I'm A Law Abiding Citizen. Why Is My Life So Worthless?

[Jules Of All Trades]

As usual I'm late to the party. I don't comment on threads much at all, but this one I feel the need to add my thoughts to, so take them as you will.

There have been two times in my life in which I felt the need to have a weapon of some sort in order to defend myself. In the first situation I had no such weapon, if I had I know the outcome would have been different, although no one would have died, I'm certain of that fact. I was too young and weak to have taken it to that level, but I would have put up one hell of a fight.

**Warning, not for the faint of heart**

The other was a situation in which I was held against my will by two men for a period of 14 hours. Considering that I'm a woman, not much more needs to be said there, I'm sure you get the idea. There were 'weapons' all around me, but I didn't have the means to get to them or use them, or I most certainly would have. When I finally freed myself, my instinct was to run, not fight. And I did...I ran like I'd never run before. However, I was outrun and was soon faced with the fight again, but this time I had my weapon. I was behind the wheel of a 2 ton weapon, and without reservation I gunned it and mowed one of them down. It was fight or flight, and flight didn't work so I was left to fight for my life. Some people are shocked by the fact that I would intentionally run over someone with a car, and just after it happened I was too. However, it goes back to the fundamental argument, whose life is more valuable? Mine or his? Mine, always mine. I knew it was either him or me, and I wasn't going out like that, so I made my choice to put him down for good.

He didn't die, and I'm glad for that. He's living a far worse life now in prison, although he'll have permanent injuries from my actions. I, too, suffer permanent damage from what they did, and almost went to prison myself. The law is a tricky thing when it comes to self-defense, there's a very fine line between 'heat of the moment' actions and pre-meditated. I was very fortunate that the law was on my side for this one, it was a close call for a long time.

Do I feel bad for what I did? No. I never have and I never will. I could have easily taken another person's life but I will never regret the choice I made, because otherwise I know I wouldn't be here today.

I do believe that we have the right to defend ourselves using whatever means necessary. My stance on that will never change, based on personal experience and the experiences of those around me.

Sorry to cast a darker tone on the thread, but this topic strikes a nerve in me in a big way. And for those who think these types of things are far fetched or don't happen in 'normal' life, take it from me that they do. I will never again in my life be unprotected from violence, and would do it all over again if I had to. My life is far too valuable, and those who seek out to bring harm to me will regret it.

*Hmm...way to scare the shit out of everyone in your first major post Jules...* I'm not this intense usually, but again, this runs deep in me.

/ventrant

[Slytovhand]

Hey Jules/JoaT...

Nice first post

Actually - that's pretty much the sort of thoughts going through people's heads for this whole debate (and a couple of others... which is a bit annoying jumping through 4 threads ... but they have their differences).

I've also known someone put in a similar situation as yourself, although she was left to die on the side of the road... unfortunately, the assailant was never found I'm not sure of where she would stand on this (probably with you, but where she'd be on, say Castle Doctrine or Gun Control - I can't say... I think she was anti-gun...even in the country).

One question I have for you - you haven't indicated whether you think people should have the right to carry lethal weapons or not, for self-defence (although, that really is the other threads...).

And one other... how do you think you would feel if you had've been decided it was pre-meditated?

Glad you're here to talk about it

Slyt

[Jules Of All Trades]

Hey there Slyt, call me Jules...and thanks.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, people who do things like what was done to her deserve to pay for their actions, in whatever regards are deemed suitable for the situation. Had I not escaped, tried to run, and then run over one of my assailants I don't know what the end result would have been other than my own death, that I'm sure of. There's no way they could have let me go after what they'd done, and made it quite clear that I would die when they were finished with me.

I absolutely believe that people have the right to defend themselves using whatever means necessary, whether that be gun, knife, or hand to hand combat. When it's you vs. them, choose you, because they most certainly won't. Along with these defense mechanisms has to come common sense as well. Not every situation calls for violence or weapons, and you have to know how and when to use them properly so you stay on the right side of the law and morality.

That being said, I am not a violent person, and will do just about anything to avoid violence of any kind. I consider myself to be a bit of an intellectual
(just a bit ) and feel that I've failed to some degree if a situation escalates beyond reasonable (although sometimes heated) discussion. I've never been in a fight other than the two situations I've mentioned, and don't ever plan to be in one. I'm very much the 'girl next door', and pride myself on my even temperment and reasoning skills. However, if I feel physically threatened my red-headed temper will unleash itself and god help you if you're the threat.

