I’d like to find out if the old gentleman had recently been the victim of a crime. He seemed pretty pissed. I hope this story stays in the news.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
In the end it all comes to find you.
Agreed. Though I consider myself of rational mind I still have a small place in my heart for cosmic karma – what goes around, comes around. That goes for the “gentleman” who pulled the trigger as well.
He’s 70-fucking years-old. Karma had better pedal a little faster if it’s going to catch up with him. [/quote]
Actually, if he really enjoyed it, it might have been a karmic reward.
Plus, how come karma does not work for thiefs and robbers?
Maybe they had their karmic account settled.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
In the end it all comes to find you.
He’s 70-fucking years-old. Karma had better pedal a little faster if it’s going to catch up with him.
Actually, if he really enjoyed it, it might have been a karmic reward.
Plus, how come karma does not work for thiefs and robbers?
[/quote]
Maybe his karma ran over their dogma.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The thieves were acting immorally and the old man also acted immorally. There was no one on the side of right in this situation. This man probably has no problem sleeping at night…that is sad to me.
Using deadly force in defense of one’s property is immoral? Not where I live. Your anarchy wouldn’t last very long. [/quote]
It never does. Mankind has codified laws for millennia because anarchy sucks.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Good for you. Seeing that this is a legal issue, why are you posting about morality? [/quote]
Huh?
Check the title of the thread genius.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
I think you’re wrong(AGAIN)…you twisted Texasguys and Rainjacks posts as if they blatantly said that its ok to shoot people over money,remember that? [/quote]
Both of them said “who knows what they might done next”. That’s the logic I find reprehensible. If Texans want to shoot people who rob their houses, it’s fine by me. Dragging preemption into the argument is what I challenged.
I personally put human life way (w-aaaay) above material property. But that’s another issue altogether…
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Good for you. Seeing that this is a legal issue, why are you posting about morality?
Huh?
Check the title of the thread genius.[/quote]
I did. What’s your point? The guy operated within the law - and wasted some scum. Where does morality come into play?
Try harder girlfriend.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
I think you’re wrong(AGAIN)…you twisted Texasguys and Rainjacks posts as if they blatantly said that its ok to shoot people over money,remember that?
Both of them said “who knows what they might done next”. That’s the logic I find reprehensible. If Texans want to shoot people who rob their houses, it’s fine by me. Dragging preemption into the argument is what I challenged.
I personally put human life way (w-aaaay) above material property. But that’s another issue altogether…[/quote]
Find where I said that. Short of quoting my words saying that exact thing - you are a fucking liar. No one fucking mentioned preemption either.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I did. What’s your point? The guy operated within the law - and wasted some scum. Where does morality come into play? [/quote]
You asked why Liftus brought morality in the debate. I assume that calling the guy a hero is quite shocking to most people and that is why the morality of the event is discussed.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I did. What’s your point? The guy operated within the law - and wasted some scum. Where does morality come into play?
You asked why Liftus brought morality in the debate. I assume that calling the guy a hero is quite shocking to most people and that is why the morality of the event is discussed.[/quote]
No. He brought up the moral issue. He is an anarchist who thinks man can survive without laws, or law enforcement. He also thinks that man can be governed by his own morals. It has never happened.
He also thinks that the right to defend one’s property with deadly force is immoral. That is where the morality issue entered the discussion. Everyone else is pretty much patting the guy on the back, and deservedly so.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Find where I said that. Short of quoting my words saying that exact thing - you are a fucking liar. No one fucking mentioned preemption either. [/quote]
Here’s what you replied to HH: “Absolutely. How many houses will those shit heads rob in the future? Case closed.”
That was an attempt to justify the homicides based on speculations on future burglaries. The argument you gave there was based on preemption.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Find where I said that. Short of quoting my words saying that exact thing - you are a fucking liar. No one fucking mentioned preemption either.
Here’s what you replied to HH: “Absolutely. How many houses will those shit heads rob in the future? Case closed.”
That was an attempt to justify the homicides based on speculations on future burglaries. The argument you gave there was based on preemption.[/quote]
You need to work on your comprehension skills. The thieves were not killed as preemption of other possible future crimes. They were killed for the one the had just committed. They were asked to stop. They ignored the order, and they were shot dead. It was because of the crime at hand - not future crimes that they were killed.
The fact that they are not going to be able to continue their life of crime could be called preemption, but you are fucking nuts if you think that these scumbags were shot for any reason other than what they were doing at that moment.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No. He brought up the moral issue. [/quote]
No. The OP called the guy a hero. That’s when morality entered the equation. Stories of heroism have always served as moral examples.
Liftus didn’t bring up the moral issue. The OP did.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
No. He brought up the moral issue.
No. The OP called the guy a hero. That’s when morality entered the equation. Stories of heroism have always served as moral examples.
Liftus didn’t bring up the moral issue. The OP did.[/quote]
Heroism isn’t a moral issue. Surely you know this and are just being obtuse.
ALl I can tell youis to read the thread. At least read Lift’s posts. You have evidently done neither to this point.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The fact that they are not going to be able to continue their life of crime could be called preemption, but you are fucking nuts if you think that these scumbags were shot for any reason other than what they were doing at that moment. [/quote]
I perfectly understand what they were shot for. I don’t condone it, but I respect the right of Texans to choose the way they want to deal with their problems. With me so far? Good.
I criticized the argument (both yours and Texasguy) that tried to strengthen the shooter’s case based on the thieves potential mischiefs. That is what I have a problem with. I’m pretty sure you can figure why…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Heroism isn’t a moral issue. [/quote]
As far as I know, there is no such thing as an immoral hero. Agreeing with the morality of somebody’s actions is a prerequisite to him becoming a hero in one’s eyes.
In the traditional sense of the word, heroism cannot be dissociated from morality. Heroic stories from classical antiquity were full of moral lessons.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Heroism isn’t a moral issue.
As far as I know, there is no such thing as an immoral hero. Agreeing with the morality of somebody’s actions is a prerequisite to him becoming a hero in one’s eyes.
In the traditional sense of the word, heroism cannot be dissociated from morality. Heroic stories from classical antiquity were full of moral lessons.[/quote]
Your heroic “insurgents” are immoral.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Heroism isn’t a moral issue.
As far as I know, there is no such thing as an immoral hero. Agreeing with the morality of somebody’s actions is a prerequisite to him becoming a hero in one’s eyes.
In the traditional sense of the word, heroism cannot be dissociated from morality. Heroic stories from classical antiquity were full of moral lessons.[/quote]
This was a guy acting within the law, and he stopped two criminals dead in their tracks. A 70-something old man, at that. Heroism is acting with exceptional courage in the face of danger. I’d say the old man qualifies - moral or not.
If you want to attach morality to it, go ahead. It serves no purpose in this discussion.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you want to attach morality to it, go ahead. It serves no purpose in this discussion. [/quote]
I didn’t. The OP called him a hero.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If you want to attach morality to it, go ahead. It serves no purpose in this discussion.
I didn’t. The OP called him a hero.[/quote]
A you really this slow? I just showed you where heroism is not a morality issue.
Please -