Real article/Thing coming soon, I promise. But I figure if I do a few more of these the right way I can get you people to actually start knifing each other.
Loading...
Aren’t my choices super annoying today? You have only yourselves to blame.
“Solely in defense of material property” is defined here as a circumstance in which employing lethal force is not necessary to prevent harm or loss of life to any individual or to prevent the commission of any other crimes.
For the purposes of this question, non-human animals over which the answerer claims ownership or guardianship are considered “material property.”
“Sometimes justified” means any non-zero set of criteria that you decide. It is inclusive of all “it depends” answers that differ substantially from “never.” It is inclusive of always, because “all” as defined here is also a nonzero set.
“Morally justified” is distinct here from “legally justified” in that it is distinctive to you, the voter, however you define “moral.” If you do not have any moral code of any kind whatsoever, “sometimes morally justified” is the most appropriate response as your behavior is not excluded in any way.
“Material property” is defined here as property that may be legally owned by any entity, individual or otherwise. This includes land. “Legally owned” is defined here as recognition of ownership by a legal body in whatever jurisdiction said property resides. “Resides” is defined here as where said property is physically located. “Located” refers to the coordinates of a real object in physical space.
Use of this poll may cause a harmless darkening of the stool.
Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate this poll.
Please let me know if any other language in the question or answer choices is sufficiently ambiguous as to justify distracting yourself from the actual matter of discussion.
Coming up with a way to not answer proves that you are objectively cleverer than everyone else here. You should start a substack immediately. If you already have one, you should increase your subscription prices.
There are many people around today that argue otherwise. Not saying I necessarily agree with them.
There are also religious strictures that form many people's moral codes that prohibit violence except under very specific circumstances or not at all.
The "morally justified" part is very important to the question. As you've pointed out, legalism makes the concept of private property very clear to civilization.
What many (most?) of the non-violent set fail to understand is what it means to lose your home; your means of livelihood.
Also there's generally not a conversation along the lines of "I'm only here to steal the piggybank and you and and the kids and Timmy the Goldfish are safe forever in my eyes, I swear!"
Someone who will try to deprive you of anything lawfully yours can't be presumed to have strict ethical boundaries.
I'm basing my responses here from the perspective of an assault on my home or a place of business, or on a mugging where someone's trying to grab something from my person.
How about your classic "guy breaks into the house and starts stealing stuff but isn't interested in fucking with you if you let him take your stuff and go" type situation where you aren't in direct danger unless you explicitly choose to defend your property?
Exactly what I was thinking of. Who the fuck is the guy to tell me how to respond in my own house? You enter my door uninvited for bad purposes, you gonna get a bad response.
I had a guy try to mug me once in the tunnel between subway lines at Grand Central. Smiling charming outstretched hands "I'm not gonna hurt you" routine, fortunately other commuters showed up and he backed off, but you can put any damn expression you want on your face, it's your actions I'm focused on.
This highlights an interesting break with longstanding logic that seems to be particularly the domain of the progressive left (I'm thinking especially here of immigration, theft and a few others): willful ignorance of pattern recognition.
I contend that if someone has already shown they are willing to perpetrate SOME laws against you, they are more likely to perpetrate other crimes against you than not.
But we are frequently enjoined by our legal system to act, for practical purposes, as though this is not the case.
I’m all for perps perpetrating on people on the left that think it’s no problem. They can feel sorry for the perps while they are being robbed or assaulted.
Full disclosure: my maternal grandparents were illegal aliens later naturalized in an amnesty. So I understand the territory.
My response to the "we're all immigrants/many of our ancestors came here illegally too" is "Sure. But not on the taxpayers' dime. You want to provide all services necessary unreimbursed by any level of government and responsible for anyone committing further crimes, put up or shut up."
One reason I raise this specific scenario is that, despite your original statement about "civilization," we have laws in many jurisdictions now that specifically do NOT allow the use of deadly force in defense of property unless you are also in clear danger.