I went through a period of months following the incident I mentioned not knowing if I was going to go to jail or prison for my actions. I was also fighting a legal battle against my assailants and undergoing numerous medical procedures to try to undo some of the damage they had done. After the initial emotional and mental chaos died down, I was very much at peace with knowing that I might have to pay legally for what I had done. Our legal system is flawed, I know that, but I also know that for the most part it is there to protect people from the very situation I'd found myself in to begin with. I would have served my time with my head held high, knowing that I chose life, and that my story would help others do the same for themselves if they had to.

I'm a survivor, and a survivalist. I treat people with decency and respect and hope for the same in return. But I have come too far to allow someone without the same morals and principles to take my life out from under me, and will do everything in my power to stop them.

/deeppost2

[Zyanya]

Murder itself, as a percentage of overall crimes committed, is fairly rare. On those grounds, do you find the laws against it absurd?

Rapscallion

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/weakanalogy.html

[Pedersen]

Anyway... Does this seem vaguely familiar..

Oh yeah, of course it does. Gee, can't quite place why, though....

Now, gimme a sec... *checks behind him. Nope. Under desk? Not there. Searches the closet next to him, checks outside the house, none there either.* Sorry, but since you were going to mention my right to life, I figured I'd go and find the 24 hour bodyguard you'd also assigned (or had the government assign) to ensure that right. Funny thing, though: I couldn't find him (or her). You sure the person is there?

Yeah, it's sarcastic, I admit it. Hopefully a slightly funny way to prove the point that this particular right is one that cannot be enforced effectively, not without violating two other rights you just listed: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sure, if I'm in a small cell with 24 hour monitoring, I'll be protected, my right to life ensured, but I'll have lost liberty. And my ability to pursue happiness will definitely be curtailed.

"Why is my life so worthless?" - in the context of comparing it with a wouldbe or convicted criminals.

Well - because that criminal has the same right - life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which, in this particular debate, means making you unhappy).

There are laws in place to deter (and punish) if people want to affect someone else's rights of any of the above.

So... your life isn't 'so worthless' in this context, it just isn't valued any more than any other person's - criminal or not.

And that part is the source of the question at hand, the reason for my asking the whole question that started this massively derailed thread. I've already shown that some life is more valuable than other life. However, in case more needs to be shown, consider that there are people who do live with 24 hour bodyguards (the President, for example). These are people deemed valuable by society.

Consider the other end of the spectrum: Homeless people in some cities, if killed, wouldn't even have a murder investigation that went beyond "Anybody got any clue? No? Oh well." Different lives have more value than others. And that is the question I'm trying to discover an answer to.

There exists a segment of society that would leave me completely disarmed if I were to follow the letter of the law that they wish to have enacted. Not just in public, but at all. My biggest weapon would be either my car, or a steak knife (and the steak knife is questionable). I've spoken with people who believe this would be a good thing, and am appalled. They do not care that I would be disarmed. They care that would-be attackers would now be disarmed (supposedly, though they ignore the fact that people who are attacking already don't care about the law, and therefore would arm themselves in any way they so choose).

Why is it the case that I, a law abiding citizen, should be so disarmed as to make me vulnerable to anybody with even a slight disregard for the law? What about me (and people like me) makes my life so worthless that we should be sacrificed on the altar of an unattainable dream? I do not understand this mentality, and am seeing signs of something approaching it in other discussions on this forum. I'm hoping to gain this understanding here, so that I can either agree with it myself, or at least provide better counter arguments against it.

Given that... if a criminal affects your rights and will be punished for it by the laws of the land, ought not you also be affected in the same way? If it is murder that a person is punished for (the taking of life), ought not you also be punished for the same taking of life?

What if I have the ability to stop a murder? What if I have the ability to stop a slew of murders (me, and my family)? What if, in order to stop those murders, I have to kill? Why should I be punished if I simply protect myself, or my family?

Nope... that's not the initial argument at all... it was Pedersen saying that he ought to have the right to have weapons to defend himself (cos it came from 2 other threads about that topic), so he went the more moral and philosophical approach here. We're talking about the right to life, and whether the laws for the defendant should encompass lethal force or not - only.

