#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
If a group begins attacking your car in traffic, do you run over them?
Yes
Side Score: 32
|
![]() |
No
Side Score: 40
|
And in what way are they life threatening? They're 'attacking' inanimate material. If a guy ‘Attacks’ your car in traffic let’s say with a sledgehammer would you be justified in attempting to flee by running them over ? It is indeed an inanimate object but it contains you in its interior , your clothes contain you using your reasoning one could say they were ‘attacking ‘ your clothes as in an inanimate object that contained you Side: Yes
1
point
It is indeed an inanimate object but it contains you in its interior Oh, well that settles it then. Let's lock up everybody who ever knocked on a front door for violently attacking an inanimate object with someone in the interior. Your fascist propaganda is just bizarre. It's utterly bizarre. You're calling people terrorists for exercising their democratic right to protest, while at the same time accusing them of attacking democracy. It's stupid and it's insane. Side: Yes
Oh, well that settles it then. Let's lock up everybody who ever knocked on a front door for violently attacking an inanimate object with someone in the interior. You totally missed the point can you not see a slight difference between a guy attacking your car with a sledgehammer and someone knocking on your door? Would you like others here not think an attack on your car may be an attack on you Your fascist propaganda is just bizarre. You’ve lost me where have I resorted to “fascist propaganda”? It's utterly bizarre. You're calling people terrorists for exercising their democratic right to protest Where did I say that ? I perfectly agree with the right to protest , while at the same time accusing them of attacking democracy. Again something I’ve never said , your inability to comprehend simple statements is baffling , why do you make stuff up? It's stupid and it's insane. What’s stupid and insane is arguing over things I never said and claimed , those voices in your head are not my doing mate , in future slowly read what I say and not what you imagine I said and attempt a coherent response ( something I’m not confident you can do) Side: Yes
A sledge hammer is oddly specific. I expect I'd interpret that as more a threat to my person, but I'd hardly consider it the average 'attack' on a car. If someone 'attacks' my car by throwing rubbish at it I'm not inclined to find my person at risk, no matter how much I'm in the interior of the car. Rather as I'm not liable to shoot someone for egging my clothes, I guess. Side: Yes
A sledge hammer is oddly specific. I expect I'd interpret that as more a threat to my person, but I'd hardly consider it the average 'attack' on a car. I would think a sledge hammer would be ideally suited for an attack on a car , I don’t know what the ‘average attack ‘ on a car would be to be honest If someone 'attacks' my car by throwing rubbish at it I'm not inclined to find my person at risk, no matter how much I'm in the interior of the car. That’s granted as that’s your subjective view on such others might feel deeply traumatized Rather as I'm not liable to shoot someone for egging my clothes, I guess. Then again in circumstances one might loose their lives for doing such and the decision would be seen as entirely just , imagine egging the ‘dear leader ‘ how do you think that would turn out? Side: Yes
I would think a sledge hammer would be ideally suited for an attack on a car , I don’t know what the ‘average attack ‘ on a car would be to be honest. Certainly, a sledge hammer would be useful for vandalizing a car. Exceedingly few people own one, though, let alone carry them about on the regular. One needn't know what the average 'attack' on a car looks like in order to rule out groups armed with sledge hammers being the norm. Jumping to extreme and unrealistic scenarios like this is a pretty obvious attempt to make a disproportionate response (running people over with a few tons of metal) seem proportionate. That’s granted as that’s your subjective view on such others might feel deeply traumatized. Yes, obviously my perspective is my perspective. And I'm sure there's some people out there with the fortitude of pudding and risk assessment capacity of rocks. Their mere existence is no reason for me to tolerate or respect them for filling in their deficiencies with lethal violence. You really want to set your bar for lethal force that low, then that's your business I guess. Then again in circumstances one might loose their lives for doing such and the decision would be seen as entirely just , imagine egging the ‘dear leader ‘ how do you think that would turn out? What's that to me? Or you, for that matter? Side: Yes
Certainly, a sledge hammer would be useful for vandalizing a car. Exceedingly few people own one, though, let alone carry them about on the regular. One needn't know what the average 'attack' on a car looks like in order to rule out groups armed with sledge hammers being the norm. There are no average attacks on cars , stats from around the world would confirm this , all attacks differ depending on who is doing the attacking , it involves mostly what comes to hand as most seem to be spur of the moment. You don’t know how you will react until confronted by such a situation . Many years ago a friend and I were driving through Dublin city centre when we ran into a mob of extremely hostile Republicans who were destroying cars , properties and anything in its path as demonstration against brutality by British forces in Northern Ireland , they started firing bricks , bottles and stones at our approaching car and were bent on destruction my friend without thinking hit the accelerator and headed straight at them they jumped aside except for 2 who he clipped and sent flying we didn’t in that moment give a f—k about their safety as ours was the only thing of importance to us I would certainly in certain cases run over someone at attacking my vehicle if I felt myself in danger Jumping to extreme and unrealistic scenarios like this is a pretty obvious attempt to make a disproportionate response (running people over with a few tons of metal) seem proportionate. Situations like this happen every day somewhere in the world , I’m not talking about someone egging or keying my car , although keying would result in me doing something similar to them What is a realistic scenario in such events? I’m not saying I would run someone over in all such scenarios but I would in some If you had someone use extreme violence attacking your car what would you do ? Yes, obviously my perspective is my perspective. And I'm sure there's some people out there with the fortitude of pudding and risk assessment capacity of rocks. Their mere existence is no reason for me to tolerate or respect them for filling in their deficiencies with lethal violence. You really want to set your bar for lethal force that low, then that's your business I guess. No I’m actually not setting the bar low , in fairness I’ve given a specific example where I certainly would act in a way that I felt suited the circumstances, an attack on a car is also an attack on the individual within that car every human being re - acts differently in such a situation I’m not seeking or do I require toleration or approval from others for my actions as my intentions are based on an evaluation of whether or not my safety in danger What's that to me? Or you, for that matter? You have made a judgement on what you consider to be excessive violence used by people in such situations , you and I know the consequences of such action against certain people as in the ‘dear leader’ , regards other humans what each will do in each situation depends on how threatened or traumatized they feel in such situations , how can you judge from your perspective how one feels or how their actions are unwarranted in such situations? A female friend of mine had a cyclist aggressively pound on the roof of her car with his fist , she was deeply traumatized at this because his language and behaviour was so aggressive , what is the appropriate response to such and what makes one position more favorable than another? We as as humans are emotional creatures who like to think we are rational yet no human decision can be made without emotions involved , this seems to be rarely taken into account when such scenarios take place as assessments are made after the event and claimed to rational or irrational depending on the agents evaluating such Side: Yes
1
point
Many years ago a friend and I were driving through Dublin city centre when we ran into a mob of extremely hostile Republicans Well Dermot, your mother did leave quite a few angry punters behind with various venereal diseases. Indeed, the Republicans themselves used to joke about how she'd had more sinners inside her than St Paul's Cathedral. headed straight at them they jumped aside except for 2 who he clipped and sent flying we didn’t in that moment give a f—k about their safety as ours was the only thing of importance to us And of course this exemplifies the cowardice of your character very well. You, sitting inside a lethal metal weapon, were worried about your safety. Side: Yes