So this is clearly not an open-and-shut issue even for civil society, if it truly was at some point.
Among everything else I hate about the times we're in, is being forced to be sympathetic to people mostly opposite to me in every possible way, like that couple in the gated community charged for threatening the street trespassers with their firearms.
And of course this is the problem with civilization's lawyers. They're hired by the side in power at any particular time. Every law is a compromise to stave off anarchy.
We're pack animals, not herd animals, but the pack gets too big, you start making more rules for it because the alpha pair can no longer manage discipline on their own. They need henchwolves and the henchwolves eventually get out of hand themselves.
Social mammals normally had pressure valves of breaking off and starting new populations, but humans have more or less exhausted all the available real estate.
China probably even has future claims to property on Mars they intend to prosecute militarily because Wan Hu looked at it through a tube once.
Under swedish law, in such a scenario you are not allowed to use force against the intruder.
Do so and you will go to prison for assault, which has happened.
Home-invasions are becoming frighteningly common due to this, since the intruders if at all arrested will swear and back eachother's tales up that the homeowner initiated violence, the thives were just using self-defence and feard for their lives.
Yes, our laws and the way police and courts apply and interpret them are beyond trgaedy.
It's stunningly unbelievable that any rational person in a position of authority could have read the drafts of such a law and said "way to go!" I put no faith in Freud or anything but it's like self-hatred raised to the infinite power.
Lack of personal experience most likely - the typical lawmaker and politician has lived a shelterd life never wanting or lacking for material safety in all its forms, and think that that is the natural state (if we stick to the West that is), that they themselves are average income persons and that they represent the mean or median standard of living.
Which is why swedish police, who has no requirements for marksmanship whatsoever, wound up with binding rules that they are to aim for arms or legs of armed assailants. Even at range. Anyone thinking that reasonable has never ever fired a handgun, not even at a shooting range/gallery. A 10 cm target (say a wrist) from 10 meters, with the target flailing about unpredictably. Like a crack-head with a knife f.e. In a public space with no guaranteed backstop.
It has taken 35 years of lobbying from the police union to get to use pepper spray or teargas spray. Our police aren't allowed to use water cannons or tear gas during riots. It's nightsticks or Glock 45 or the MP5 or fall back.
To quote swedish hunters and Home Guard: "Skjut. gräv, tig" (Shoot, shovel, shut up).
A swedish punk song from 1980 about how much it hurts to ram your dick into the steering column of your bike. It was and still is banned from being played on radio here.
To paraphrase Tom, because this is what he *wanted* to write (or maybe it was Ben who wanted it this way), anyway, the Declaration otherwise would've stated that, among others, Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY are unalienable rights.
I will defend, with lethal force if necessary, my unalienable rights. And I alone will decide which of my unalienable rights are morally worthy of such defense.
Freshman year, English class. Our assignment was to go to the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) and write a paper about a particular painting there. I didn't, and still don't, know art from fart. It's undecipherable to me. So I wrote something, because I had to. Surely this would be a lousy grade, because I felt like I was just making stuff up.
Later that week the prof informed the class that she was disappointed in the results of the assignment, that almost no one seemed to grasp what she was looking for.
"Let me read to you the one essay that got it right." And then she proceeded to read MINE.
I just love this substack. GM has a wonderful way with words, and the regulars who comment keep me coming back for more. Oh, how I wish you had a larger following. You would enlighten millions,….. ( i have to do some serious thinking/pondering before I justify my choice)
Go for it. I would always rather have a careful, meaningful answer than a lazy or "clever" insubstantial answer.
I'm actually regretting including pets in my definition of "property" because I think it makes the question too easy for too many people and kind of defeats the purpose of discussing "private property" as a value.
I have to confess, there's a certain dollar value below which- if I was absolutely certain that was all that was going to be stolen in some imagined scenario- I would probably let it go. Or at least do no more than call the police and give a description/photo in the vague hope of them being punished later. I don't think I'd feel really compelled to end someone if they, like, grabbed my Big Mac and ran or stole a cigarette out of my pack while I was in the ladies' room or something. If I thought I could catch them and get my stuff back, I'd probably pursue that, but it would feel disproportionate to tear them apart for it.
