[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Life > Property. Threaten to shoot, fine. Shoot on sight someone who’s trying to steal something, and is not an immediate threat to your physical safety? That’s just wrong.
So a kid fucks up and tries to steal a car, and gets SHOT!?!? Not right.[/quote]
Why? He tries to steal the part of my life that went into getting that car.
Plus an armed society is a polite society.
I am allowed to shot someone in the back if he steals more than 40 ? from me. At least our highest court says so.
I am not allowed to wear a gun though, I wonder how that is supposed to work…
[quote]orion wrote:
Why? He tries to steal the part of my life that went into getting that car. [/quote]
We won’t come to an understanding here. You’re putting an irreplacable sacred thing above mere stuff. It’s wrong from so many perspectives.
I think your line of thinking is at the root of some of society’s worst problems. If you equate private property to life, you open the door to all sorts of abuse (e.g: explotation, wars, slavery…).
I respect the right of people of private property, but there’s no way you can convince me that its value is anywhere close to that of human life.
The part of my life that went into getting this “mere stuff” is irreplacable and sacred.
My sweat, my suffering, my risk-taking, my enduring, my overcoming, my LIFE!
If this fucker is allowed to take my car he might as well enslave me for the time it took me to work for it.
Plus, this “mere stuff” is my source of freedom and independence and my means to provide for me and my family.
Private property is sacrosanct, meaning its violation is an abomination before the Gods that can only be washed off with the perpetrators blood.
So his life may be worth more to you than my “mere stuff” but obviously I do not share that sentiment.
On the contrary my line of thinking helped close those doors.
Why you think it is compatible with slavery or exploitation when the right to own your own body is the ultimate property right is beyond me.
You respect ownership rights as long as the owners have no means of defending it?
I think that sentiment is shared by socialists everywhere. Since you want to operate with other peoples money, you hardly want them shooting at you.
Plus, close to whose human life?
Will I wreck my car before running over someone?
Sure.
Will I meekly stand by when it is stolen just to preserve some punks life?
No way.
The whole “value” of human life is BS anyway, we make decisions all the time how much a human being is worth to us and it allways comes down to money, because, surprise, we live in a world of scarce resources.
[quote]orion wrote:
The whole “value” of human life is BS anyway, we make decisions all the time how much a human being is worth to us and it allways comes down to money, because, surprise, we live in a world of scarce resources.[/quote]
Like I said, we won’t come to an understanding here.
I say human life is priceless. You say the “value” of human life is BS.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Life > Property. Threaten to shoot, fine. Shoot on sight someone who’s trying to steal something, and is not an immediate threat to your physical safety? That’s just wrong.
So a kid fucks up and tries to steal a car, and gets SHOT!?!? Not right.[/quote]
Exactly. And the moral of the story would be; don’t try and steal cars because you might get shot!
Orion makes a good point; our stuff in some regard is an extension of who we are.
When I was younger I worked hard and saved my money and purchased my first nice car. A lot of my life was invested in obtaining this car. Then, about 6 months after buying this car it was stolen.
I cannot explain how pissed-off that made me. And if I were on the scene at the time it was stolen I would have definitely protected my property. And if some punk got hurt because he was trying to steal my car, then so be it. That was the choice that he made when he decided to break the law.
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
The whole “value” of human life is BS anyway, we make decisions all the time how much a human being is worth to us and it allways comes down to money, because, surprise, we live in a world of scarce resources.
Like I said, we won’t come to an understanding here.
I say human life is priceless. You say the “value” of human life is BS.
What is there to discuss?[/quote]
Well,
cars, planes, medicine, sports, drugs, agriculture, this whole civilization business (yes, business), costs life.
Constantly.
To say human life is priceless and to value it beyond everything makes living impossible and is therefore BS.
Since we make value judgements concerning human life all the time, we might as well protect the moral foundations of human civilization.