Whoa. Someone who actually posted a response to the original question, and stayed on topic. I think I need to report this to a mod, as this is highly irregular, and may need to be dealt with through some sort of disciplinary action

On a side note, is it as depressing to you as it is to me that it took two whole pages of posts before anybody came back to the original topic at hand?

*Hmm...way to scare the shit out of everyone in your first major post Jules...* I'm not this intense usually, but again, this runs deep in me.

Well, for one, I am not scared in the least. To me, you did something incredible, and something that I pray I never have to deal with either as a victim, or as a close person of a victim. I'm glad you're alive. And I'm almost as glad that those two are rotting away in jail.

[Rapscallion]

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/weakanalogy.html

Weak is still linked.

I find it more of a parallel.

So, feel like answering the question?

Rapscallion

[Zyanya]

Weak is still linked.

I find it more of a parallel.

So, feel like answering the question?

Rapscallion

It's not a meaningful or relevant question. It's a logical fallacy, and I don't play those games.

[Rapscallion]

It's relevant. Castle Doctrine is rare, so you don't see why arguments against it have any grounds. Murder is rare, so do you also see the arguments against it (such as the ones in the legal system) as being groundless?

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Firstly - Jules..

I'm glad things turned out the way they did (well - not the beginning and the middle, naturally...). And I reckon... yeah, probably better to have that injury for the rest of his life, than to be killed outright (but I'm a bit of a narky type of person, who - while idealistic - also realises we won't get there while those sort of people are still here... which would probably seem contrary to some of the stances I have on here...). Which country are you in?

Yeah - I haven't been in touch with her for a while (differences of personality, I think...), but last I heard she was going around to schools and telling of her experience, so others don't end up in the same place... apparently very healing for her as well.

TBH... this is the sort of thing that I look at and wonder if it might not be better if everyone were armed to the teeth... (but then I think "Gee - what would happen to New York?? Or bits of LA?" etc ). And I do think of the gun accidents that happen to the kids every year... and then there's 'going postal'.... but that's in a different thread (although related...)

Yeah, it's sarcastic, I admit it. Hopefully a slightly funny way to prove the point that this particular right is one that cannot be enforced effectively, not without violating two other rights you just listed: Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sure, if I'm in a small cell with 24 hour monitoring, I'll be protected, my right to life ensured, but I'll have lost liberty. And my ability to pursue happiness will definitely be curtailed.

Sarcasm?? Naaahhhhhhh.......

You've brought up a couple of other ideas here, Ped!!

Ok... Mr Criminal's right to pursue happiness by your right to your happiness.. and liberty and all that...(after all, Mr Criminal is only a criminal because of the laws - not because of the inalienable right they are trying to have...). This line of reasoning... well - it's a whole new philosophical thread

And that part is the source of the question at hand, the reason for my asking the whole question that started this massively derailed thread.

Did we derail?? I thought we were just... exploring implications?

Now - for your next bit...

This thread has only taken into consideration 'criminal vs law-abbider', but you've brought up other stuff that still relates to the actual question posed...

Mrs Homeless needs a triple by-pass to live out the next 40 years of life. She doesn't have health insurance. Because she doesn't have health insurance, that's not going to happen - her life is 'so worthless' because of a lack of income... discuss

There exists a segment of society that would leave me completely disarmed if I were to follow the letter of the law that they wish to have enacted. Not just in public, but at all. My biggest weapon would be either my car, or a steak knife (and the steak knife is questionable).

No no no Ped... we're gonna take your car as well :P

Actually - if we're talking about steak knives now, that's in 'slippery slope' thread...(I'm wondering what ppl are doing walking around the streets with steak knives...).

I don't get the whole 'let's be sheep' ideology, and don't think you should be completely disarmed as has been hyped up in these threads (I've never seen anyone either say it straight out, nor even imply it anywhere... I take it as a bit of sensationalism to derail the thread :smiley I can't use cos I only get to use 4 of them.... You're in your own home, you can keep almost any weapon in it (guns are a different kettle of fish... and a different thread...)

I've spoken with people who believe this would be a good thing, and am appalled. They do not care that I would be disarmed. They care that would-be attackers would now be disarmed (supposedly, though they ignore the fact that people who are attacking already don't care about the law, and therefore would arm themselves in any way they so choose).