Having had my chest of drawers rummaged through by a burglar--I can tell you, the violation of my space by unknown fingers is the crime no mere petty valuation of contents can equal.
It's funny--my lifelong friend is the most litigious person I know and will pursue every financial injustice to the first or last penny but she wasn't enraged about the burglaries to her house anywhere near the way I was. Pissed, for sure, and some things are always irreplaceable which she's still pretty annoyed about, but she didn't have that visceral revulsion I felt.
Ah, but here we've identified where the REAL violation is for you- the intrusion into your normally-sanctified space. So what seems to bother you most, really, is trespassing.
I can neither confirm nor deny that certain "late state" Hollywood actors are kept in a state of "qualified liberty" to provide "creative consultation" on substack content by certain substack owners.
Is it a federal crime to remove the tag from the poll?
It is sometimes justified, as in the apocalyptic scenario that's just around the corner. The cheese in the mousetrap is MINE! Several rounds of 9mm JHP coming your way should you wish to claim it for yourself.
“Solely in defense of material property” is defined here as a circumstance in which employing lethal force is not necessary to prevent harm or loss of life to any individual or to prevent the commission of any other crimes."
Ah, were it always that simple. You know, if criminals were just to ask if they could permanently deprive you of your property and they actually accepted the answer of "No" then we wouldn't really have property crime any more and it would be utopia.
Unfortunately, criminals don't ask for permission and regularly commit violent crimes in order to pull off the property crime.
Sneak into my house to steal my stuff and your ticket will be punched repeatedly until such time as you decide you no longer have need of my stuff or you physically have no need because the pulse is no longer present and electrons have ceased zipping around the mostly empty space inside the cranium that made you think you could take my stuff.
There really is no situation involving the theft of property, when you are present, which has a zero chance of elevating into a non-property crime. Any time you are present at the same time as the criminal it becomes a possibility that violence is on the menu and in that situation it is usually best for life expectancy to elevate to violence first and be judicious in its use.
Look at it this way, in California they have made the decision to decriminalize property crimes which has resulted in criminals walking into retail stores and walking out with trash bags full of merchandise they did not pay for. The only recourse being to close the stores and deprive everyone of the availability of said merchandise. Frankly, a much better deterrent to crime would be to allow bystanders to plant criminals in the ground for property crimes just as often as it takes to dissuade future criminals from pursuing such line of work and the prison population would drop as they want. It isn't rocket science.
But the state won't allow itself to be victimized the same way. If you don't believe it, don't pay your taxes and see how long they take to throw you in prison.
If you enter my home uninvited regardless of your reason. If you try to forcibly remove me from my vehicle in order to deprive me of its use. If you attempt to pilfer or harm any of my animals or livestock. You will not be leaving the scene in an upright position.
If you steal or irreparably damage my personal property, you've damaged Me, as I have given up some portion of my life to earn that property.
You've wiped out a part of my life.
Now...I might choose to be 'kind and benevolent' ( my students have this phrase memorized as a descriptor for me... " Why did I do this to you? " " Because you're Kind and Benevolent, ma'am!" Etc etc... and let you live? However, I might not.
If you harm me, as Hammerabi understood, I get to harm you right back.
i have been watching the vids of the thieving bastards in cali and thinking i'd blow their brains out the moment they stepped out the door without paying.
Det ska väl gå att ordna eftersom du ber så snällt.
Frånsett diverse påhittade exempel oavsett om dessa är mer eller mindre sannolika, verklighetsbaserade och så vidare, så finns väl rent logiskt bara alternativen du har valt, plus det smått absurda och rätt skrämmande [Alltid Motiverat].
Jag kunde skrivit detta på dialekt eller mål, men då begriper jag inte själv vad det står.
