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.
So the Asian guy could have put her through a wood chipper?
You are a big believer in reductio ad absurdum, aren't you?
I say no and here's why - defense ends an immediate threat. Shoving, punching, even panicky pulling of a firearm....all defensive options that end an immediate threat. The wood chipper example (or any form of more/less gruesome capital punishment really) relies on first defensively ending a threat and then second, initiating force upon someone in a very planned, systematic and deliberate way at a later time. That's revenge/vengeance, not defense.
Think of it another way - if you assault me and my defensive response in that moment is to draw a firearm and shoot 3x at CoM, my defensive force would almost certainly be justified. If however, you assault me, I lay there and take the beating, and then a month later come shoot you, I am now a murderer because I initiated force outside of any immediate threat to me.
Let me clarify an earlier point -when a person initiates force, in that MOMENT, they voluntarily surrender their natural rights. So Asian guy punching lady was justified in this example because he responded defensively in the moment, but he would have himself been guilty of violating NAP if he waited an hour and then walked over and just punched her. If in the moment of her putting her hands on him, they happened to be next to a running woodchipper, and instead of punching her he pulled an aikido move that directed her momentum towards the woodchipper...that would be gruesome and unfortunate, but in the MOMENT, yeah, it would be justified.
There's a difference between revenge/vengeance and defending yourself.
I didn't realize all Asian business owners were racist, thanks for the update.
They generally aren't.
They're usually fine as long as you don't act like an ass. I use to see my own people coming in their stores, yelling, cussing, stealing etc. Not everyone of course but you had a few deviants who were always causing problems.
Koreans owned our laundromats, chinese food stores and delis in my old neighbrohood when I was a kid. Would I have preferred that they were black based on principle? Absolutely.
But I was raised right, respected them and vice versa. They were use to me and my friends where they knew us by name and even our parents by name..they would say hi and bye and occasionally ask how family members were doing.
This friction sad to say is usually caused by people who are just trouble makers no matter where they go
If you go to an Asian store and they're sheided behind bulletproof glass and are quick and stern with their service...it's for a good reason
You are a big believer in reductio ad absurdum, aren't you?
I say no and here's why - defense ends an immediate threat. Shoving, punching, even panicky pulling of a firearm....all defensive options that end an immediate threat. The wood chipper example (or any form of more/less gruesome capital punishment really) relies on first defensively ending a threat and then second, initiating force upon someone in a very planned, systematic and deliberate way at a later time. That's revenge/vengeance, not defense.
Think of it another way - if you assault me and my defensive response in that moment is to draw a firearm and shoot 3x at CoM, my defensive force would almost certainly be justified. If however, you assault me, I lay there and take the beating, and then a month later come shoot you, I am now a murderer because I initiated force outside of any immediate threat to me.
Let me clarify an earlier point -when a person initiates force, in that MOMENT, they voluntarily surrender their natural rights. So Asian guy punching lady was justified in this example because he responded defensively in the moment, but he would have himself been guilty of violating NAP if he waited an hour and then walked over and just punched her. If in the moment of her putting her hands on him, they happened to be next to a running woodchipper, and instead of punching her he pulled an aikido move that directed her momentum towards the woodchipper...that would be gruesome and unfortunate, but in the MOMENT, yeah, it would be justified.
There's a difference between revenge/vengeance and defending yourself.
Deep down they all know it...even the liberals. They also know it conflicts with their belief in the State and its omnipotent wisdom so that's why they put up a stink.
First 18 years in the ghetto, subsequent years in the CJ field. So many victims who thought it was "over" are now 6-feet under.
But we must let the State decide on the terms of our lives and deaths instead of natural rights.
2) Now (outside the crowd example) were the initiation of force would be both deliberate and clearly defined, I wouldn't personally "whip out a shotgun" and shoot them. That said, I'd be absolutely morally justified to do so, because in initiating force in a deliberate and clearly understood manner, the perpetrator voluntarily surrenders their own natural rights, up to and including their right to life. Ask the guy who shoved an elderly man in a FL parking lot. Oh wait, you can't, because when that person initiated force against that old man by shoving him to the ground, he surrendered his natural rights, and the old man was armed and cashed those rights in.
You and I may find that extreme or disagreeable, but we were not the victims in that case, and we do not get to decide what defensive force that victim gets to use. The victim decides that, period. That's the way the NAP works. Victims decide the level of punishment for their attacker. And it makes for a wonderful deterrent system, since the initiators of force have no idea whether they are initiating force against you, the easy target who has all these internal rules for proportional response, or the guy in that parking lot, who thinks a couple bullets at center of mass are a proportional response. Caveat emptor if you are out there looking to victimize others...you never know when the rabbit has the gun.
A violent or homicidal maniac would absolutely love a society that operated that way. All they'd need to do is bait people into violating the NAP (leaving valuables out around them in a way they know would tempt some to try to steal, saying verbally provoking things loudly, etc).
And the moment someone takes the bait by stealing or laying a finger on them, they'd then have free reign to grab the person and gruesomely murder or torture them on the spot to their sick heart's delight.
Obviously thieves and people who stoop to responding to words with violence are not great people, but what you're advocating for would empower nutjobs who would love to be granted free licence to have their way with anybody who initiates even the slightest aggression.
I realize this is way beyond what happened with the store owner and the lady. At this point, I'm just focused on general principle.
A violent or homicidal maniac would absolutely love a society that operated that way. All they'd need to do is bait people into violating the NAP (leaving valuables out around them in a way they know would tempt some to try to steal, saying verbally provoking things loudly, etc).
And the moment someone takes the bait by stealing or laying a finger on them, they'd then have free reign to grab the person and gruesomely murder or torture them to their sick heart's delight.