Why is it the case that I, a law abiding citizen, should be so disarmed as to make me vulnerable to anybody with even a slight disregard for the law? What about me (and people like me) makes my life so worthless that we should be sacrificed on the altar of an unattainable dream? I do not understand this mentality, and am seeing signs of something approaching it in other discussions on this forum. I'm hoping to gain this understanding here, so that I can either agree with it myself, or at least provide better counter arguments against it.

Hey...question - I don't recall - are you pro-gun anywhere, or limited, or no gun - but other weapons... or what?

I still haven't had much of an answer to:

Will number of accidental/ misuse/abuse of weapons not substantially increase, while number of crimes drastically decrease?

As well... do having weapons actually decrease the crime rate more than changing the society in which they are in? It might be 'obvious' when ppl go citing all those low-crime, high-gun areas, but then... take a look at other countires and the society it's in. Will they stop ALL crimes? Including extremely violent ones? What's Switzerland's crime rate like? How about Finland's? And Canada's is relatively low (esp in relation to the US).

Might not it be far better to concentrate on those issues first? (I did the bit in gun control about $36Billion dollars in arms and ammo - how would that affect societies woes if that amount had gone into other areas...)

What if I have the ability to stop a murder? What if I have the ability to stop a slew of murders (me, and my family)? What if, in order to stop those murders, I have to kill? Why should I be punished if I simply protect myself, or my family?

Then go for it... 'should you be punished?'... depends on the specific circumstances... (but I know you'd know that.. and we've had that discussion...)

Whoa. Someone who actually posted a response to the original question, and stayed on topic. I think I need to report this to a mod, as this is highly irregular, and may need to be dealt with through some sort of disciplinary action

On a side note, is it as depressing to you as it is to me that it took two whole pages of posts before anybody came back to the original topic at hand?

Hey... I thought we were on the original all the way through...?? No? Ok - apparently not. Besides, aren't you used to being derailed?? "Depressing" - nah... happens, brings up other points of view...

Well, for one, I am not scared in the least. To me, you did something incredible, and something that I pray I never have to deal with either as a victim, or as a close person of a victim. I'm glad you're alive. And I'm almost as glad that those two are rotting away in jail.

Agreed, agreed!!!

It's not a meaningful or relevant question. It's a logical fallacy, ...

Hmmm - I'm not convinced. The 2 are directly related in this context. Especially when you consider that 'Castle Doctrine' can be used to justify 'murder'....(back to that thread...). Besides, in general, other than obvious premeditation (and accident - depending on specific laws and the country/state you're in), the line between 'self-defence' and 'murder' can be somewhat blurred... pub brawls? Gangland warfare??



Slyt

[Zyanya]

It's relevant. Castle Doctrine is rare, so you don't see why arguments against it have any grounds. Murder is rare, so do you also see the arguments against it (such as the ones in the legal system) as being groundless?

Rapscallion

Please see the link I provided.


It's like saying 'I'm allowed to have a chemistry set in my house so why can't I have a drug lab, aren't they the same thing?'

Start by acknowledging the difference between Self-Defense and Murder. Ethically, morally, and legally these are wholly different actions which any rational, reasonable person can see.

Then there is your intentional misrepresentation of my point: "Castle Doctrine is rare, so you don't see why arguments against it have any grounds. "

That is not what I said, nor the point raised.

The point raised was 'even in areas with Castle Doctrine, ordinary people don't turn into cold-blooded killers just because someone poked their head in the door'. It's not an issue of 'it's rare'. It's an issue of 'it's so statistically rare as to be unworthy of consideration, cause it doesn't look like it has actually ever happened', rather like the cases of people who have actually caught AIDS from failing to use a toilet seat protective tissue and who have gotten pregnant after someone masturbated in a pool. Sure, it theoretically could happen. Find me a substantiated case, and then we can discuss if Castle Doctrine is wrong. I can find you plenty of home invasion murders. It's up to you to prove that the number of criminals killed in cold blood while they tried to back out of a door while surrendering is statistically significant next to the people who have been raped and murdered because they couldn't defend themselves. I doubt it's even a 1-10,000 ratio, as any such event would be such a statistical rarity that the gun control lobbyists would on it like flies on shit.

Thus, it is a logical fallacy on multiple counts. 1 - It's an intentional misrepresentation of my point and 2 - it's a pathetically weak analogy.