I'm protecting the cure to the people that got the C19 shot.... Maybe I don't want to do that as perhaps the outcome is an acceptable outcome. Maybe for my family members that unknowingly went down that path. One's dependent living creature is sufficient also.
Killing is morally justified if I'm protecting the cure for those that got the C19 shot and have adverse effects but, maybe I shouldn't be protecting that as those people 'might' be in line for a Darwin award. I might protect that cure for my family and a dog is always worthy of your protection.
For asking our the question inh head. I often ask myself that question when reading Sage's stack . It's probably my dyslexia...I understand MY off ramps and ofyen solve things by odd associations, but even word scrambles can be dumbfounded for me.
Your property is - to varying degrees - your means of keeping yourself alive. You function more efficiently with a car for example. There is a range that one can explore to see how obvious it has to be for an instinctive reaction to be one way or the other. For example if someone steals the oxygen equipment that is helping you to breath temporarily, the threat to your life is more obvious and could be pretty immediate. If someone puts a graphitto on your wall, then you are merely slightly less weathy - which still has a finite influence on your ability to cope with life's difficulties.
Since there is a sliding scale, the temptation is to go for one extreme or the other, since that is the only definable condition - either the Scandinavian "you are never justified" (apparently, I hear), or you are always justified. However there can't be many people who would think you are justified in killing someone who enters your garden, steals a flower to give to his girlfriend, and turns and starts to leave.
Without a definite boundary, one is forced to use one's judgement, which will not go down well with lawyers or technocrats. Use your judgement: life's tough eh?
The provided definitions warm my pedantic little heart.
...wait, does contemplating warm fuzzies towards dry definitions count as getting distracted from the actual matter of discussion? Probably. The side quest to determine whether folding, spindling, and mutilating are things that should not be done to Happy Fun Ball definitely was. Aw hell.
Anyway. Focus. Yes. Totally sometimes morally justified. Maraudin' marauders better get their grubby mitts off of my home and my animals. But if they only wanted to steal my stuff... sure, fine, take that iPod Mini and go. But there's a limit - I wouldn't sit by and watch as they carted every last one of my things away.
I’m not an absolute pacifist. I will take Sheriff Grady Judd’s advice and make you look like grated cheese should you cross my threshold and give me that crazy-eyed look as I’m no mind reader. The armament isn’t just to sit around and look pretty. A higher power can decide my fate when the dust settles.
My kids food, my house, my horses, my dog. All "material property" (per your definition). And all very much worth defending - with lethal force should it come to that!
Isn't the entire basis of civilization "Don't fuck with me or my stuff?"
The lawyers came in and did the minutiae, after the basic statement of purpose.
There are many people around today that argue otherwise. Not saying I necessarily agree with them.
There are also religious strictures that form many people's moral codes that prohibit violence except under very specific circumstances or not at all.
The "morally justified" part is very important to the question. As you've pointed out, legalism makes the concept of private property very clear to civilization.
What many (most?) of the non-violent set fail to understand is what it means to lose your home; your means of livelihood.
Also there's generally not a conversation along the lines of "I'm only here to steal the piggybank and you and and the kids and Timmy the Goldfish are safe forever in my eyes, I swear!"
Someone who will try to deprive you of anything lawfully yours can't be presumed to have strict ethical boundaries.
I'm basing my responses here from the perspective of an assault on my home or a place of business, or on a mugging where someone's trying to grab something from my person.
How about your classic "guy breaks into the house and starts stealing stuff but isn't interested in fucking with you if you let him take your stuff and go" type situation where you aren't in direct danger unless you explicitly choose to defend your property?
He’s a liar. I never put complete trust in a stranger, especially one who has just broken into my home. He’d get shot.
Exactly what I was thinking of. Who the fuck is the guy to tell me how to respond in my own house? You enter my door uninvited for bad purposes, you gonna get a bad response.
I had a guy try to mug me once in the tunnel between subway lines at Grand Central. Smiling charming outstretched hands "I'm not gonna hurt you" routine, fortunately other commuters showed up and he backed off, but you can put any damn expression you want on your face, it's your actions I'm focused on.