Well Dermot, your mother did leave quite a few angry punters behind with various venereal diseases. Indeed, the Republicans themselves used to joke about how she'd had more sinners inside her than St Paul's Cathedral. It’s quiet amusing to see you still ranting and raging on CD about the same tired old topics as in your obsession with Marxism , Capitalism and Fascism and the tragedy is you do so 24 / 7 so one has to take it you still haven’t found employment as yet I’m quiet relieved you stick to these subjects as last time I was on here you breathlessly in a state of extreme excitement posted up your legendary post as in “ Hey everyone Scientists in Russia have invented a time machine “ how we all laughed but then excused you as your genetic stupidity is taken for granted now And of course this exemplifies the cowardice of your character very well. You, sitting inside a lethal metal weapon, were worried about your safety. Yes very strange isn’t it I would be worried about my safety when the Dublin branch of the IRA take to the streets , might I suggest you take a trip up North if such rioting takes place again and demonstrate your bravery by stating “ gentlemen please desist from such antediluvian behaviour “ that should demonstrate your bravery admirably especially if delivered in a strong cockney accent as the mob kick the stuffing out of you Maybe you would wish your ‘ time machine ‘ was a reality as you take your final gasping breath clutching your (still) un -read Das Kapital to your breast Side: Yes
1
point
It’s quiet amusing to see you still ranting and raging on CD Oh, I don't think you are amused Dermot. I think you are an angry little man with a chip on his shoulder, earned from many nights alone in front of the TV with a plate of cold beans on your lap, as your long-suffering mother tramped the streets of Dublin, plying her trade to the local riff raff. I’m quiet relieved you stick to these subjects You are one of these truly ill people which one must apply the inverse square law to whenever they say or write anything. If you claim to be amused you are irritated, and if you claim to be relieved you are sick with tension. You make your mood quite apparent when you write me back long paragraphs of self-aggrandizing, delusional buffoonery which, to be honest, I don't even read. You're not an intelligent man, so why should I care about your arrogant need to thrust your long-winded opinions into people's faces? Exactly. Have a good day, buddy. Side: Yes
Oh, I don't think you are amused Dermot. I think you are an angry little man with a chip on his shoulder, earned from many nights alone in front of the TV with a plate of cold beans on your lap, as your long-suffering mother tramped the streets of Dublin, plying her trade to the local riff raff. There is that mirroring you do where you label and apply your life circumstances to everyone who disagrees with you , out of the 10 people that actively use this site I note 6 are your joint accounts how truly pathetic yet you take pride in what to you seems like an ‘epic’ achievement You are one of these truly ill people which one must apply the inverse square law to whenever they say or write anything. If you claim to be amused you are irritated, and if you claim to be relieved you are sick with tension. You make your mood quite apparent when you write me back long paragraphs of self-aggrandizing, delusional buffoonery which, to be honest, I don't even read. Mirroring yet again you’re like a parrot , why do you fly into a rage with anyone who corrects you , not one post can you ever defend your position why’s that ? Maybe you’re still upset that Hitler was a Socialist as you had no defence to such , would you like to fill out a butt hurt report and sent it to Andy ? Were there tears? You're not an intelligent man, so why should I care about your arrogant need to thrust your long-winded opinions into people's faces? Well if intelligence is based on believing 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ or two computer programmers invented a time machine you got me real good there Exactly. Have a good day, buddy. Good luck with your KKK application membership request ole buddy Side: Yes
1
point
everyone who disagrees with you Translation: he disagrees with me so therefore I'm going to pretend he disagrees with everyone, to make his disagreement with me seem irrational. You're an idiot, Dermot. I understand you don't want to accept that as reality, but that is reality buddy. Side: No
Translation: he disagrees with me so therefore I'm going to pretend he disagrees with everyone, to make his disagreement with me seem irrational. Correction : Everyone disagrees with you and you cannot show me one example of you agreeing with anyone , it’s like magic ask you a simple question and what follows is you firing off childish insults as you haven’t the intelligence or ability to defend anyone of your assertions You're an idiot, Dermot. I understand you don't want to accept that as reality, but that is reality buddy. This from a guy who thinks the Illuminati caused 9/11 , two attic dwelling computer nerds invented a time machine and who chases a Jew 24/7 around the site telling him he is not a ......Jew Welcome to reality in Noms world ......Hey buddy did you ever work out what Socialism was ? Chortle , chuckle , chortle ...... Side: Yes
1
point
Correction : Everyone disagrees with you That isn't a correction. That's a ludicrous statement which can't possibly be true. It is self-evidently false. Even if it were true, knowing that would require possession of a non-existent global census on the matter. Get help. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Show me any evidence whatsoever that I hate Jews. Hilarious you chase one around the site 7 days a week for years abusing him, there is a thing called a dictionary that helps dummies like you look up words like HATE it even explains bigger words but best stick with the smaller easier words for now ......Sorry? Oh , you’re welcome ...... Side: Yes
1
point
Hilarious you chase one around the site 7 days a week for years abusing him The only thing which is hilarious is your emotional investment in trying to irritate a complete stranger over the internet by making up lies about him. You're worthy of my pity, not my scorn. If this is how you choose to spend your time voluntarily then you clearly need help from a mental health professional. Side: No
1
point
Hilarious you chase one around the site 7 days a week for years abusing him, there is a thing called a dictionary that helps dummies like you look up words like HATE it even explains bigger words but best stick with the smaller easier words for now ......Sorry? Oh , you’re welcome ...... Now run off and harass Con you liar Side: Yes
1
point
Hilarious you chase one around the site 7 days a week for years abusing him Hilarious that you double down on the same piece of lying bullshit I've just told you I don't care about. Chasing me around the site, while at the same time accusing me of chasing others around the site, is the exact type of jaw-dropping idiocy we have all come to expect from you. Go and eat a potato, you fake Irish dummy. Side: No
Go and eat a potato, you fake Irish dummy What a great insult so inventive ......You're back to denying you harrass Con 24/ 7 with multiple accounts yet you’re at it as we speak .......At least you don’t rap anymore I remember how we all cringed and felt sorry for you as attempted a career in the ‘ industry’ how’s that working out for ya buddy ? Side: Yes
1
point
Ahh right you now deny you do not tell Con he is not a Jew got ya ...... My spelling is 100 per cent spot on yours on the other hand is dreadful , your punctuation is ‘ lacking’ also It’s great that within minutes I can get you attempting to point out spelling mistakes because you cannot debate , your next option is downvoting ....same ole sad failed white ‘rapper’ Butteater ...... Side: Yes
1
point
I don't deny that at all. You just spent your morning doing so The qualification for being a Jew is not claiming you are a Jew. Maybe you shouldn’t do it then? Perhaps you missed that class at school. I didn’t go to a school run by Nazis who hated Jews so yeah I missed that one real bad Side: Yes
1
point
I find your particular suggestion unduly offensive to the unclean and gremlins You realise you're supporting a literal Nazi who spends his entire life here creating fake accounts and then using them to spam fascist propaganda from the 1930s, right? Because of a personal vendetta, you're doing that. Your culture is so upside down, inside out, arse end backwards, that none of you seem capable of making any decision based on reason rather than either:- A) Hate. B) Partisanship. C) Religion. Your culture is on a one way trip to history. Side: Yes
You realise you're supporting a literal Nazi who spends his entire life here creating fake accounts and then using them to spam fascist propaganda from the 1930s, right? If agreeing that I could be meaner to you than I have been makes me a Nazi supporter then that's only by an extreme stretch of the notion of support. I'm not troubled by your conclusion. Because of a personal vendetta, you're doing that. Your og vendetta was inspirational, what can I say. Your culture is so upside down, inside out, arse end backwards, that none of you seem capable of making any decision based on reason rather than either:-A) Hate. B) Partisanship. C) Religion. Which culture is it that you suppose is mine, exactly? I'm my own. As for hate and partisanship, I'd say you've got those down better than most actually. Religion, too, if you count ideologies. Your culture is on a one way trip to history. So? All the present can ever be is a one way trip to the past. Side: No
Also, I'll reiterate for good pleasure: When they come for the women you're among them, calling people bitches and broads and hoebags because you think sexist slurs make for good insults. When they come for the neuroatypical you're among them, calling people mentally ill because you think mentalist slurs make for good insults. When they come for the lower class you're among them, invoking your class credentials because you think they make you superior. Don't come at me over praxis. Not when you're deep throating boots this hard. Side: No