[Jules Of All Trades]

Since I've not yet attempted my hand at the "Multi-Quote", I won't butcher this by starting that now...perhaps if I post more (and with the warm reception I've received I might do just that).

Slyt,

The only reason I'm glad he (and the other guy) are not dead is because I believe they're suffering a much more difficult fate living in prison for as long as I can keep them there. Otherwise, I would not feel an ounce of guilt over killing him instead of just injuring him. This may not sound very nice, but I hope with everything I have in me that they suffer every damn day for what they did to me. I do, I suffer long term consequences because of their actions, they should as well. These are the only people I've ever wished harm on in my entire life, but I believe they deserve it. I hope they live long, agonizing lives, because they've never shown a hint of remorse for what they did, in fact, their last statements were that I deserved it and that it was my own fault for being who I was at the time (separate thread needed there...derailing).

I'm in the US, and while I don't always carry a typical "weapon" with me, I am always prepared in case something were to happen. I've taken more self defense classes than I can count, and have learned how to use almost anything to not only defend myself but to bring things to a screeching halt if needed. I will never be the initiator, the "aggressor" so to speak, but I will not go down easily. My knowledge and experience has empowered me to be strong and confident, and I won't live my life afraid of anyone.

Now that I've gone completely off course (sorry...know how you guys hate that ), I'll just keep going...

Pedersen,

Thanks for your thoughts as well. Being alive is a good thing, it suits me well. I'm also glad my intensity didn't freak you (or Slyt for that matter) out, it just seemed like I dove in head first and some people don't receive that well. This incident happened quite some time ago, and it's easy for me to talk about now very factually, but at the same time passionately. I've read all of the threads with similar topics, but I'm going to sum up my thoughts here so to not confuse myself too much:

1 - Absolutely believe in the right to bear arms (of almost any kind) for protection.
2 - Castle Doctrine - need to do a little more research but support it completely from what I've learned already. I'm in the same state as Rahmota, it's about time we empowered ourselves.
3 - I have not been in the position where I've needed to defend someone other than myself, however I would take the same stance I do on personal protection.


I'm sure there's more but I've already hijacked this thread enough for now. I'll try to touch on the others and possibly start the thread I mentioned above as well, after checking to make sure there's not another one like it first...can't make that kind of 'noob' mistake.

Jules

[Pedersen]

Ok... Mr Criminal's right to pursue happiness by your right to your happiness.. and liberty and all that...(after all, Mr Criminal is only a criminal because of the laws - not because of the inalienable right they are trying to have...). This line of reasoning... well - it's a whole new philosophical thread

Agreed. And not one I'm sure I'm ready to pursue just yet

Did we derail?? I thought we were just... exploring implications?

Well, considering that I read two pages of posts between you and me which got further and further off topic and now contain a raging debate about whether someone exercising rights under Castle Doctrine is committing murder or not and what the statistical likelihood of it occurring is (even though there's a whole thread about Castle Doctrine)... Yeah, I'd say some derailment has occurred

Mrs Homeless needs a triple by-pass to live out the next 40 years of life. She doesn't have health insurance. Because she doesn't have health insurance, that's not going to happen - her life is 'so worthless' because of a lack of income... discuss

That is a failing of society to control the rising costs of advanced medicine. I'm still not sure of what the best way to implement universal health care is, though I believe it should be done, especially for those cases like the one you've described. So, not a good choice. If you'd like a better example, let's choose something else. You see, you need a fatal disease, but one that doesn't affect a significant portion of the population (1%, at most), that's very painful, but not very sexy, so gets no research funding.

Do those people deserve to die, and painfully, simply because their cause isn't big enough to get any research funding? No, they don't. Their lives are no more worthless than mine.

Actually - if we're talking about steak knives now, that's in 'slippery slope' thread...(I'm wondering what ppl are doing walking around the streets with steak knives...).

Well, these are people who are worried about being attacked (for whatever reason), and aren't allowed to arm themselves in any other way. Either they can't afford something better (tasers still aren't cheap enough), they can't carry something better (pepper spray is not legal everywhere, neither are batons), or they simply can't think of anything better that will let them remain legal.

I don't get the whole 'let's be sheep' ideology, and don't think you should be completely disarmed as has been hyped up in these threads (I've never seen anyone either say it straight out, nor even imply it anywhere... I take it as a bit of sensationalism to derail the thread :smiley I can't use cos I only get to use 4 of them.... You're in your own home, you can keep almost any weapon in it (guns are a different kettle of fish... and a different thread...)

