people). However, he learned quickly that I would not tolerate this after learning that I would retaliate will the entirety of my forces if negotiations to negate his attack didn't yeild anything. In addition, he learned that I would expend my entire power just to cripple him (when it was obvious I couldn't win) for such unresolved insults. In the end, we learned to negotiate equitable deals and when fighting broke out it was usually because one side or the other had decided that was their only option to win. Of course, our other friends usualy ended up winning since we would gut each other out of principle once fighting started...

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:And a brick thrown from 60 feet away is a more credible threat to life and limb than a rifle ... how?

You're the fucking engineering grad. You should realize that a brick weighing 1 kg being thrown by a rioter has as much KE in joules as a 9mm pistol round.

Of course I realize that. I also realize that KE is but one part of the story. Bullets have greater penetration than bricks because they focus their impact on a small area (duh), and are more tactically dangerous because they move much more quickly and cannot be consciously dodged or blocked. Are you saying you would be more afraid of a brick thrown from 60 feet away than a bullet?

People have been KILLED by bricks before, so don't handwave them away like nothing, twit.

Strawman. Typical for you, Shep. I only said they were less dangerous than a rifle. Only an idiot would think that a brick is more dangerous than a rifle, hence your desire to distort that argument into "bricks are totally harmless".

That's why you run away instead of playing Custer. Property can be replaced. People can't.

What if you CAN'T run away? What if they have you trapped in your store,
huh?

That would be different, but that's also irrelevant because that is not the scenario in question. Do not change the subject.

Nova Andromeda wrote:--When it comes to a contest of power one must be willing to go all the way or give the advantage to others that will. I do agree that limited force should be used when possible, however, that is not always possible. If someone knowingly breaks into your house to steal your stuff, you don't have insurance (for whatever reason), you don't have a means of defense less lethal than a gun (because you are weak or can't count on a bat), and there are no other fairer solutions, then you are justified in using a gun to stop the intruder (of course a warning is appropriate where possible).

You are stating your conclusion as a fact. Why are you justified, unless you legitimately fear for your life?

-The analysis comes down to this. One friend of mine and I used to play strategy games. He would love to try to take advantage of me by making minor/limited attacks against me that could not be returned without significant escalatioin. By doing this he hoped to take the advantage (which works against most people). However, he learned quickly that I would not tolerate this after learning that I would retaliate will the entirety of my forces if negotiations to negate his attack didn't yeild anything. In addition, he learned that I would expend my entire power just to cripple him (when it was obvious I couldn't win) for such unresolved insults. In the end, we learned to negotiate equitable deals and when fighting broke out it was usually because one side or the other had decided that was their only option to win. Of course, our other friends usualy ended up winning since we would gut each other out of principle once fighting started...

One should be wary before basing one's notions of real-life morality upon lessons learned while playing strategy games. When real people die, they're not just rolls of the dice and small plastic stick figures. You can passionlessly throw plastic men into a meat grinder in order to defend territory, but that doesn't mean you have the right to kill someone to defend your stereo.

You're the fucking engineering grad. You should realize
that a brick weighing 1 kg being thrown by a rioter has
as much KE in joules as a 9mm pistol round.

Yes, but it also has a larger surface area, meaning that it will do less damage per square meter of surface material. It will also encounter more air resistance, and its aerodynamics will retard its motion noticeably.

Neglecting friction, that brick would have to be launched at 14 m/s at a perfect 45-degree angle in order to cover the requisite 20m. 14 m/s, Shep. That's a 30mph brick. a baseball is somewhere around 0.1kg, and the best pitchers can only get them to go about 100mph. Now you want random rioters to throw something that's ten times as massive a third that fast? And that's not even counting air resistance and aerodynamics. Don't invoke physics unless you know what you're talking about.

Durandal wrote: Yes, but it also has a larger surface area, meaning that it will do less damage per square meter of surface material. It will also encounter more air resistance, and its aerodynamics will retard its motion noticeably.

It actaully is a more EFFICIENT method of KE transfer to a body than a bullet,
same way the .45 ACP is mor efficient than a 9mm...

Bottom line, someone hit with a brick is gonna be out for the count....-

MKSheppard wrote:

Durandal wrote: Yes, but it also has a larger surface area, meaning that it will do less damage per square meter of surface material. It will also encounter more air resistance, and its aerodynamics will retard its motion noticeably.

