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.

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.

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.

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.