Actually, it's not. I've actually interacted with people, personally, who are so afraid of the world that they want to make sure no one can harm them, ever. They genuinely want complete disarmament. They're an extreme, to be sure, but I do see people in these boards saying to disarm people in public, and I'm not even in agreement with that, as I am about to show.

Hey...question - I don't recall - are you pro-gun anywhere, or limited, or no gun - but other weapons... or what?

Actually, I'm in favor of private ownership of capitol class warships. That's right, I want to be able to legally own a fully operational aircraft carrier that has whatever planes I care to have on board. Or my own nuclear sub. Etc, etc, etc. If you want to debate that, please do start up a thread on it, I'll join in and provide all kinds of reasoning.

Heh, it's only happened to me once, but I can see me hitting the 15,000 character limit on that thread pretty easily

Will number of accidental/ misuse/abuse of weapons not substantially increase, while number of crimes drastically decrease?

I'll give you the only honest answer I have: I don't know. And yes, it is an answer.

My conjecture? In the short term, the number of accidents will rise, and possibly the amount of crime will, too. Within 20 years, though, those numbers will change. As people grow up with these weapons, and the criminals learn that the consequences of crime can be life changing, even to the point of fatal, without the courts getting involved, things will change. That transition period would be horrible, to be sure, but to my mind it would be preferable to turning people into defenseless sheep awaiting the hands of whichever person out there they might run into.

Might not it be far better to concentrate on those issues first? (I did the bit in gun control about $36Billion dollars in arms and ammo - how would that affect societies woes if that amount had gone into other areas...)

It wouldn't. Time for a bit of a reality check on the idea of beating poverty: It is not possible to do with any current socioeconomic system in use anywhere in the world without tearing down everything and reverting to nomadic tribal status. And I'm not sure it's possible even then. As long as poverty can be measured in some specific amount (dollars happens to be handy), there will always be an economic underclass.

Take the most extreme example of one way to remove it for a moment: Execute every person who currently lives below the poverty line. By definition, there are no more poor people. Anytime somebody falls under it for even a minute, we execute them. Poverty is now solved, right? Except now the poverty line moves. There's still a segment of society which lives worse than the rest, and within a couple of years, they will be defined as poor, and the poverty line will move to include them. This is an endless cycle. So, that $36B really won't do very much at all.

Way for me to derail my own thread, though, wouldn't you say?

[Slytovhand]

Firstly... Jules, your post is what the entire thread is about! Why are you apologising for it?

As for your thoughts towards those 2... yep, I'm with that. I've thought similar things myself over people I've known (one is on the sex offenders list we have over here.... bullet's too quick..).

I'd be interested in your other posts on the other threads (let's keep them all in a nice straight line )...

Ok... Pedersen.....


Isn't this thread somewhat about Castle? Not in it's entirety, but very closely connected? (that's the annoying thing, as I've mentioned... too many threads all about something similar - hard not to cross over...). Ah well.... we survive... (I'm a bit amused to see 2 seperate debates going on in the same thread.. here and elsewhere.. a couple on the original, and a couple going hammer and tongs on something else...:P)

That is a failing of society to control the rising costs of advanced medicine. I'm still not sure of what the best way to implement universal health care is, though I believe it should be done, especially for those cases like the one you've described. So, not a good choice. If you'd like a better example, let's choose something else. You see, you need a fatal disease, but one that doesn't affect a significant portion of the population (1%, at most), that's very painful, but not very sexy, so gets no research funding.

Do those people deserve to die, and painfully, simply because their cause isn't big enough to get any research funding? No, they don't. Their lives are no more worthless than mine.

Hmmm... what if that disease is, say, scurvy! Because they are in low economics, they need vitamin C. Because of their low income, they can't afford to get the vitamin C they need (perhaps they have no income). They then realise that the only way to survive would be through crime... (don't worry, I'll be getting onto aliens actively using humans to breed with soon... so if you're waiting for incredibly ridiculous......). Actually - I thought of scurvy because I heard a case where a uni student over here was diagnosed with it, because the student wage was so low, that she was surviving on rice and noodles - no fruits...(and have we got a Universal Health Care thread?? or a "Who deserves to live, who doesn't?" thread???)

But we're now heading into politics... yes?