It actaully is a more EFFICIENT method of KE transfer to a body than a bullet,
same way the .45 ACP is mor efficient than a 9mm...

Bottom line, someone hit with a brick is gonna be out for the count....-

You completely ignored the fact that the brick has to get there first. Again, how are random rioters going to launch bricks at 30mph? Did they have catapults?

MKSheppard wrote:

Durandal wrote:Yes, but it also has a larger surface area, meaning that it will do less damage per square meter of surface material. It will also encounter more air resistance, and its aerodynamics will retard its motion noticeably.

It actaully is a more EFFICIENT method of KE transfer to a body than a bullet,
same way the .45 ACP is mor efficient than a 9mm...

Irrelevant. Rain transmits its KE to your head very efficiently too, but it won't kill you. Bullet penetration will kill you. I would rather have a bruise than punctured internal organs.

Bottom line, someone hit with a brick is gonna be out for the count....-

Bottom line ... a brick thrown from 60 feet away will probably land with a harmless thud on the ground in front of you. A rifle fired from 60 feet away will probably kill you. A gun-toting Weaver was more of a credible threat to the feds than a crowd of bottle and rock-throwing students were to the NG. You still refuse to admit that there is any inconsistency in your positions.

Darth Wong wrote:You are stating your conclusion as a fact. Why are you justified, unless you legitimately fear for your life?

--You are justified because failer to do so means the other person can knowingly take advantage of you to increase their real life power. The value of a stereo to one's power is rather questionable, however, tens of thousands of dollars is real power and must be defended unless you are willing to forfeit real power to someone that is obviously hostile.

Darth Wong wrote:One should be wary before basing one's notions of real-life morality upon lessons learned while playing strategy games. When real people die, they're not just rolls of the dice and small plastic stick figures. You can passionlessly throw plastic men into a meat grinder in order to defend territory, but that doesn't mean you have the right to kill someone to defend your stereo.

--The lesson's learned in those strategy games are still valid in real life. However, the stakes are several orders of magnitude greater. While one should put great effert in avoiding power struggles one must be willing to use their power to ensure fair play. The cost of not doing so is simply too great. You allow people to take unfair advantage of you (and there are plenty of people willing to do just that). In the case of a stereo the cost of taking the person's life times the chance of it being a misunderstanding or there being extenuating circumstances is simply to great to justify taking a person's life IMO. However, a stereo represents little real power for the average person. This is not true for many other things.

Schools these days are, almost by necessity, liberal. Students these days are liberal, most education is done by liberal instructors, and intitutions need to be very adaptable in order to succeed. Thus schools lean ever further to the left in order to gain students and faculty members while furthering their research.

Darth Wong wrote: it won't kill you. Bullet penetration will kill you. I would rather have a bruise than punctured internal organs.

You'd end up on the fucking ground out cold, and you'd die a few days
later from massive cereberal hemmorhaging.

Nova Andromeda wrote:--You are justified because failer to do so means the other person can knowingly take advantage of you to increase their real life power.

And that supersedes the value of human life ... how?

Darth Wong wrote: And that supersedes the value of human life ... how?

When they're trying to fuck you over to get something they were too
lazy to work for, waste 'em.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: it won't kill you. Bullet penetration will kill you. I would rather have a bruise than punctured internal organs.

You'd end up on the fucking ground out cold, and you'd die a few days
later from massive cereberal hemmorhaging.

Through a helmet? I doubt that. And you are still assuming that a brick thrown from 60 feet away will actually reach me. A projectile thrown from that distance is probably quite a bit smaller than a brick if it hits.

Moreover, you are STILL ignoring the point, which is that a rifle is still much more dangerous.

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:And that supersedes the value of human life ... how?

When they're trying to fuck you over to get something they were too lazy to work for, waste 'em.

In other words, property is more valuable than human life. Not a surprise coming from you, Shep. I have no love of thieves, but property is NOT more important than human life.

Darth Wong wrote: Through a helmet? I doubt that.

Then Explain how the Ewoks in ROTJ managed to knock out helmeted storm
troopers with rocks.

Darth Wong wrote: In other words, property is more valuable than human life. Not a surprise coming from you, Shep. I have no love of thieves, but property is NOT more important than human life.