We can spare one thief, in fact we can spare thousands, we cannot function without respect for private property.
And yes, to call someones live valuable just because he wastes oxygen is religious BS.
I never EVER thought somebody might actually reason the way you do. It’s seriously scaring me. The implications of such logic are utterly disgusting.[/quote]
The implications being what exactly?
Plus, since when is “it ought not be therefore it cannot be an argument”?
There are MANY occasions where you would agree that it is perfectly ok to kill someone to defend property.
I think the law should be drawn loosely around this, if you decide to let someone have your stuff that is your prerogative.
I never EVER thought somebody might actually reason the way you do. It’s seriously scaring me. The implications of such logic are utterly disgusting.[/quote]
One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic - J.Stalin
Lixy, I’m not completly sure I understand. Please allow me to ask you a hypothetical question.
You are the owner of a house and of a firearm. During the night, ten elderly people which are unarmed and physically unable to harm you break into your house. You wake up, realize the above and they tell you they are in no way going to harm you they just want to steal your valuable items. You live in the countryside and police will take a good hour to reach your house (the elderly will have plenty of time to rob you and leave). Threatening them has no effect.
So my question is, knowing that they won’t harm you, you let them take your stuff and leave peacefully?
[quote]upwardindex wrote:
Lixy, I’m not completly sure I understand. Please allow me to ask you a hypothetical question.
You are the owner of a house and of a firearm. During the night, ten elderly people which are unarmed and physically unable to harm you break into your house. You wake up, realize the above and they tell you they are in no way going to harm you they just want to steal your valuable items. You live in the countryside and police will take a good hour to reach your house (the elderly will have plenty of time to rob you and leave). Threatening them has no effect.
So my question is, knowing that they won’t harm you, you let them take your stuff and leave peacefully?[/quote]
[quote]upwardindex wrote:
Lixy, I’m not completly sure I understand. Please allow me to ask you a hypothetical question.[/quote]
Could you come up with a more contrived example?
How about this… you physically remove them from the premises, or you lock them in a room.
But maybe I should ask you a hypothetical question… would you be able to pull the trigger on a bunch of old people stealing your stuff?
At any rate, legally, in many states you’d probably get away with shooting them, as long as there was no one left to tell the story of how they identified themselves, demonstrated that they were unarmed, and meant you absolutely no bodily harm.
I completely agree with Orion here. Excellent points. Your property IS your life. You go to work 9 to 5 everyday to make a living - to own a house, a car, clothes. If someone takes that away from you, they are taking away all those months or years you worked.
They are taking away a chunk of your life. So what do you do after you let the thieves steal your car? Work another couple of years so you can buy another one? That’s another couple of years of your life!
To put it into a larger perspective, what is one of the top reasons why nations go to war? Property. Territory. An army can kill thousands of people because of property but you can’t shoot one criminal?
Call me crazy, but I do agree with Lixy on one point, human life is priceless. It is a gift that should not be easily discarded. Having said that, it is the criminal who is treating his life cheaply when he decides to commit a violent crime or a crime that could be met with violence.
So if a criminal tries to steal a car and gets shot in the process by the owner, that is the criminals fault, not the owners. It was the criminal who was operating outside the bounds of the law. And as far as I’m concerned the constitution does not say Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of criminal activity.
So when you break the law you have chosen to suspend your rights as a law abiding citizen. So by doing this you have put yourself at risk and the law abiding citizen is not obligated to preserve your rights when you clearly have disregarded them.
[quote]texasguy wrote:
this is true. you should just open the door, loaded gun in hand and start shooting before stepping outside and before they know what is happening.
if you are in texas, you should then step outside and finish the surviving ones off, as they can sue you for shooting them in civil court should they survive, even though you committed no crime. [/quote]
Best advice on the thread so far. Why let 'em live to come back seeking vengeance for killing some shiteater cousin or something? Kill 'em all.
And always shoot from cover first. Who knows who the hell else is out there?