[/quote]Well, these are people who...[/quote]

oh.. ok.....

Actually, it's not. I've actually...

Hmmm - where do you stand on total peace and harmony? (without the fear though)? Can you see it happening in some utopia? Can humanity get over it's crap to such a place? Or is it always doomed to violence and oppression? And how are you on 'zero-tolerance' societies for all laws - like the Star Trek episode where Wil Crusher got on the 'do not walk on the grass' and was up for execution (all crimes - 1 punishment...though, it was Wil - he should have fried ).

...private ownership of capitol class warships...

Go on... thread it!

We're heading into where I start arguing for Plato's Philosopher Kings... That sort of thought pattern (warship ownership) would head us into a massive oligarcy... those with the money control the means to oppress everyone else...

I'll give you the only honest answer I have: I don't know. And yes, it is an answer.

No it's not, no it's not...oh.. alright... it is

Your conjecture is pretty much what I would think as well. But I believe that there are other ways to get us to the more utopian ideal than by arming everyone first, and let Darwin have some fun...(not to say some shouldn't go the way of execution...I haven't entered into that affray yet...). Basically becomes the argument Raps was throwing... do you have the right to judge, jury and executioner to someone unlawfully in your home?

It wouldn't. Time for a bit of a reality check on the idea of beating poverty: It is not possible to do with any current socioeconomic system in use anywhere in the world without tearing down everything and reverting to nomadic tribal status. And I'm not sure it's possible even then. As long as poverty can be measured in some specific amount (dollars happens to be handy), there will always be an economic underclass.

Take the most extreme example of one way to remove it for a moment: Execute every person who currently lives below the poverty line. By definition, there are no more poor people. Anytime somebody falls under it for even a minute, we execute them. Poverty is now solved, right? Except now the poverty line moves. There's still a segment of society which lives worse than the rest, and within a couple of years, they will be defined as poor, and the poverty line will move to include them. This is an endless cycle. So, that $36B really won't do very much at all.

(yep - need the whole quote here...)

I can agree that it would need some major adjustments, but it's possible to do a hell of a lot of it. If there are so many millionaires in the US (around 9% apparently, who have a total worth of aroun $11 Trillion), and the reforms came in to bring everyone up to a baseline by accessing their millions - then that's going to have a major effect as well...

It's basically the opposite of your thought pattern - instead of executing the poorest and thus removing the 'poor' population, you take away from the rich (not necessarily executing though...), and redistribute the wealth so that everyone meets certain minimums, at the same time as adjusting people's attitudes towards materialistic goals, crime would plummet. (but I won't argue about sociopaths... )

(damn... how long does it take you to do your posts?? I started this at 1:50, and it's now gone 3:00... course, I'm at work as well...)

/derail

Slyt

(what gets to me, is that I'm a smiley-poor person who is obviously being oppressed by the smiley-rich people, who have decided I'm allowed a maximum wage of only 4 smiley's per post. I want to rise up and rebel!!!)

[Pedersen]

Since I've not yet attempted my hand at the "Multi-Quote", I won't butcher this by starting that now...perhaps if I post more (and with the warm reception I've received I might do just that).

Don't worry, the first time will have you asking WTF? The second time you'll be an old hand at it. It's pretty easy, I think.

Now that I've gone completely off course (sorry...know how you guys hate that ), I'll just keep going...

I think I'm the one who hates it the most. Post a topic, hoping for a debate on that topic, and find yourself sucked down an alternate path and completely killing the original topic, so you can't even try to get answers. Been there, done that, don't like it :smiley since I'm over my limit too:

Isn't this thread somewhat about Castle? Not in it's entirety, but very closely connected? (that's the annoying thing, as I've mentioned... too many threads all about something similar - hard not to cross over...). Ah well.... we survive... (I'm a bit amused to see 2 seperate debates going on in the same thread.. here and elsewhere.. a couple on the original, and a couple going hammer and tongs on something else...:P)

Yep, it is connected. That's why I linked to it in the very first post on this thread. I acknowledge that. But this was intended to be a very different question than "Is Castle Doctrine a good or a bad thing?" Honestly, that's only a tangential question to me, since answering a single, larger, question can also answer Castle Doctrine, or at least provide a more solid understanding of what it should entail.

And that's what I was aiming for with this. Ah well, my aim will improve someday.