1
point
You're the one interjecting your long-winded opinions where they're not wanted, burrito. Actually no, you are. I didn't ask for your opinion. You forced it on me. How typical of you to be sat here turning factual reality upside down because of a personal vendetta. Get a life you boring, intellectually challenged hoebag. Side: Yes
1
point
Come off it. I never forced anything on you I've noticed that you have significant problems when it comes to understanding how reality operates. You can search the online thesaurus for exotic synonyms (and then misuse them, giving you away) all day, but not so proficient at understanding the difference between night and day, are we? Side: Yes
There are no average attacks on cars , stats from around the world would confirm this , all attacks differ depending on who is doing the attacking , it involves mostly what comes to hand as most seem to be spur of the moment. You're too caught up in the semantics of 'average'; my point remains that it's very unlikely that a sledgehammer will come to hand spur of the moment. You don’t know how you will react until confronted by such a situation. [IRL scenario.] I would certainly in certain cases run over someone at attacking my vehicle if I felt myself in danger. & Situations like this happen every day somewhere in the world , I’m not talking about someone egging or keying my car, although keying would result in me doing something similar to them.What is a realistic scenario in such events? I’m not saying I would run someone over in all such scenarios but I would in some I've been in enough dangerous and violent situations to have a rough notion of how I react to threats. Enough to know I wouldn't drive my car through a crowd just because a few people were throwing trash at it. Your case is (once again) more extreme. But to clarify, I've never taken an absolute stance against weaponizing a vehicle in self defense. My position is that one can't soundly equate one's car being vandalized with one's person being in danger (let alone to an extent where lethal force is the best option). The caveat "in certain cases" is consistent with my position. No I’m actually not setting the bar low , in fairness I’ve given a specific example where I certainly would act in a way that I felt suited the circumstances, an attack on a car is also an attack on the individual within that car every human being re - acts differently in such a situation You suggested that someone being "deeply traumatized" by people pelting their car with trash would legitimize the use of lethal force against those people. You equate all attacks on cars as being attacks on the people in them (I'm very unclear on how you draw that conclusion btw); you thereby maintain that however a person reacts to their car being vandalized (regardless of the magnitude of the vandalism) is beyond reproach. That's a pretty low bloody bar mate. I'm not sure how you could actually set it any lower. I’m not seeking or do I require toleration or approval from others for my actions as my intentions are based on an evaluation of whether or not my safety in danger You might not be seeking it, but insofar as you live among other people you are subject to it (to some degree or other, unless you're the 1% which ain't likely). You kill or maim someone because some other folks in a crowd threw a couple of water bottles at your car, then I expect you'll find out how relevant the tolerance and approval of others is. You have made a judgement on what you consider to be excessive violence used by people in such situations [...] how can you judge from your perspective how one feels or how their actions are unwarranted in such situations? I have never presumed anything about how anyone feels in these situations. As for being judgemental, that's as much a part of the human condition as acting irrationally. My judgements about whether other people and their actions are warranted are strictly my own, and they have only so much social weight as others allow them to have. I never suggested otherwise. A female friend of mine had a cyclist aggressively pound on the roof of her car with his fist , she was deeply traumatized at this because his language and behaviour was so aggressive , what is the appropriate response to such and what makes one position more favorable than another? Idk but not shooting them to death is a good start. Again, my own judgement. But one I'm glad to extend socially as far as I'm able and on the mere basis of my own preference. Because I'd prefer not to live in a social context where me or mine are liable to get shot to death for yelling at someone and hitting their property (or for even doing nothing but merely physically existing, as your position allows for lethal force there too) I will therefore do what I can to produce a social context that diminishes that likelihood. Being judgemental is one way in which a person can do that. We as as humans are emotional creatures who like to think we are rational yet no human decision can be made without emotions involved , this seems to be rarely taken into account when such scenarios take place as assessments are made after the event and claimed to rational or irrational depending on the agents evaluating such I agree. That's not a reason to not be judgemental, though. Side: Yes
You're too caught up in the semantics of 'average'; my point remains that it's very unlikely that a sledgehammer will come to hand spur of the moment. During the troubles here in Ireland during constant rioting bricks , planks scaffolding bars , petrol bombs , cavity blocks were ‘norms’ this is the case still in certain parts of the world I’m addressing one specific attack I accept that , I’m asking how is my reaction to such unjustified in any real sense ? I've been in enough dangerous and violent situations to have a rough notion of how I react to threats. That’s it , I’m asking how you would address such? Enough to know I wouldn't drive my car through a crowd just because a few people were throwing trash at it. Jace you’ve just jumped from a dangerous situation to one that’s not , I agree I wouldn’t hurt someone for throwing thrash at my car but I would if they used a potentially lethal object on my car Your case is (once again) more extreme. But to clarify, I've never taken an absolute stance against weaponizing a vehicle in self defense. My position is that one can't soundly equate one's car being vandalized with one's person being in danger (let alone to an extent where lethal force is the best option). The caveat "in certain cases" is consistent with my position. If someone wants to vandalize my car do it when I’m not in it , how are you not in danger in the scenario I put forward ? Why can Americans shoot someone who is merely stealing from their home if the thief is not intent on hurting them but just wants to rob them? I cannot understand how someone who’s car is being attacked would not feel they’re in danger yet would from a home intruder? You suggested that someone being "deeply traumatized" by people pelting their car with trash would legitimize the use of lethal force against those people. I didn’t actually say lethal force , I’m pointing out individuals emotional make up differs therefore their reactions differ , I get this You equate all attacks on cars as being attacks on the people in them (I'm very unclear on how you draw that conclusion btw); If it was not also an attack on them why do it when they are in the car? If a person throws bricks at your house when you’re in it is it an attack on your house or you? How would you know either way? you thereby maintain that however a person reacts to their car being vandalized (regardless of the magnitude of the vandalism) is beyond reproach. I’m saying I’m not responsible for how each individual re-acts in such situations , I told you how I would re-act and I’m asking in the scenario I put forward how you would re-act? That's a pretty low bloody bar mate. I'm not sure how you could actually set it any lower. Again I cannot answer for how others act in such circumstances I would have to hear their justification and base my opinions on that You might not be seeking it, but insofar as you live among other people you are subject to it (to some degree or other, unless you're the 1% which ain't likely). I’m subject to the laws of the land yes You kill or maim someone because some other folks in a crowd threw a couple of water bottles at your car, then I expect you'll find out how relevant the tolerance and approval of others is. No , with respect I did not claim that would be my reaction to such I have never presumed anything about how anyone feels in these situations. As for being judgemental, that's as much a part of the human condition as acting irrationally. My judgements about whether other people and their actions are warranted are strictly my own, and they have only so much social weight as others allow them to have. I never suggested otherwise. But Jace you state “My position is that one can't soundly equate one's car being vandalized with one's person being in danger” That is indeed a presumption that’s unjustified how can you know this regards people you do not know? Idk but not shooting them to death is a good start. Again, my own judgement. But one I'm glad to extend socially as far as I'm able and on the mere basis of my own preference. Because I'd prefer not to live in a social context where me or mine are liable to get shot to death for yelling at someone and hitting their property (or for even doing nothing but merely physically existing, as your position allows for lethal force there too) I will therefore do what I can to produce a social context that diminishes that likelihood. Being judgemental is one way in which a person can do that. But I never suggested shooting anyone to death , I gave one example where I think I would act in a certain way I’m asking how you would deal with such a scenario ? I agree. That's not a reason to not be judgemental, though. You cannot but be otherwise the reflexive brain is involuntary, outside our awareness, irrational, and reactionary. It is typically recruited because it is fast and effortless and typically judgmental Side: Yes