Basically, I'd agree with you, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE THIEVES/LOOTERS
with a fucking passion. If you're too lazy to work to get that 27 inch TV,
and instead want to steal my 27" TV by smashing my locks and taking
it, then you've pretty much cancelled your ticket for living, IMHO.

Darth Wong wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: it won't kill you. Bullet penetration will kill you. I would rather have a bruise than punctured internal organs.

You'd end up on the fucking ground out cold, and you'd die a few days
later from massive cereberal hemmorhaging.

Through a helmet? I doubt that. And you are still assuming that a brick thrown from 60 feet away will actually reach me. A projectile thrown from that distance is probably quite a bit smaller than a brick if it hits.

Moreover, you are STILL ignoring the point, which is that a rifle is still much more dangerous.

Military helmets provide essentially nil protection against large objects like a brick. They will keep it from cutting you but the energy is going to go right into a relatively small area of your skull. Depends on the helmets model to an extent though.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Military helmets provide essentially nil protection against large objects like a brick. They will keep it from cutting you but the energy is going to go right into a relatively small area of your skull. Depends on the helmets model to an extent though.

Thank you. There IS a reason the Israelis fire rubber bullets at rock throwers,
you know...

Darth Wong wrote:

Nova Andromeda wrote:--You are justified because failer to do so means the other person can knowingly take advantage of you to increase their real life power.

And that supersedes the value of human life ... how?

--The reason is that power is a measure of what a person can and cannot do in real life. That is just how things are. If you give up such power to others who wish to unfairly take it from you then you give up part of your ability to defend much more important things like your life. In addition, you have given it to people who have no respect for fair play and are more likely abuse such power anyhow. A society that favors people who take advantage of others (such as the manner I have described) will over time weed out those people that play fair and end up with only people who take advantage of each other. By favoring fair play you favor people who play fair thus minimizing pain/sufferring in the long run (since you don't have a society filled with people taking advantage of each other).

[Edit]Removed ensuring from last sentence.[/EDIT]

Nova Andromeda wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:And that supersedes the value of human life ... how?

--The reason is that power is a measure of what a person can and cannot do in real life. That is just how things are. If you give up such power to others who wish to unfairly take it from you then you give up part of your ability to defend much more important things like your life. In addition, you have given it to people who have no respect for fair play and are more likely abuse such power anyhow. A society that favors people who take advantage of others (such as the manner I have described) will over time weed out those people that play fair and end up with only people who take advantage of each other. By ensuring favoring fair play you favor people who play fair thus minimizing pain/sufferring in the long run (since you don't have a society filled with people taking advantage of each other).

Slip ... slip ... slip ... slippery slope!!!

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Society will collapse into anarchy if we decide that you need to demonstrate legitimate fear for your life before killing someone? Look at what you're writing! You are talking about consequence piled upon consequence in a causal chain of the most tenuous nature. Moreover, you are assuming that to simply call the cops on a thief is somehow permission for his behaviour (what- no middle ground between lethal force and blank cheque?), hence this slippery slope into anarchy of which you speak.

Darth Wong wrote:Slip ... slip ... slip ... slippery slope!!!

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument and you know it. Society will collapse into anarchy if we decide that you need to demonstrate legitimate fear for your life before killing someone? Look at what you're writing! You are talking about consequence piled upon consequence in a causal chain of the most tenuous nature. Moreover, you are assuming that to simply call the cops on a thief is somehow permission for his behaviour (what- no middle ground between lethal force and blank cheque?), hence this slippery slope into anarchy of which you speak.

--I knew you were going to post that reply at some point and ignore all the "legalise" I put in to avoid the slippery slope. Of course, one uses all the other non-lethal options first (the more equitable the better), tries all methods to "negotiate" a settlement, and gives lots of leeway in the case of minor things (like a stereo). However, in the case that none of these things are true/possible one must be willing to use their power to favor fair play.

Nova Andromeda wrote: --I knew you were going to post that reply at some point and ignore all the "legalise" I put in to avoid the slippery slope.

Mike loves saying Slippery Slope so much you'd think it's the name
of a porn star.

MKSheppard wrote:Mike loves saying Slippery Slope so much you'd think it's the name of a porn star.

Actually, I don't say it very often to most people, but in your case ... let's just say that if the shoe fits, wear it.