|
Thread: Intentions | This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 21, 2014 10:42 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 22:43, 21 Apr 2014.
|
@ meroe: lol, no. i'm perfectly sane. many others who would be associated with me, though, might not be. some of them are real nutjobs, to be sure. but then, so's most of the human race. they're madness on the edge of sanity.
@ mvass: don't worry, i'm well aware of the laws in my state, pertaining to self-defense. i'd be an idiot not to be.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 21, 2014 10:44 PM |
|
|
fred79 said: answer #2: wherever legally allowed. which means, not in government buildings, or bars. and i don't go to either. so yeah, all the time. i've been armed with some form of weapon since i was in my early teens. i don't like hostility directed at me, and i like to be prepared for whatever i can be prepared for. boyscout motto, and all that.
Wonder where you have to live for being that paranoid. though, nowadays, all that people have to do to become paranoid is to read newspapers
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 21, 2014 10:48 PM |
|
|
paranoia? no. if you know the nature of a beast, the intelligent thing to do is stay on your guard against them. otherwise, you might get bit. granted, most are docile, house-trained, and trained to serve their masters. but many are rabid and wild. besides, you let any dog out into the wild, they tend to become wild.
it's just better to be prepared.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
posted April 21, 2014 10:50 PM |
|
|
Next time I hear about a drive by shooting at MacDonlds, I'm gonna know who it is Fred.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 21, 2014 10:55 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 22:56, 21 Apr 2014.
|
lol. it's funny, how many people cannot relate to my state of mind. in my last unit, my section dubbed me "most likely to be seen on the fbi's top 10 most wanted list".
really, i just like to stay safe in a potentially unsafe environment. i like the ability to keep my family and friends safe, as well.
if you've been around the kind of people that i've known, or if you've ever known how a criminal mind works, you would do the same thing. human beings, and their society, are a fragile thing, indeed, and prone to all sorts of problems.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted April 21, 2014 11:24 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:25, 21 Apr 2014.
|
My first question wasnt specifically about the stoplight ambush. Let me tell it this way, here, you are only allowed to shoot a person if they draw a gun on you first or if they are in your bedroom. Not your house, but right in your bedroom. What I'm asking is, if its okay to shoot 3 people even if they dont pull a gun on you, mobsters or gangs or hired hit man or people with a personal murder agenda can simply shoot you when there's no one around, place a bat or a gun in your hand, and STAGE a self-defense. What prevents that?
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 21, 2014 11:38 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 23:47, 21 Apr 2014.
|
artu said: My first question wasnt specifically about the stoplight ambush. Let me tell it this way, here, you are only allowed to shoot a person if they draw a gun on you first or if they are in your bedroom. Not your house, but right in your bedroom. What I'm asking is, if its okay to shoot 3 people even if they dont pull a gun on you, mobsters or gangs or hired hit man or people with a personal murder agenda can simply shoot you when there's no one around, place a bat or a gun in your hand, and STAGE a self-defense. What prevents that?
i understood your question last time, i only answered the first part of it, because semantics don't matter to me.
if someone is a threat, i react accordingly, within the law. if there are repercussions, i deal with them afterward. no further explanations needed. you don't think about afterward, or you're dead during. get it?
----
by the way, nothing prevents what you said from happening. it's happened before; and will always happen, i'm sure. with cops as well as anyone else.
as far as shooting unarmed threats: if you feel threatened, you are within the law to engage, as long as you cannot retreat. someone doesn't need a gun, in order to kill you. especially 3 hostiles.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 01:38 AM |
|
|
From a Canadian point of view, I'm not sure what's the point of this question. Involuntary manslaughter here means you don't go out of your home past 7 PM for 2 years.
Personally I think intentions are only valid once. If you go out there and kill plenty of people involuntarily... Who's going to stop you? Nope. First mistake accepted. Second is not.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 07:05 AM |
|
|
There is a saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
As far as I'm concerned, that's more or less all there is to say about it. Having had good intentions is no excuse for a royal screw-up. Because, when it comes down to it, it's the result that matters.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 07:27 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 07:31, 22 Apr 2014.
|
JollyJoker said: Because, when it comes down to it, it's the result that matters.
just curious: how do you feel about what happened at Hiroshima(circa 1945)? what about all of the after-effects(birth defects, radiation, etc)? was the u.s. justified in that, insofar as the end result(s) that came of it? why or why not?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 08:17 AM |
|
|
Isn't Hiroshima an example of a great outcome? It actually ended a war which would have ended up having a lot more civilians killed were it not for the bomb.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 09:10 AM |
|
|
That's NOT an example, where intentions OR end result would matter, because any attempt of justification is doomed: there are too many factors involved, and looking at alternative actions or outcomes are highly speculative; there is also the question of whether we are right assuming certain intentions.
That I said, when it comes down to it, it's the end result that matters, doesn't mean, the end result justifies the means: Absurdly, if you drive drunk, run a red light and hit another car, and it turns out that blind luck made that other car some villain that you just manage to put out, it's no reason for the people to hand you a medal because of that. You still screwed up, but for some reason things went well there, and you may get off the hook based upon that.
There is another saying, ignorance of the law isn't an excuse - so isn't general ignorance.
Generally, most dilemmas are based on the fact, that if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you may be faced with the choice that INACTIVITY counts as activity as well, meaning, that whatever you do or not do will have consequences this or that way - however, NOT in a clear one.
Which means, you will make a decision (or act on an impulse), and the fact is, that rating that behavior afterwards is fairly difficult and obviously questionable, because it is always based on What-ifs and assumptions of some kind.
For daily life, it makes sense to abstain from dabbling with things you have no idea about! The chance you do good is slim compared with the chances of a screw-up.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 01:51 PM |
|
|
And speaking of good intentions, I'm inclined to rank
This One
top, but don't nail me on it.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 02:50 PM |
|
|
I wouldn't rank Hiroshima amongst good intentions. you have to be seriously insane for considering that dropping a bomb on civilians is a good thing to do. maybe least worst, at best.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 03:47 PM |
|
|
Yeah, but when you consider the outcomes, the bombs were a far more attractive option than the millions of people that would have died in an invasion of Japan.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 04:00 PM |
|
|
You don't want to seriously imply that the only options available were dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese cities or lose "millions" of people in the course of a conventional invasion, do you?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 04:31 PM |
|
|
Apparently, that was the alternative he US considered. I guess the alternative to that, the one which I might support, was to pull out of Japan entirely and wage a purely defensive war.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 04:32 PM |
|
|
I think Xerox is a future dictator. he doesn't like democracy and thinks bombing civilians is a good thing
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 22, 2014 04:44 PM |
|
|
There's no way around civilians dying in a war and maybe the nuclear bombs caused the least civilian casualties of the alternatives available.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted April 22, 2014 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote: There's no way around civilians dying in a war
BULLsnow
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
|