1
point
During the troubles here in Ireland If someone wants to vandalize my car do it For someone who claims to be Irish and to live in Ireland, I find your use of American English rather strange. And when I say strange, what I mean is that pretty much everything you say is untrue. Side: Yes
For someone who claims to be Irish and to live in Ireland, I find your use of American English rather strange. And when I say strange, what I mean is that pretty much everything you say is untrue. As in my I pad uses the American standard z instead of s in some words, I’m glad to see that’s kept you awake looking and failing to come up with a suitable insult which is something you also suck at Side: Yes
1
point
As in my I pad uses the American standard z Oh, your iPad writes for you? Weird how it constantly spells words wrong. Also weird that you apparently lack sufficient intelligence to have chosen the option for British instead of American English. Everything you say is flat out bullshit. You're a liar. A born narcissist who lacks the honesty to even admit his own nationality. Side: Yes
Oh, your iPad writes for you? No my I pad uses American English which keeps you awake at night Weird how it constantly spells words wrong. Translation from Butteater to English .......B cannot spell so therefore in B world that means no one else can spell Also weird that you apparently lack sufficient intelligence to have chosen the option for British instead of American English. What’s weird is that stuff like this keeps you awake and typing all night ,I’m in your head 24/7 get used to it Everything you say is flat out bullshit. But you say time machines exist , 9/11 was carried out by the Illuminati and Karl Marx never raped his maid ......There’s that mirroring you do .......again You're a liar. No , that’s you as you cannot even defend your lies A born narcissist I do love myself , you hate yourself justifiably in fairness who lacks the honesty to even admit his own nationality. But you tell Jews they are not Jews , you tell Americans they’re Germans your mental illness clouds your vision next you will say Hitler was not a Socialist ......no wait ....... Side: Yes
During the troubles here in Ireland [...] I’m asking how is my reaction to such unjustified in any real sense? & Jace you’ve just jumped from a dangerous situation to one that’s not , I agree I wouldn’t hurt someone for throwing thrash at my car but I would if they used a potentially lethal object on my car & If someone wants to vandalize my car do it when I’m not in it , how are you not in danger in the scenario I put forward? Why can Americans shoot someone who is merely stealing from their home if the thief is not intent on hurting them but just wants to rob them? I cannot understand how someone who’s car is being attacked would not feel they’re in danger yet would from a home intruder? & If it was not also an attack on them why do it when they are in the car? If a person throws bricks at your house when you’re in it is it an attack on your house or you? How would you know either way? The reason I kept bringing up the weaker threat case (tossed rubbish) was to demonstrate why I don't think someone is necessarily endangered merely because they're occupying a car that's being vandalized (it wasn't to draw the inverse conclusion). In cases like this it just doesn't seem at all likely that the vandalism is going to carry through into the interior of the car, or that anyone intends it to. I think your scenarios demonstrate that someone can be endangered when occupying a car being vandalized, generally because the types of vandalism you've discussed involve means that will very likely carry through to the interior of the car and/or that the assailants intend to break in. Your house break analogy is interesting, but extended somewhat inaccurately. Someone breaking an entry into a house is analogous with someone breaking an entry into a car. It is disanalogous with someone vandalizing the exterior of a car. As 'attacks' on occupied cars can take both these forms (as well as the grey area in-between), I'd suggest your analogy supports my position more than yours. It does not seem reasonable to me to shoot someone for egging my house, just as it does not seem reasonable to me to drive over people for throwing eggs at my car. If they have entered my house or car, or seem likely to based on what they have on hand, then it becomes increasingly reasonable to shoot at or drive over them. If someone attacks my car or house with me in it but never touches me then I don't see how I've been attacked. Attacking my car with me in it might be intended as and/or experienced as a threat (it might also just be a mild expression of dislike), but I think there's a useful distinction to be drawn between an attack and a threat (or a mere expression of dislike). And, again, to me this all seems situational rather than categorical. (As an aside; I was speaking or implying a generic 'you' at a few points where you seem to have taken me as suggesting the reactions represented your position. I didn't mean to suggest that; I'm aware you've not advocated shooting anyone, for instance. I'll try to avoid this rhetorical style moving forward, as it's contributed to some unfortunate confusion.) That’s it , I’m asking how you would address such? & I told you how I would re-act and I’m asking in the scenario I put forward how you would re-act? & such similar statements The reason I've not generally been saying how I'd respond is that it hasn't felt obviously relevant to my position. I'm not categorically opposed to using defensive and even lethal force in all cases. In some, I'd say it's the most reasonable course of action available. My point has been that not all the cases in question are such cases, and to the extent I've discussed examples I've been trying foremost to demonstrate that point. Are you interested in my exact responses to these particular cases, independent of the arguments around them? If so, I failed to appreciate that before. I'm not all that interested in elaborating on them for their own sake, unless you're keenly interested perhaps. Let me know. I’m saying I’m not responsible for how each individual re-acts in such situations & Again I cannot answer for how others act in such circumstances I would have to hear their justification and base my opinions on that If I suggested otherwise, it certainly wasn't my intent. It was to your judgement which I intended to speak. My interpretation of your position is that you would judge any reaction by someone reasonable so long as the person felt deeply traumatized (or, perhaps, under attack). If that's accurate, then I think that is probably the lowest possible bar one could judge others by (short of having no bar at all). I suppose this might come down to a difference in attitude towards judgement. I tend to view my capacity for it quite positively, which makes your seeming reservation (and particularly its extent) in exercising it against others perplexing to me. On the mere basis of the subjectivity of experience, you seem prepared to relinquish your judgement as a claim against others and I don't understand why. But Jace you state “My position is that one can't soundly equate one's car being vandalized with one's person being in danger” That is indeed a presumption that’s unjustified how can you know this regards people you do not know? I'm not entirely sure how you're interpreting that remark to arrive at that conclusion. I do not need to know anything about anyone else in order to have my own sense of what is sound, and therefore of what sound reasoning by others looks like to me. When I say my position is that one cannot soundly draw that equation, I mean that I judge people unsound for drawing it strictly by reference to my conception of soundness. No one else's. Certainly not any universal standard of it. In no way am I presuming anything about how anyone feels at any point. I am concluding that certain thoughts are unsound and certain actions unreasonable merely by my judgement, and I apply this to others without reservation. I agree. That's not a reason to not be judgemental, though. I'm not aware of needing a reason to be judgemental. Side: Yes
My point has been that not all the cases in question are such cases, and to the extent I've discussed examples I've been trying foremost to demonstrate that point. I agree and again my reactions in each scenario would basically align with yours . My interpretation of your position is that you would judge any reaction by someone reasonable so long as the person felt deeply traumatized (or, perhaps, under attack). As example ....... A woman with a child in a car confronted by an angry mob throwing stones at her vehicle would most likely be deeply traumatized and her reactions based undoubtedly on the perceived threat to her and her child , I could not in fairness condemn her if the crowd do not step aside and she rammed them as her reactions are based upon perceived threat to her child firstly and then her . If that's accurate, then I think that is probably the lowest possible bar one could judge others by (short of having no bar at all) Again feeling under attack and traumatized are very real feelings one cannot resort to Spock like rational reasoning when under the influence of such all our decisions are emotionally driven I am concluding that certain thoughts are unsound and certain actions unreasonable merely by my judgement, and I apply this to others without reservation. That’s perfectly fine Jace I do likewise I'm not aware of needing a reason to be judgemental. I agree Jace I said at the end of that piece ..... You cannot but be otherwise the reflexive brain is involuntary, outside our awareness, irrational, and reactionary. It is typically recruited because it is fast and effortless and typically judgmental Side: Yes
