Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... society has decided that our personal sanctuary is sacred enough to defend with lethal force.
Indefensibly indiscriminate lethal force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Not rationalizations, hard, cold FACTS.
No: Rationalizations. There is an alternative - just one that would cause those who would choose to be killers feel would cramp their style. Placing convenience over other people's lives is an indefensibly immoral prioritization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
Let's imagine you're in a situation with only two possible endings. No other choice.
When you deliberately blind yourself to the alternative within which you are qualified to make a reasonable decision about whether lethal force is necessary, it will invariably be impossible for you to recognize that your perspective suffers from the fallacy of the false dilemma. Yet one more of the rationalizations people who would be killers use to try to escape accountability for their intended actions.
Back in time, when an individual's property rights were considered sacred, and defending them with deadly force was expected, it made sense to kill thieves and trespassers.
However, since we're under national socialism, and no one has private property rights, it is frowned upon, since it reduces the aggregate value of the herd.
If you shoot someone because you think they might be armed, that's one thing. If you shoot someone because irrational fear or sociopathic antipathy has driven all sense of human decency from you such that you don't care whether the person is armed, that's another thing.
Anyone that breaks into my house will be shot with a 10 gauge using buckshot. Messy but final.
No: Rationalizations. There is an alternative - just one that would cause those who would choose to be killers feel would cramp their style. Placing convenience over other people's lives is an indefensibly immoral prioritization.
When you deliberately blind yourself to the alternative within which you are qualified to make a reasonable decision about whether lethal force is necessary, it will invariably be impossible for you to recognize that your perspective suffers from the fallacy of the false dilemma. Yet one more of the rationalizations people who would be killers use to try to escape accountability for their intended actions.
What's the alternative? Call the police? I don't know where you live but here it can take hours for HPD to respond to a burglary. That's right HOURS. They just don't have the manpower at the moment. In your world/neighborhood it might be possible to reason with an intruder and get him to leave peacefully or have the police show up within minutes. In the real world it just doesn't happen that way unfortunately.
What would you do if you were home and someone started kicking in your door? I'm curious to know how you'd handle that situation.
If you break into my home, I will shoot to kill. I would not know what you broke in for, and I would be in fear for my life. If you don't want to take the chance of being killed, don't take other people's stuff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it justifiable to kill a thief?