This highlights an interesting break with longstanding logic that seems to be particularly the domain of the progressive left (I'm thinking especially here of immigration, theft and a few others): willful ignorance of pattern recognition.
I contend that if someone has already shown they are willing to perpetrate SOME laws against you, they are more likely to perpetrate other crimes against you than not.
But we are frequently enjoined by our legal system to act, for practical purposes, as though this is not the case.
I’m all for perps perpetrating on people on the left that think it’s no problem. They can feel sorry for the perps while they are being robbed or assaulted.
Full disclosure: my maternal grandparents were illegal aliens later naturalized in an amnesty. So I understand the territory.
My response to the "we're all immigrants/many of our ancestors came here illegally too" is "Sure. But not on the taxpayers' dime. You want to provide all services necessary unreimbursed by any level of government and responsible for anyone committing further crimes, put up or shut up."
One reason I raise this specific scenario is that, despite your original statement about "civilization," we have laws in many jurisdictions now that specifically do NOT allow the use of deadly force in defense of property unless you are also in clear danger.
So this is clearly not an open-and-shut issue even for civil society, if it truly was at some point.
Yes and I disagree with those laws absolutely.
Among everything else I hate about the times we're in, is being forced to be sympathetic to people mostly opposite to me in every possible way, like that couple in the gated community charged for threatening the street trespassers with their firearms.
And of course this is the problem with civilization's lawyers. They're hired by the side in power at any particular time. Every law is a compromise to stave off anarchy.
We're pack animals, not herd animals, but the pack gets too big, you start making more rules for it because the alpha pair can no longer manage discipline on their own. They need henchwolves and the henchwolves eventually get out of hand themselves.
Social mammals normally had pressure valves of breaking off and starting new populations, but humans have more or less exhausted all the available real estate.
China probably even has future claims to property on Mars they intend to prosecute militarily because Wan Hu looked at it through a tube once.
Under swedish law, in such a scenario you are not allowed to use force against the intruder.
Do so and you will go to prison for assault, which has happened.
Home-invasions are becoming frighteningly common due to this, since the intruders if at all arrested will swear and back eachother's tales up that the homeowner initiated violence, the thives were just using self-defence and feard for their lives.
Yes, our laws and the way police and courts apply and interpret them are beyond trgaedy.
These are exactly the laws I'm talking about, and have been slowly proliferating in the US as well.
It's stunningly unbelievable that any rational person in a position of authority could have read the drafts of such a law and said "way to go!" I put no faith in Freud or anything but it's like self-hatred raised to the infinite power.
Lack of personal experience most likely - the typical lawmaker and politician has lived a shelterd life never wanting or lacking for material safety in all its forms, and think that that is the natural state (if we stick to the West that is), that they themselves are average income persons and that they represent the mean or median standard of living.
Which is why swedish police, who has no requirements for marksmanship whatsoever, wound up with binding rules that they are to aim for arms or legs of armed assailants. Even at range. Anyone thinking that reasonable has never ever fired a handgun, not even at a shooting range/gallery. A 10 cm target (say a wrist) from 10 meters, with the target flailing about unpredictably. Like a crack-head with a knife f.e. In a public space with no guaranteed backstop.
It has taken 35 years of lobbying from the police union to get to use pepper spray or teargas spray. Our police aren't allowed to use water cannons or tear gas during riots. It's nightsticks or Glock 45 or the MP5 or fall back.
To quote swedish hunters and Home Guard: "Skjut. gräv, tig" (Shoot, shovel, shut up).
Wasn't it "Don't covet your neigh-bours ass"?
Look at that ass. Look at that big, juicy booty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EwM3JswGnA
Typing. Erasing. Typing. Erasing. Typing. Erasing.
I'm having a "what is this I can't even"-moment.
How can I ever repay this? I know!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIIcLSAshOA
A swedish punk song from 1980 about how much it hurts to ram your dick into the steering column of your bike. It was and still is banned from being played on radio here.