A woman with a child in a car confronted by an angry mob throwing stones at her vehicle would most likely be deeply traumatized and her reactions based undoubtedly on the perceived threat to her and her child , I could not in fairness condemn her if the crowd do not step aside and she rammed them as her reactions are based upon perceived threat to her child firstly and then her. A child in the equation inclines me to be more exacting in my judgement, rather than less. Whether it's reasonable or not, you'll be held to a reasonable standard person if you're brought upon charges of aggravated assault with a weapon, involuntary manslaughter, etc. If you go to prison then that's a hardship that child will bear for the rest of their life. Again feeling under attack and traumatized are very real feelings one cannot resort to Spock like rational reasoning when under the influence of such all our decisions are emotionally driven I never suggested that people can or should have a Spock like reaction. I agree that it's in some people's character to have violent defensive reactions to relatively minor stimuli. I don't think that's a reason to set my bar for judgement so low that I effectively don't end up judging anyone. I agree Jace I said at the end of that piece ..... You cannot but be otherwise the reflexive brain is involuntary, outside our awareness, irrational, and reactionary. It is typically recruited because it is fast and effortless and typically judgmental I wouldn't say being judgemental is limited to reflexive cognition, and in this discussion I have meant deliberative judgement. As I don't believe in free will, though, we land in the same place here I think. Side: Yes
A child in the equation inclines me to be more exacting in my judgement, rather than less. Whether it's reasonable or not, you'll be held to a reasonable standard person if you're brought upon charges of aggravated assault with a weapon, involuntary manslaughter, etc. If you go to prison then that's a hardship that child will bear for the rest of their life. A very big if , and even at that , why would you assume that’s a ‘hardship ‘ the child will bear for the rest of their lives , how can you know these things? I never suggested that people can or should have a Spock like reaction. I agree that it's in some people's character to have violent defensive reactions to relatively minor stimuli. In the example I gave I sympathised with a woman deeply traumatised about an attack from a mob , her actions are purely defensive and it’s not in relation to ‘ minor stimuli’ I don't think that's a reason to set my bar for judgement so low that I effectively don't end up judging anyone. How can you judge her actions? She can only do what she does it’s useless to blame people for what they are We are what we are we cannot be otherwise I wouldn't say being judgemental is limited to reflexive cognition, and in this discussion I have meant deliberative judgement Fine . As I don't believe in free will, though, we land in the same place here I think. Yet you make a judgement on the woman in the case above as though she was free to do otherwise ? How does that fit in with your idea of free will ? Side: Yes
1
point
Yet you make a judgement on the woman in the case above as though she was free to do otherwise ? Will you please shut up, you deranged sociopathic nitwit? On your Miocene account you are busy calling blacks filth, and on your Dermot account you are on your best behaviour trying to chat up a 70 year old militant liberal halfwit. You son, are not well, and it's that simple. Side: Yes
Will you please shut up, you deranged sociopathic nitwit? Says a guy with 67 accounts who cannot type a coherent response to anything but instead flys into a rage all because he lacks the intelligence to debate I’m still laughing over your claims to being an ‘Ace ‘ chess player the admin at Lichess I’m told are are still guffawing away at your claims On your Miocene account you are busy calling blacks filth Ha, Ha the guy who denies having 67 accounts accuses me of actually having other accounts , I haven’t been on here in a year , and on your Dermot account you are on your best behaviour trying to chat up a 70 year old militant liberal halfwit. Translation : you’re sulking because J asked you a question you couldn’t answer I spied you chatting up mint yesterday the woman you last year called a slut and a witch Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha You son, are not well, and it's that simple. You’re very angry still , was your application for the KKK rejected again? Don’t worry keep the hate up you will get there ......ps how’s the job hunting going ? Nothing doing in Burger King or Walmart for ya ? Side: No
1
point
Are you under the flawed impression that gives your hilarious lies an iota of credibility? My impressions are accurate the entire site can verify such as can Andy , now run off and do your usual cowardly downvoting with one of you 67 accounts ......or do you have a chess game to play Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha I take it your latest rage and stalking of J and I is because the management at Walmart felt you hadn’t the necessary ‘Skill sets ‘ to stack shelves ......there , there , never mind you’re still a Chess champion on food stamps ....Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha Side: No
1
point
My impressions are accurate Your "impressions" are the ravings of a delusional psychotic who thinks babbling incoherently will disguise his almost complete absence of functional intellect. the entire site can verify You're literally an idiot. The entire site can verify that too. Side: Yes
Your "impressions" are the ravings of a delusional psychotic who thinks babbling incoherently will disguise his almost complete absence of functional intellect. But you’re mentally insane , you’re an unemployed waster who spends his entire life trying to convince a Jew he is not a Jew and trying to get complete strangers to agree that Stalinism is a wonderful life choice Regards a ‘ functional intellect ‘ I think an adult who admits on this site to getting thrashed 3 times in a row at junior level Chess is no position to air views on such You're literally an idiot. Yet I trounce you easily in debate every time .....that’s what’s fueling your anger son .....accept it and move on The entire site can verify that too. Actually I’m afraid not as the entire site detests you, you’ve never once debated anyone without flying into a rage at your nonsense being challenged , every question you’re asked has you sulking and raging like a child ......Ask you a question on anything and your tired predictable response is as always “ you’re a Nazi , fascist ,etc , etc “ or “you’re stoopid” ..... You’re a big sulking rage filled child and you cannot flee son I’m gonna keep schooling you Side: No
1
point
But you’re mentally insane All insanity is mental insanity. You try to drop extra words into your sentences to complicate them because you are desperate to be recognised as something you are not, which is intelligent. Your childish little insults would be better put to a high schooler. What you are is a nasty, lonely little man Dermot. A lonely little bully with a high schooler mentality, who is deeply frustrated and desperate for any kind of female attention. Side: Yes
My insanity is mental insanity. Yes that’s a given I try to drop extra words into my sentences to complicate them because I’m desperate to be recognised as something I’m not, which is intelligent. I realise this your admission to recieving not 1, not 2 but 3 thrashings in the junior section of Chess site confirmed this childish little insults would be better put to a high schooler. What I am is a nasty, lonely little man Dermot, I admit this You are that but at least you’re aware of your stupidity and nastiness in this there may be growth son I’m a lonely little bully with a high schooler mentality, who is deeply frustrated and desperate for any kind of female attention. Still an unemployed commie virgin oh dear ......Suggestion could you trade your food stamps in for a jump with a cheap tart? Surely she would oblige as it would only be 3 seconds out of her and your miserable lives on welfare ?( I made allowances for foreplay in that 3 seconds , did I get you right ?) I did didn’t I? Side: No