Hmmm... what if that disease is, say, scurvy! Because they are in low economics, they need vitamin C. Because of their low income, they can't afford to get the vitamin C they need (perhaps they have no income). They then realise that the only way to survive would be through crime... (don't worry, I'll be getting onto aliens actively using humans to breed with soon... so if you're waiting for incredibly ridiculous......). Actually - I thought of scurvy because I heard a case where a uni student over here was diagnosed with it, because the student wage was so low, that she was surviving on rice and noodles - no fruits...(and have we got a Universal Health Care thread?? or a "Who deserves to live, who doesn't?" thread???)

Not so sure scurvy is a very good choice. Highly preventable, easily fixed. Nope, you need something noticeably worse. AIDS, when it was very first diagnosed, made a good example (after all, it was a gay only disease, and nobody cared what happened to them. Just stating opinions of the times, folks).

As to those other two threads, they don't seem to exist. Which is actually surprising to me.

But we're now heading into politics... yes?

oh, yeah.

Hmmm - where do you stand on total peace and harmony? (without the fear though)? Can you see it happening in some utopia? Can humanity get over it's crap to such a place? Or is it always doomed to violence and oppression? And how are you on 'zero-tolerance' societies for all laws - like the Star Trek episode where Wil Crusher got on the 'do not walk on the grass' and was up for execution (all crimes - 1 punishment...though, it was Wil - he should have fried ).

In this regard, I'm very much a pessimist. I do not believe it will happen in my lifetime. In fact, until something really big happens, I don't believe it can happen. And by really big, I mean something like ET popping up and killing anybody he sees. Humanity is incredibly fractious. Until something happens from outside to direct our attention away from our differences. Until then, I do believe we are quite perma-fucked as a species.

Zero Tolerance == Zero Intelligence. They're an easy cop out for tough problems. "Well, the law says that since you fought back against an attacker and accidentally killed him in the process, we have to execute you." No thought allowed, no special cases allowed. You're screwed. Also, the factor of intent is too easily ignored.

Gah, this particular section is turning its own threads. Not going to go into all of my issues with it right now.

Go on... thread it!

We're heading into where I start arguing for Plato's Philosopher Kings... That sort of thought pattern (warship ownership) would head us into a massive oligarcy... those with the money control the means to oppress everyone else...

Sounds like one of us needs to start that thread tonight. You get the option of making a title you like better though, if you're first :smiley for the forum:

I can agree that it would need some major adjustments, but it's possible to do a hell of a lot of it. If there are so many millionaires in the US (around 9% apparently, who have a total worth of aroun $11 Trillion), and the reforms came in to bring everyone up to a baseline by accessing their millions - then that's going to have a major effect as well...

Okay, here's the part I left out earlier, though I did hint at it. Consider the current poverty line in the US (and, I believe, in the UK and Canada), and compare it with 100 years ago. In particular, think about things that 100 years ago were only owned by the very rich, but now are considered things that you would have to be beneath poor not to have. For instance:

• Indoor plumbing
• Electric lighting
• Non-animal based transport (100 years ago, horses were common, now you have bicycles, motorcycles, cars, trucks, etc)
• Garbage removal services

There are more things, but I figured that would be enough to get you thinking about it. These things are, by and large, considered standard. Even necessities. If someone were able to go back in time 100 years, and tell people without them that they were living below the poverty line, they would be considered a lunatic.

The point is that the poverty line is moving upwards. Execute the poor, or hand them money, in either case, you do the same thing: You remove the poor. And make a new class of them, because there will always be a class of poor people.

Ah well, I'd say this thread is pretty well done. Still don't have answers to my original question, though. Maybe someday. And looks like time for some new threads from it

(damn... how long does it take you to do your posts?? I started this at 1:50, and it's now gone 3:00... course, I'm at work as well...)

Average for these is about 30 to 45 minutes, actually.

[Greenday]

As far as the main thread goes, I don't see why law abiding citizens shouldn't be on par with criminals as far as being able to protect ourselves. They invade our home, we should be able to properly defend it, anywhere from an unarmed intruder to armed to the teeth intruder.

As for the side politics thread, I'm guessing you are talking about ways to make everyone above the poverty line? If so, I don't see how the small minority of people with a huge chunk of the nations wealth is helping. Sure, some earned it, but how many people could easily be given the bare necessities if the wealth was spread out just a lil bit?