Edit: the video is of course newer.
Your wife needn't worry, but I adore you.
That's the bad translation.
To paraphrase Tom, because this is what he *wanted* to write (or maybe it was Ben who wanted it this way), anyway, the Declaration otherwise would've stated that, among others, Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY are unalienable rights.
I will defend, with lethal force if necessary, my unalienable rights. And I alone will decide which of my unalienable rights are morally worthy of such defense.
Thank you for not only understanding the spirit of the question being asked but also its relevance.
And I absolutely prefer the original DoI draft.
Outstanding summation
I got one right! Or, one more right.
Freshman year, English class. Our assignment was to go to the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) and write a paper about a particular painting there. I didn't, and still don't, know art from fart. It's undecipherable to me. So I wrote something, because I had to. Surely this would be a lousy grade, because I felt like I was just making stuff up.
Later that week the prof informed the class that she was disappointed in the results of the assignment, that almost no one seemed to grasp what she was looking for.
"Let me read to you the one essay that got it right." And then she proceeded to read MINE.
In the easiest defense of "sometimes", my dog is considered to be my "property".
I pondered defining animals in the technicalities, but for the purposes of the question, yes, I agree.
If you’re talking bout chicken and cows during the apocalypse, heck yeah!
We used to hang horse thieves for a reason, after all.
That’s why horse thieves were always hung. They were taking a man’s property, transportation and livelihood.
Or shot…
Hanged... people are hanged when executed.
Unless you are describing some feature of horse thieves in general... perhaps they are thieves that happen to be horses?
I've never met a stallion that WASN'T hung.
🤣🤣😅🤣
In the defense of "sometimes" I'd say your dog is a dependent living creature whose wellbeing you're responsible for.
This!!!
This so-called "poll" is a sham! Where is Steve Gutenberg?! #pollintegrity
I left it off to provide one, and only one, viable avenue for people to bitch about instead of answering.
#justiceforthegute
🤣🤣🤣
Guilty as charged! #restorethegute
You wanted to poll me...for??
😄
I see what you did there! 🤣 #findouteverythingintegrityknows
I just love this substack. GM has a wonderful way with words, and the regulars who comment keep me coming back for more. Oh, how I wish you had a larger following. You would enlighten millions,….. ( i have to do some serious thinking/pondering before I justify my choice)
Go for it. I would always rather have a careful, meaningful answer than a lazy or "clever" insubstantial answer.
I'm actually regretting including pets in my definition of "property" because I think it makes the question too easy for too many people and kind of defeats the purpose of discussing "private property" as a value.
I'll defend my panty drawers to the death, no worries.
I have to confess, there's a certain dollar value below which- if I was absolutely certain that was all that was going to be stolen in some imagined scenario- I would probably let it go. Or at least do no more than call the police and give a description/photo in the vague hope of them being punished later. I don't think I'd feel really compelled to end someone if they, like, grabbed my Big Mac and ran or stole a cigarette out of my pack while I was in the ladies' room or something. If I thought I could catch them and get my stuff back, I'd probably pursue that, but it would feel disproportionate to tear them apart for it.
Having had my chest of drawers rummaged through by a burglar--I can tell you, the violation of my space by unknown fingers is the crime no mere petty valuation of contents can equal.
It's funny--my lifelong friend is the most litigious person I know and will pursue every financial injustice to the first or last penny but she wasn't enraged about the burglaries to her house anywhere near the way I was. Pissed, for sure, and some things are always irreplaceable which she's still pretty annoyed about, but she didn't have that visceral revulsion I felt.
Ah, but here we've identified where the REAL violation is for you- the intrusion into your normally-sanctified space. So what seems to bother you most, really, is trespassing.
Well, yes. Shoot you for that and hack your fingers off for the rest.
Let me know when we get to the "trolly problem" poll.
I am never ever doing the fucking trolley problem.
The trolley problem can go fuck itself.
That's exactly what Steve Guttenberg would say.