A very big if , and even at that , why would you assume that’s a ‘hardship ‘ the child will bear for the rest of their lives , how can you know these things? We differ in our assessment of the odds of conviction, perhaps because I'm accustomed to living under an extremely punitive carceral state. As for the hardship, childhood development is impacted by things like absentee parents or having a convicted felon for a parent... and childhood development has lifelong consequences; this doesn't seem a stretch. In the example I gave I sympathised with a woman deeply traumatised about an attack from a mob , her actions are purely defensive and it’s not in relation to ‘ minor stimuli’ My remark which you're responding to was primarily intended to clarify that I don't expect people to act like Vulcans (contrary to what you seemed to suggest). I observed that some people will have violent defensive reactions to minor stimuli because cases like this are where we disagree. The cases you keep discussing that involve relatively significant stimuli are cases we already agree on, so I'm not sure what either of us gets by discussing them. How can you judge her actions? She can only do what she does it’s useless to blame people for what they are. We are what we are we cannot be otherwise My somewhat facetious answer is that I can judge because I cannot be otherwise than judgemental. In all seriousness, though, I don't know why the impossibility of our being otherwise is any reason to refrain from judgement. Yet you make a judgement on the woman in the case above as though she was free to do otherwise? How does that fit in with your idea of free will ? No, I make a judgement on the person in the case above without any regard to whether they have free will. To me, it is not a relevant consideration as I don't see any obvious connection between free will and judgement. Side: Yes
We differ in our assessment of the odds of conviction, perhaps because I'm accustomed to living under an extremely punitive carceral state. Yes that’s true As for the hardship, childhood development is impacted by things like absentee parents or having a convicted felon for a parent Statistically yes , but the impact of such can spur one into creating a great life for themselves. I have no time for people who wail about mistreatment or abuses in childhood it’s totally irrational , it becomes a broken record that’s blamed and held responsible for all their woes I have two friends from broken homes who have done wonderfully in life and childhood development has lifelong consequences; this doesn't seem a stretch. Yes , but in the case quoted an awful lot of assumptions are being made. Basically I approve of her actions as I take her estimation of the situation and reactions to the stimuli as being perfectly reasonable given the situation she was in My remark which you're responding to was primarily intended to clarify that I don't expect people to act like Vulcans (contrary to what you seemed to suggest). I observed that some people will have violent defensive reactions to minor stimuli because cases like this are where we disagree. The cases you keep discussing that involve relatively significant stimuli are cases we already agree on, so I'm not sure what either of us gets by discussing them. Yes , but I did agree before that my reaction to my car being egged or rubbish thrown upon it would be different. My somewhat facetious answer is that I can judge because I cannot be otherwise than judgemental. Good response :) In all seriousness, though, I don't know why the impossibility of our being otherwise is any reason to refrain from judgement. Let me clarify I’m speaking broadly and in the case of the woman she is being judged by the law as the assumption is she could have behaved differently Traditional moral finger pointing associated with crime is invalid , if we commit a crime our attribution of agency is always in error , we make up reasons after the fact to give order to our minds, but we do not know why we are how we are No, I make a judgement on the person in the case above without any regard to whether they have free will. Yes , so if you were in a position of power as in dealing with this woman in a court of law her free will defence would be invalid or would you revise your position on such ? Side: Yes
Statistically yes , but the impact of such can spur one into creating a great life for themselves.I have no time for people who wail about mistreatment or abuses in childhood it’s totally irrational , it becomes a broken record that’s blamed and held responsible for all their woes. I have two friends from broken homes who have done wonderfully in life At no point did I suggest that parental neglect or abuse excuse anything. Nor did I suggest that the effects of parental neglect and abuse are uniform. That some people are able to manage their childhood trauma does not mitigate the fact of the trauma, nor does a parent have any reliable means of knowing whether their child will be capable of managing the trauma when they inflict it upon them. The mere possibility that a child will learn to manage their childhood trauma in adulthood does not excuse poor parenting, and I have no time for people who obviate the complicity of parents in the development of the children they forced into existence. Yes , but in the case quoted an awful lot of assumptions are being made. Basically I approve of her actions as I take her estimation of the situation and reactions to the stimuli as being perfectly reasonable given the situation she was in What assumptions would those be? With respect to the case in question I think I have only ever suggested possible complications that would seem to merit consideration, largely to demonstrate that introducing a child into the question complicates rather than simplifies the situation (leading me to raise my bar rather than lower it). Let me clarify I’m speaking broadly and in the case of the woman she is being judged by the law as the assumption is she could have behaved differently. Traditional moral finger pointing associated with crime is invalid , if we commit a crime our attribution of agency is always in error , we make up reasons after the fact to give order to our minds, but we do not know why we are how we are. Any legal or moral system which requires that people have free will in order to be judged is in error; I'd agree. I'm not sure if you intend that observation to go further? Yes , so if you were in a position of power as in dealing with this woman in a court of law her free will defence would be invalid or would you revise your position on such ? This is a bit difficult to answer; given my general disregard for the law it's a challenge to imagine myself in the capacity of applying it. Presuming that I'm practicing within the parameters of whatever the laws are (i.e. merely assessing guilt), I would not credit any argument concerning either free will or determinism because I would not consider it obviously relevant. I'm not sure if that answers your question? Side: Yes
At no point did I suggest that parental neglect or abuse excuse anything. Nor did I suggest that the effects of parental neglect and abuse are uniform. That some people are able to manage their childhood trauma does not mitigate the fact of the trauma, nor does a parent have any reliable means of knowing whether their child will be capable of managing the trauma when they inflict it upon them. In fairness , I gave a specific example which is not parental neglect or abuse and I agreed statistically regarding the broader points raised The mere possibility that a child will learn to manage their childhood trauma in adulthood does not excuse poor parenting, and I have no time for people who obviate the complicity of parents in the development of the children they forced into existence. No poor parenting cannot be excused nor can it or should it be used as an excuse to claims ones life failures on such What assumptions would those be Well in the case you’re referencing the outcome is far from settled thus my claim of assumptions being made. With respect to the case in question I think I have only ever suggested possible complications that would seem to merit consideration, largely to demonstrate that introducing a child into the question complicates rather than simplifies the situation (leading me to raise my bar rather than lower it). We can leave the child out and use the case of a woman taking such actions on her own without the passenger , I thought you broadly agree that given the perceived threat or danger of different stimuli in certain cases would merit the use of such force? Any legal or moral system which requires that people have free will in order to be judged is in error; I'd agree. I'm not sure if you intend that observation to go further? That’s fine This is a bit difficult to answer; given my general disregard for the law it's a challenge to imagine myself in the capacity of applying it. Presuming that I'm practicing within the parameters of whatever the laws are (i.e. merely assessing guilt), I would not credit any argument concerning either free will or determinism because I would not consider it obviously relevant. I'm not sure if that answers your question? That again is fair as I take a career in law would go against your disregard for the law and you wouldn’t be in such a situation to start Side: Yes
In fairness , I gave a specific example which is not parental neglect or abuse and I agreed statistically regarding the broader points raised In fairness, you were also the first person to mention abuse. Well in the case you’re referencing the outcome is far from settled thus my claim of assumptions being made. Again, I never assumed any particular outcome with respect to this case; your claim is unsound. We can leave the child out and use the case of a woman taking such actions on her own without the passenger , I thought you broadly agree that given the perceived threat or danger of different stimuli in certain cases would merit the use of such force? Yes; my response was not contesting that some cases merit such force. My response was merely that I set my bar higher rather than lower where children are involved, as you had introduced a child into the equation. That again is fair as I take a career in law would go against your disregard for the law and you wouldn’t be in such a situation to start It's not that a legal career goes against my disregard for the law, so much as it just becomes unusually complicated to explain how I would navigate and understand a legal vocation (layers on layers of qualifications, lol). Side: Yes
