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.
Yes: Loaded questions are distractions. As I've already said, there is already a standard in place applicable to those who are charged with protecting us, that places on them the expectation that they use deadly force only when a reasonable person would expect it to protect themselves or others from harm.
Even trained law enforcement are allowed to shoot home invaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
There is no reason you cannot do that same work necessary to gain those skills, instead of killing people indiscriminately because you're too lazy, too self-centered, or too careless. Your laziness, self-centerdness or carelessness is not as important as other people's lives.
This from the person whining about name-calling and loaded language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
I have had no problem arguing my point logically.
Well, except for your insistence on consistently mischaracterizing a specific act of self-defense as "indiscriminate," maligning the motivations of those who assert their right to act in self-defense, downright name-calling, evading others' questions, and an overall pattern intellectual dishonesty.
I'd ask you why you suppose why society and the law gives wide latitude to occupants who use lethal force against home invaders if it's so obviously immoral, but I'm putting my money on you finding some way to evade the question or just ignore it altogether, in keeping with your pattern of behavior listed above.
I have had no problem arguing my point logically. Your comment seems to be driven solely by the fact that I won't give you an opening to deflect attention from my point with your childish Loaded Question Fallacies. I am well-versed with the petty tactics people who support the perspective you support use to try to dodge the moral repudiation of the indefensibly cavalier behavior you want to engage in with impunity and so I'm fastidious about keeping you to the topic instead of letting you go off on tangents. That obviously upsets you. Get over it. I will maintain a very clear focus on the reprehensible nature of your effort to escape accountability for the actions you want to take.
The only problem is you've made no point. If you had, your posts wouldn't be getting torn to shreds like they are.
buu, you will not argue with anyone. You keep using big words and saying nothing. No one has said they WANT to kill anyone. Instead, posters have tried to explain that they would use justifiable force in order to stop a home invader. Defending oneself is not morally reprehensible; it is a natural reaction to someone's choice to harm or steal. Why do you support the criminal activity of a home invader? Why do you believe their right to live trumps my right to defend what is mine? Explain yourself, and maybe if we don't agree; we can at least see your perspective in a better light.
buu, you will not argue with anyone. You keep using big words and saying nothing. No one has said they WANT to kill anyone. Instead, posters have tried to explain that they would use justifiable force in order to stop a home invader. Defending oneself is not morally reprehensible; it is a natural reaction to someone's choice to harm or steal. Why do you support the criminal activity of a home invader? Why do you believe their right to live trumps my right to defend what is mine? Explain yourself, and maybe if we don't agree; we can at least see your perspective in a better light.
Even trained law enforcement are allowed to shoot home invaders.
This from the person whining about name-calling and loaded language.
Well, except for your insistence on consistently mischaracterizing a specific act of self-defense as "indiscriminate," maligning the motivations of those who assert their right to act in self-defense, downright name-calling, evading others' questions, and an overall pattern intellectual dishonesty.
I'd ask you why you suppose why society and the law gives wide latitude to occupants who use lethal force against home invaders if it's so obviously immoral, but I'm putting my money on you finding some way to evade the question or just ignore it altogether, in keeping with your pattern of behavior listed above.
You mean if you call the cops and they come to your house yes they can but they will try different tatics first instead of the shoot first mentality. Laws vary on the circumstances in many places you have to prove justifiable homicide beyond all reasonable doubt.
Are you saying a cop would not shoot someone that breaks into his home at 3:00am?
I'm saying a police officer would be held to account for shooting someone and be expected to demonstrate that there was a reasonable risk of harm from the intruder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1
Tell me, where does one get these skills to determine what home intruders intentions are?
Where the heck do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer0101
You mean universal ethics for hand wringing liberals.
Reveling in barbarianism doesn't add to your credibility. Quite the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer0101
You obviously live a life of self-delusion.
You obviously live a life of self-centered self-ratification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
Even trained law enforcement are allowed to shoot home invaders.
Define "allowed". Your reply will either be a lie or prove my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
This from the person whining about name-calling and loaded language.
I'm not whining about anything. I'm holding people to account for their attitudes and behavior. There's no name-calling or loaded questions in my comments, despite your ill-informed and vacuous claims to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
Well, except for your insistence on consistently mischaracterizing a specific act of self-defense as "indiscriminate,"
My characterization of the act I'm condemning is absolutely 100% correct, even though it makes you feel bad to have that highlighted. I am very specifically condemning the Castle Doctrine, which its unequivocally used - as made very clear by myriad self-serving comments in this thread - as an excuse for indiscriminately killing another human being.
Don't like the characterization? Then stop advocating for such callous and careless attitudes toward others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
I'd ask you why you suppose why society and the law gives wide latitude to occupants who use lethal force against home invaders if it's so obviously immoral, but I'm putting my money on you finding some way to evade the question or just ignore it altogether, in keeping with your pattern of behavior listed above.
What a bunch of self-ratifying bs. Here's your answer bub - Because the places that foster such corrupt principles like the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are filled with self-centered, barbarian yahoos who revel in their self-important lack of humane consideration for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
The only problem is you've made no point. If you had, your posts wouldn't be getting torn to shreds like they are.
More self-ratifying nonsense. If I made no point, then y'all would have ignored my posts, rather than reacted to them like you touched a lit acetylene torch. Y'all know that the perspective you're defending is immoral. That's why you're reacting in the ridiculous manner you're reacting - trying to defend the indefensible behavior and attitude you want to practice with impunity.
I'm saying a police officer would be held to account for shooting someone and be expected to demonstrate that there was a reasonable risk of harm from the intruder.
Where the heck do you think?
Reveling in barbarianism doesn't add to your credibility. Quite the contrary.
You obviously live a life of self-centered self-ratification.
Define "allowed". Your reply will either be a lie or prove my point.
I'm not whining about anything. I'm holding people to account for their attitudes and behavior. There's no name-calling or loaded questions in my comments, despite your ill-informed and vacuous claims to the contrary.
My characterization of the act I'm condemning is absolutely 100% correct, even though it makes you feel bad to have that highlighted. I am very specifically condemning the Castle Doctrine, which its unequivocally used - as made very clear by myriad self-serving comments in this thread - as an excuse for indiscriminately killing another human being.
Don't like the characterization? Then stop advocating for such callous and careless attitudes toward others.
What a bunch of self-ratifying bs. Here's your answer bub - Because the places that foster such corrupt principles like the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are filled with self-centered, barbarian yahoos who revel in their self-important lack of humane consideration for others.
More self-ratifying nonsense. If I made no point, then y'all would have ignored my posts, rather than reacted to them like you touched a lit acetylene torch. Y'all know that the perspective you're defending is immoral. That's why you're reacting in the ridiculous manner you're reacting.
Unless of course it's a question, if you answered honestly, you would see your own personnel flaws....
So, either you have me on ignore (which you have responded to me before) or my questions will make you see your personnel flaws.....
Where are the morals in that?
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.