I can neither confirm nor deny that certain "late state" Hollywood actors are kept in a state of "qualified liberty" to provide "creative consultation" on substack content by certain substack owners.
The trolley problem is a solved problem.
Since it's easier to wash out the blood and gore of one person from a locomotive, you steer it that way.
Precisely ... Sir! I don't understand why there was ever a 'problem'.
Is it a federal crime to remove the tag from the poll?
It is sometimes justified, as in the apocalyptic scenario that's just around the corner. The cheese in the mousetrap is MINE! Several rounds of 9mm JHP coming your way should you wish to claim it for yourself.
>> Is it a federal crime to remove the tag from the poll?
Do you mean the pillow?
Never mind, I just got it. Doy.
Yea, that's about what I expected :)
Interesting results...
Property and life are too interconnected to not answer yes to this.
"Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate this poll."
For a second, I thought that was a Frankie Z. reference.
“Solely in defense of material property” is defined here as a circumstance in which employing lethal force is not necessary to prevent harm or loss of life to any individual or to prevent the commission of any other crimes."
Ah, were it always that simple. You know, if criminals were just to ask if they could permanently deprive you of your property and they actually accepted the answer of "No" then we wouldn't really have property crime any more and it would be utopia.
Unfortunately, criminals don't ask for permission and regularly commit violent crimes in order to pull off the property crime.
Sneak into my house to steal my stuff and your ticket will be punched repeatedly until such time as you decide you no longer have need of my stuff or you physically have no need because the pulse is no longer present and electrons have ceased zipping around the mostly empty space inside the cranium that made you think you could take my stuff.
There really is no situation involving the theft of property, when you are present, which has a zero chance of elevating into a non-property crime. Any time you are present at the same time as the criminal it becomes a possibility that violence is on the menu and in that situation it is usually best for life expectancy to elevate to violence first and be judicious in its use.
Look at it this way, in California they have made the decision to decriminalize property crimes which has resulted in criminals walking into retail stores and walking out with trash bags full of merchandise they did not pay for. The only recourse being to close the stores and deprive everyone of the availability of said merchandise. Frankly, a much better deterrent to crime would be to allow bystanders to plant criminals in the ground for property crimes just as often as it takes to dissuade future criminals from pursuing such line of work and the prison population would drop as they want. It isn't rocket science.
But the state won't allow itself to be victimized the same way. If you don't believe it, don't pay your taxes and see how long they take to throw you in prison.
If you enter my home uninvited regardless of your reason. If you try to forcibly remove me from my vehicle in order to deprive me of its use. If you attempt to pilfer or harm any of my animals or livestock. You will not be leaving the scene in an upright position.
If you come in the house it’s in. You don’t even have to take anything.
Exactly!
Now that I've wiped my eyes...
If you steal or irreparably damage my personal property, you've damaged Me, as I have given up some portion of my life to earn that property.
You've wiped out a part of my life.
Now...I might choose to be 'kind and benevolent' ( my students have this phrase memorized as a descriptor for me... " Why did I do this to you? " " Because you're Kind and Benevolent, ma'am!" Etc etc... and let you live? However, I might not.
If you harm me, as Hammerabi understood, I get to harm you right back.
i have been watching the vids of the thieving bastards in cali and thinking i'd blow their brains out the moment they stepped out the door without paying.
not yours = death
Dude, if Brothermouth and I were in a Duane Reade in Cali those shitheads would find us standing in front of the door out with our arms crossed.
Hell, Fathermouth would probably run a good block until his knees gave out. Those videos infuriated him.
If any other language you say?
Det ska väl gå att ordna eftersom du ber så snällt.
Frånsett diverse påhittade exempel oavsett om dessa är mer eller mindre sannolika, verklighetsbaserade och så vidare, så finns väl rent logiskt bara alternativen du har valt, plus det smått absurda och rätt skrämmande [Alltid Motiverat].
Jag kunde skrivit detta på dialekt eller mål, men då begriper jag inte själv vad det står.