In fairness, you were also the first person to mention abuse. You actually stated .... .childhood trauma does not mitigate the fact of the trauma, nor does a parent have any reliable means of knowing whether their child will be capable of managing the trauma when they inflict it upon them. Is trauma inflicted on a child abuse? You also stated Nor did I suggest that the effects of parental neglect and abuse are uniform. Again, I never assumed any particular outcome with respect to this case; your claim is unsound. You actually did A child in the equation inclines me to be more exacting in my judgement, rather than less. Whether it's reasonable or not, you'll be held to a reasonable standard person if you're brought upon charges of aggravated assault with a weapon, involuntary manslaughter, etc. If you go to prison then that's a hardship that child will bear for the rest of their life. This is where I claimed this position was flawed as it makes several assumptions all unfounded Yes; my response was not contesting that some cases merit such force. My response was merely that I set my bar higher rather than lower where children are involved, as you had introduced a child into the equation. You and I agreed with regards to different reactions to different stimuli , I put forward one case at the very beginning which you claimed was extreme as one example where one would be perfectly justified in using such force , I then used this example where again I believe you broadly agree . Your bar is no lower or higher than mine if we broadly agree on the examples given , I don’t even know what we arguing about anymore It's not that a legal career goes against my disregard for the law, so much as it just becomes unusually complicated to explain how I would navigate and understand a legal vocation (layers on layers of qualifications, lol). I get that , interesting to speculate how you might approach such Side: Yes
You actually stated [...] I stated all of that after you stated "I have no time for people who wail about mistreatment or abuses in childhood it’s totally irrational". Prior to that, the word 'abuse' does not appear in my remarks. I habitually expanded abuse to include neglect, but I did not introduce the new direction. You actually did [...] This is where I claimed this position was flawed as it makes several assumptions all unfounded. No, I did not. Those remarks are strictly conditional and assume nothing about the actual or probable outcome. I introduced them only to demonstrate that if a bad outcome occurred it could be worse if a child were in the equation. You and I agreed with regards to different reactions to different stimuli , I put forward one case at the very beginning which you claimed was extreme as one example where one would be perfectly justified in using such force , I then used this example where again I believe you broadly agree. Your bar is no lower or higher than mine if we broadly agree on the examples given , I don’t even know what we arguing about anymore. We agree on your extreme examples (sledgehammers) but we disagree about my extreme examples in the other direction (eggs). You previously maintained that it would be justified for someone to use violence against others if they personally felt traumatized by having their car egged. I disagree. I get that , interesting to speculate how you might approach such The trickiest one would probably be as a judge. Something like a defense attorney is a lot easier. Side: Yes
We agree on your extreme examples (sledgehammers) but we disagree about my extreme examples in the other direction (eggs). You previously maintained that it would be justified for someone to use violence against others if they personally felt traumatized by having their car egged. I disagree. I said ...... Situations like this happen every day somewhere in the world , I’m not talking about someone egging or keying my car , although keying would result in me doing something similar to them Regards the rest of the post I think there are crossed wires here somewhere , but it’s really not that Important Side: Yes
It was getting a bit much for me going through line by line so I tried to consolidate things and address them together. I don't think I omitted anything significant, but if you think otherwise please feel free to draw my attention to it as it wasn't an intentional oversight. Side: Yes
There are enough people who have been pulled out of their cars and beaten to death that you should stomp the gas, stomp the brake, and repeat until people get the fuck out of the way of your escape. If people get caught under your tires, well, that's why you shouldn't attack people in their cars with an angry mob. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Side: Yes
Is the incidence of people being dragged from their cars and murdered really so high as to treat it interchangeably with people damaging your car? I'm dubious. As at least one other person has pointed out, you're also liable to injure and/or kill someone who was not participating in the 'attack' on your car. Ethics aside, good luck with that court trial; guess it's your respective 'prize'. Side: No
The incidence of being attacked in my car in the first place isn't high. That said, if it happens, what am I going to do to know whether they're after my car or after me? Ask them politely what their intentions are and hope for the best? I don't know any specific statistics of how often a mob just wants to fuck up your car with you in it versus how often they'll drag you out to commit violence on your person, but I know that mob mentality/groupthink is far more dangerous and unpredictable than the average individual. And it's not an unsafe bet that if all they want to accomplish is property damage, they'd probably target an unoccupied vehicle. The plan of slamming the gas and brake repeatedly is also done for good reason. As opposed to just hitting the gas, where anyone you hit with your car may fall under the wheels, you're less likely to seriously hurt someone by slamming the gas and brake until people get the point to get out of the way. The idea being: by slamming the gas, people are briefly scooped up onto the hood of your car. By slamming the brake, they're launched off and away from your vehicle. It'll hurt like hell, and might very well result in a few broken bones. It's also your best chance of escape. Pardon me if I don't have too much sympathy for the guy I launched ten feet with my car if it means I get myself and my family out of that situation, and I'll take the risk of jail time. That said! Bringing up the point of a resulting trial is definitely one of the right questions to ask. An altercation always has cost, whether physical, legal, social, emotional, or monetary, and you always need to be ready to persevere on all fronts. Side: Yes
Right, I think the issue here for me is that you seem to assume that anytime your car is being 'attacked' your life is in danger and you're therefore justified in using lethal force (and not just against the people attacking your car). There's gonna be cases where all this means is your car is being pelted with trash or a few folks are slapping your car panels with bare hands. I don't think it'd be reasonable to view that as a threat against you or your family. You're deluding yourself if you think slamming the gas is not using potentially lethal force. You have absolutely no guarantee that someone goes up on your hood instead of under the tires. You have no guarantee that the impact doesn't kill them even if they end up on your hood. You're behind literal tons of metal and they're just flesh and bones, mate. The resulting trial and other considerations are not just something that you have to persevere against; that's putting it way too abstractly. You could go to prison, have a felony conviction for life, lose your job and struggle to get a new one with the conviction rap, and have to pay out on a civil suit. In which case, you've hurt your family much more than some folks pelting your car with trash were likely to have done. Besides that, rapidly accelerating into a crowd is liable to make the situation worse; people were angry at you for not much before... how do you think they're going to act when they think you're trying to kill them? Or, for that matter, after the fact when they know who you are and where you live? Risk assessment is key, and your overly simplistic assessment seems likely to put you, your loved ones, and the crowd in unnecessary danger. To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't grey cases or obvious cases where you're actually in danger. I'm just saying, don't paint with too broad a brush. Side: No
Fair enough, there is absolutely a spectrum of appropriate levels of counter violence. I was basing my stance on the assumption of a worst case scenario. Obviously I'm not advocating running anybody down for pelting your car with trash. That said, even in that situation, the core of my advice remains. It's important that I emphasize, in case I haven't made it clear already: the objective is not to hit anybody with your car. The objective, regardless of the perceived threat level is to escape. Hopefully, this doesn't mean having to run somebody over. However- if we are to refer to a worst case scenario, perhaps a dozen people converging on your car making threats, maybe one of them has a weapon- this is a situation where deadly force is absolutely warranted. If that means hitting someone with your car- not, obviously, that you should try to- so be it. Such a use of force is not limited to using a vehicle. For instance, in the use of a defensive firearm, you never, ever shoot to kill. That is how you get a felony conviction. You never, ever shoot to wound. That is how you get a civil suit (among other things). You shoot to stop the threat as expeditiously as possible. Now again, you make good points, and there remains a lot of nuance. That said, I don't want to write a novel on the subject, and you probably don't want to read one, at least not from my perspective... That's why I recommend Violence of Mind. Varg Freeborn is one of the most well respected trainers in the self defense and law enforcement industry because he is a living example of exactly what you're talking about. In his book, he discusses how he went to prison (stabbing someone in self defense and being targeted by an overzealous prosecutor) and how he served his time before having his conviction overturned. So, his perspective of both sides of urban violence is unique, as is his understanding of the many consequences of violence. Everything you've said so far makes me think you would appreciate his perspective, I highly recommend it. Side: Yes