Obviously thieves and people who stoop to responding to words with violence are not great people, but what you're advocating for would empower nutjobs who would love to be granted free licence to have their way with anybody who initiates even the slightest aggression.
I realize this is way beyond what happened with the store owner and the lady. At this point, I'm just focused on general principle.
You are doing as whogo did and confusing the immediate need for defense with after the fact initiations of force as the same thing, when they clearly are not.
In the moment when having force initiated upon you, yes, defensive force is justified, even if it includes killing the perpetrator. Subduing the person, as you would for later murder or torture I'd imagine, IS THE DEFENSIVE FORCE. Things done after the initiator of force has been properly subdued would qualify as initiations of force.
Now, to the whole "well, you could lure initiators of force into confrontations" hypothetical....sure, I guess. But there are two things to consider there, besides your example being patently ridiculous:
The person doing the luring has no clue whether they are luring someone weak or strong into their NAP trap, and could wind up on the "oh shizzle, didn't see that coming" end of the deal
The person "lured" is still choosing to initiate force, and they could avoid the fiendish spider by avoiding the web, no matter how tempting the NAP violation might be.
Also, stop watching horror movies as if they are documentaries.
You are a big believer in reductio ad absurdum, aren't you?
I say no and here's why - defense ends an immediate threat. Shoving, punching, even panicky pulling of a firearm....all defensive options that end an immediate threat. The wood chipper example (or any form of more/less gruesome capital punishment really) relies on first defensively ending a threat and then second, initiating force upon someone in a very planned, systematic and deliberate way at a later time. That's revenge/vengeance, not defense.
Think of it another way - if you assault me and my defensive response in that moment is to draw a firearm and shoot 3x at CoM, my defensive force would almost certainly be justified. If however, you assault me, I lay there and take the beating, and then a month later come shoot you, I am now a murderer because I initiated force outside of any immediate threat to me.
Let me clarify an earlier point -when a person initiates force, in that MOMENT, they voluntarily surrender their natural rights. So Asian guy punching lady was justified in this example because he responded defensively in the moment, but he would have himself been guilty of violating NAP if he waited an hour and then walked over and just punched her. If in the moment of her putting her hands on him, they happened to be next to a running woodchipper, and instead of punching her he pulled an aikido move that directed her momentum towards the woodchipper...that would be gruesome and unfortunate, but in the MOMENT, yeah, it would be justified.
There's a difference between revenge/vengeance and defending yourself.
Just wanted to see if there was a limit here. Apparently not as long as done in the moment.
If you're a business owner and a customer gets irate or out of control, you don't put your hands on them. Kick them out of the store or call the police. This is not the first time an Asian business owner has done this. They are going to put their hands on the wrong person one day. What if that lady had been carrying a gun?
On the other hand....She should have just paid the measly $5 and left or let them fix her eyebrow. They would have fixed it if she didn't like it. Asian business owners do not like the black customers they serve so why do they even open up their stores in the neighborhoods? Why do blacks still patronize their businesses? Go to a black owned nail salon or do your own crusty nails. That acrylic is not good for your nails anyway.. Don't keep making these people rich when they wouldn't give you a glass of water if you were dying of thirst.
I don't think Asian business owners do not like the black customers they serve.
I think many people like to focus on "race" here, all I am seeing here is that a person overreacted. He was arrested for assault. The situation could have been handled a whole lot better, well if media is not involved.
I have a friend (Korean-American) owns a liquor store in the most dangerous area in downtown LA. He is not rich, he just gets by. His family owns that business for generations. He thought about selling but nobody wants to buy it. He likes his customers and even knows a lot of his customers personally. He said it is a stable business, but you really needs to know the 'culture' in order to survive there.
One of my brothers best friend is a black man. They are like brothers when they served together in the Marine Corps. he helped my brother started his own veteran owned operated southern style bbq restaurant. Most customers are veterans, it is next to a VA hospital. There are a lot of black customers too, and I even made some friends there. I don't go to that restaurant often, but every time I was there, I always had a great time. My brother has other businesses too, but this bbq restaurant is the business he loves the most. Maybe reminds him of his friendship in the MC, I dont know. You really need to connect with your customers, respect them, know what they want in order to have a booming business.
To me, starting business is hard. NO ONE in their right minds would want to offend a customer on purpose, especially in today's world, media is king. One unfortunate incidence like this can easily ruin a business. It looks like some people are obsessed with fake outrage. They especially like the story when "race" plays a role.
Just wanted to see if there was a limit here. Apparently not as long as done in the moment.
In the moment, no, not really. Did the initiator of force choose a kitten, sheep, dog, wolf or rabid badger as prey? They'll find out the moment they initiate force, and in that moment, each animal will respond to what its instincts tell it ends a threat. In front of an OK store, the initiator gets punched in the moment. In a FL parking lot, the initiator gets shot in the chest, in the moment. The moment differs between people, places, times, etc. But in the moment, whatever the victim of the initiation of force chooses to do to defend themselves, well, that's up to them.
Also, a lot of your (and others) examples of reductio ad absurdum require a "time out, hold right there while I go find some gruesome device of murder/torture with which to exact my vengeance upon you" component. In the moment, the chances of anyone having a running woodchipper, shotgun, nuclear weapon, galactic star killer neutron beam or whatever, are slim at best. Chances are good an assailant will be punched, threatened with a brandished firearm, or shot with a firearm, as these are things a victim would reasonably have in their possession at the time of an initiation of force.
So your most feasible extreme example would be that lady putting her hand on dude's neck and him pulling a pistol and shooting her in response. Would that be justified? Yes. I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't have punched her either. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be justified under proper defensive response to a violation of the NAP in the moment.
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.