Before I put much brainpower into other avenues? ...
Anyone who kills my Cammie pup on purpose will die. Probably not quickly.
If the thought of her dying just from old age ( she turns 15 in Dec) even at this very moment makes me tear up?
You can be sure as any pledge to a divine being that I will indiscriminately slaughter any human/s who intentionally harms her.
Might be the only realistic thing about John Wick.
So...I shouldn't be ashamed I haven't seen it?
Saw a video of Keanu training for his tactical pistol work. He's become quite proficient.
Not at all!
He certainly appears proficient with firearms. To an extent that I envy.
But the gist of the first flick is that the revenge is predicated on the murder of his pup.
This I feel to my bones. My pup has saved my life twice and given me her best when I perhaps didn't deserve it.
I need to regain skill with both pistol and rifle. Thank you for being that reminder!
Why didn't you have an "always justified?" 😏
Explained in the disclaimer.
I'm protecting the cure to the people that got the C19 shot.... Maybe I don't want to do that as perhaps the outcome is an acceptable outcome. Maybe for my family members that unknowingly went down that path. One's dependent living creature is sufficient also.
I'm sorry but I'm having a really hard time parsing what you're saying. I don't think I understand it at all.
Killing is morally justified if I'm protecting the cure for those that got the C19 shot and have adverse effects but, maybe I shouldn't be protecting that as those people 'might' be in line for a Darwin award. I might protect that cure for my family and a dog is always worthy of your protection.
Omigosh, ty
For what? :)
For asking our the question inh head. I often ask myself that question when reading Sage's stack . It's probably my dyslexia...I understand MY off ramps and ofyen solve things by odd associations, but even word scrambles can be dumbfounded for me.
One of the most valuable things I outgrew was a fear of outwardly acknowledging something I didn't understand.
Confidently expressed, it is never mistaken for weakness. It usually motivates people to put in the work to be understood.
"Powerful people don't run in either direction."
Can't we just kick their arse, remove a finger or two, and take our stuff back?
Gosh, ok, yeah. IF it's a theft that might in future weaken our ability to survive.
Your property is - to varying degrees - your means of keeping yourself alive. You function more efficiently with a car for example. There is a range that one can explore to see how obvious it has to be for an instinctive reaction to be one way or the other. For example if someone steals the oxygen equipment that is helping you to breath temporarily, the threat to your life is more obvious and could be pretty immediate. If someone puts a graphitto on your wall, then you are merely slightly less weathy - which still has a finite influence on your ability to cope with life's difficulties.
Since there is a sliding scale, the temptation is to go for one extreme or the other, since that is the only definable condition - either the Scandinavian "you are never justified" (apparently, I hear), or you are always justified. However there can't be many people who would think you are justified in killing someone who enters your garden, steals a flower to give to his girlfriend, and turns and starts to leave.
Without a definite boundary, one is forced to use one's judgement, which will not go down well with lawyers or technocrats. Use your judgement: life's tough eh?
The provided definitions warm my pedantic little heart.
...wait, does contemplating warm fuzzies towards dry definitions count as getting distracted from the actual matter of discussion? Probably. The side quest to determine whether folding, spindling, and mutilating are things that should not be done to Happy Fun Ball definitely was. Aw hell.
Anyway. Focus. Yes. Totally sometimes morally justified. Maraudin' marauders better get their grubby mitts off of my home and my animals. But if they only wanted to steal my stuff... sure, fine, take that iPod Mini and go. But there's a limit - I wouldn't sit by and watch as they carted every last one of my things away.
Kill my dog and expect to die by my hand.
I’m not an absolute pacifist. I will take Sheriff Grady Judd’s advice and make you look like grated cheese should you cross my threshold and give me that crazy-eyed look as I’m no mind reader. The armament isn’t just to sit around and look pretty. A higher power can decide my fate when the dust settles.
My kids food, my house, my horses, my dog. All "material property" (per your definition). And all very much worth defending - with lethal force should it come to that!