We'll have to leave our disagreements on the finer points unresolved, I suspect. You're not liable to want to read my novel either. ;) I'll consider the Freeborn book, although I've never heard their name in the self-defense circles I run in before and can't find anything about them that's not from their self-promotion website. Could be an interesting auto-bio, at least. Thanks for elaborating on your recommendation. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
2
points
|
1
point
Defense should only be sought against actual threats. Direct your firearm toward them. Please stop abusing language mate. Shooting someone is a form of attack, not defence. Even if you are trying to end a threat against yourself, it doesn't magically make attacking somebody defence. The defence is a by-product of you attacking them. Side: Yes
What exactly do you think defense is? If you can't shoot someone because it's an attack, then it stands to reason you can't punch them or anything else. Because that would be an attack. Does your concept of self defense extend only so far as taking the blows as best you can and hoping for the best? That's not self defense. It's pacifism, and the forfeiture of self defense. Side: No
1
point
What exactly do you think defense is? If you can't shoot someone because it's an attack, then it stands to reason you can't punch them or anything else. Because that would be an attack. Is this a serious question? You've invented a false dichotomy whereby if punching somebody is a form of attack then I am unable to punch people. Of course punching is a form of attack, and I simultaneously can punch whoever I like, for whatever reason I like. The action of punching isn't changed because of the reason you have for doing it. That's ridiculous. It's the same action whatever reason you have for doing it. You Americans are really, really dense. I mean it. Too much time spent getting spoonfed propaganda from all directions. How about this? If you wear a revealing dress on a night out then it isn't rape. Do you agree with that? Because it's the exact same principle. Your behaviour is responsible for my actions. Side: Yes
That was worded poorly on my part. I was presuming that you were also opposed to attacking people, in which case anything that constitute an attack would be off bounds. The reason you wouldn't be able to attack someone would be on account of your ethical framework, rather than a physical inability to do so. As there isn't any obvious reason to differentiate between shooting someone and punching someone as an attack, then your position would seem to be that you can't do anything other than try to deflect an attack from someone else. No shooting, no punching, i.e. nothing that would be an attack. Side: No
How about this? If you wear a revealing dress on a night out then it isn't rape. Do you agree with that? Because it's the exact same principle. Your behaviour is responsible for my actions. That is so obviously non-analogous that it hardly warrants a response. But I'm bored and like the look of voice in print so... The premise of violent self-defense is that it is okay to use violence against someone who first acts violently against you. Someone wearing a dress is not acting violently against you, so it is not okay to first act violently against them (though it would be okay for them to act violently against you). Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Wrong. You always have a right to self-defense Oh, OK. In that case I have a right to defend myself against the threats you just made by shooting you in the face. Glad we got that sorted. And then he'd he'd have the right to shoot you before you shot him. Maybe he should just use leftist logic and take you out with the pelting with nerf darts now just in case. Side: No
No, property damage does not inherently constitute a threat to person. But when you are secure, inside the property being attacked, it is often reasonable to conclude that you are the ultimate goal of said attack. Of course this requires more context, and with specific information my specific answer would adjust. Side: Yes
Good answer. It mediates my response, knowing that your answer would adjust to specific information. Although, I doubt that one can go so far as to often conclude one's the object of an attack on the mere basis of the car being 'attacked'. I just don't see a clear reason to suppose any connection between the two. We're not far off on this, though, since we're both inclined to take it circumstantially. And your approach is obviously better than recklessly driving into people, btw. Side: Yes
1
point
To clarify, you think that property damage constitutes a threat to a person? And that this further justifies threatening a person with lethal force and/or using potentially lethal force against a person? What if the people beating on the car are shouting, "I'm gonna kill you!" and "kill that Nazi pig!" and they have you surrounded with hundreds of people who refuse to get out of your vehicle's path? Side: Yes
You've changed to scenario to suit your conclusion. If the people committing property damage are also making violent threats to harm me then the latter could be a basis to conclude that they intend me harm. The former alone still isn't necessarily a reason to draw that same conclusion. Side: No
1
point
What if the people beating on the car are shouting, "I'm gonna kill you!" and "kill that Nazi pig!" and they have you surrounded with hundreds of people who refuse to get out of your vehicle's path? Yes, I agree completely that the Nazi is the victim and that he has the moral high ground. Oh no wait... Side: No
If a group begins attacking your car in traffic, do you run over them? Hello Horned: Uhh, no.. You can get a new car, but they can't get a new life. Of course, if you're armed, you can step out of your car and confront them. If any of them advance on you, you can shoot the motherfucker.. excon Side: No
1
point
Jace if someone steps out with a gun and they continue to advance then it's not the car they are interested in. In other words the woman began beating on her car, yelling like a crackhead, then wasn't afraid of a gun. Only 2 things cause that kind of behavior. Demon posession or drugs. Side: Yes
They might, but that's not an answer to my question. Do you or do you not think that life is more valuable than a car? Hello again, J: Some clarification is needed.. I thought I was clear above when I said you can buy a new car, but the demonstrator cannot buy a new life.. I also mentioned stand your ground laws. Stand your ground laws SAY that if you FEAR for your life, you can "stand your ground" and SHOOT somebody.. Here's how it works. Someone is attacking a guys car, so he exits the car and SHOOTS him.. When the cops get there, he SAYS the guy advanced on him, making him fear for his life, so he had to shoot him. WHO is to say differently? Travon Martin??? Nahh.. He's dead. excon Side: Yes
Some clarification is needed.. I thought I was clear above when I said you can buy a new car, but the demonstrator cannot buy a new life. If that comment were a standalone remark then your position would be clear. However, it is not a standalone remark. By acting to deliberately manufacture a stand your ground defense in response to someone vandalizing your car, you are saying that it is permissible to value your car over the life of someone else. Unless this whole stand your ground bit is merely descriptive (in which case idk why you mentioned it). Side: Yes
Going to dispute you there. It's not your car at stake, it is your life. They attack you in your car, your car is your best method of escape. They die? They shouldn't have attacked you. The last, last thing you should do is get out of the vehicle, gun or not. A vehicle isn't perfect protection, or even good protection, to hold out for long against an angry mob. If they have the means to break your window they most certainly have the means to drag you out and beat you to death. The best option is to get the fuck away from that situation as fast as you can. Side: Yes
Diffuse if possible. Document it either way. Photos of the people. Followup it up in claims court. Even if I can't ID them or somehow lose the suit, it's still less of a loss and bother than having to deal with the fallout of driving my car through a bunch of people. I need a nice looking car a lot less than I need to not have aggravated assault or involuntary manslaughter charges fucking up my life forever. Side: No
Yeah. It's a pretty high bar, though. Almost entirely on account of how little I like my personal odds with a court or in prison. I expect both to be quite hostile on account of who I am, so I'd have to be pretty damned sure that there wasn't an alternative. And, I expect I'd draw directly on my attackers before I'd try escaping by driving through a bunch of other people. Side: Yes
|