Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

Victim blaming is always fun, isn't it.

Now this seems like an exaggeration of the term. Tell me, at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?

[GlyphGryph]

That's the antithesis of justice.

"If you didn't want to get shot, you should not have been speeding" is equally relevant. I mean you could kill someone by speeding.

In this case, it's more "If you don't want to collide with another car, you shouldn't have been speeding through that intersection" or "if you didn't want to get mauled by a bear, you shouldn't have spent all that time poking it with a stick in an attempt to aggravate it".
It's got jack-shit to do with 'justice' - if you put yourself in a situation where a person has to kill you in order to prevent you from doing something illegal and depriving them of life or property, you shouldn't be putting yourself in that situation.

If you're doing something morally wrong, generally stupid, and incredibly dickish (especially if you are harming someone else in the process), people are not going to have much sympathy when there are negative consequences - in effect, they'll see it as you having it coming. I'm perfectly okay with that.

[Sheb]

So if it was standard policy to shoot drivers speeding near school (something which is reckless, dickish and putting people in danger) you'd be okay with that? They knew it was coming after all.

[GlyphGryph]

GG: If someone meets all three of these traits, I don't have a problem with people having zero sympathy for them.
Sheb: So you're saying that if a person, arguably, meets a single one of these traits, it's okay to shoot them?

No, Sheb. No. That doesn't even make sense.

[Dutchling]

You do seem to imply that it is okay to shoot someone who isn't threatening you or somebody else's life.

[Leafsnail]

Robbers only steal to be dicks, right?  It's impossible that they could be driven to it by poverty or desparation.  Just shoot 'em all.

[RedKing]

Conversely, let's assume that all criminals are just hard-luck cases driven to it by socio-economic disparities and grant a mass pardon. 


I think the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

[Leafsnail]

I am not saying anything remotely like that.  I am saying that GG's criteria fail to provide a reason why robbers deserve no sympathy when shot (or a reason why we should be allowed to shoot them).

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, this conversation isn't going to go anywhere good. If you guys want to continue fighting the good fight against imaginary people making imaginary arguments, by all means, continue. But you don't really need me for it.

[penguinofhonor]

In this case, it's more "If you don't want to collide with another car, you shouldn't have been speeding through that intersection" or "if you didn't want to get mauled by a bear, you shouldn't have spent all that time poking it with a stick in an attempt to aggravate it".
It's got jack-shit to do with 'justice' - if you put yourself in a situation where a person has to kill you in order to prevent you from doing something illegal and depriving them of life or property, you shouldn't be putting yourself in that situation.

If you're doing something morally wrong, generally stupid, and incredibly dickish (especially if you are harming someone else in the process), people are not going to have much sympathy when there are negative consequences - in effect, they'll see it as you having it coming. I'm perfectly okay with that.

You do not have to kill someone because they're in your house stealing from you. There is one situation that you have to kill them, and that's when they're going to kill you. There are negative consequences, and then there's shooting an unarmed teenager because he was rummaging through your stuff. I know that's the most extreme example, but (at least where I live) unarmed punks perform a huge percentage of break-ins.

I feel like this is just apmlified by all the paranoia our society has about crime. I was watching a Michael Moore documentary (forgive me), and this Canadian lady was talking about how she never locked her doors at night. One night, some kids were in her house so she came downstairs and they all ran out. They had stolen some cigarettes or something. At no point here was killing anyone necessary.

[GlyphGryph]

There is one situation that you have to kill them, and that's when they're going to kill you.

You really want to stand by that statement?

(Again, not responding to the strawmen arguments. Seriously, I say I what I mean, I don't need you fuckers putting your own words in my mouth. I know you have your issues, but seriously not my problem)

[penguinofhonor]

You can't just shout "strawman" at everything and then ignore it.

[GlyphGryph]

When people argue against things that I never said, yes - yes I can. When they argue against things explicitly in opposition to things I said, I can to that to!

It's obvious that people here have their fucking agendas, but I'm not a launching pad for irrelevant spiels.

For example, if I were following the same patterns y'all have been using, I could, from your last post, deduce:
"So, you're saying it's okay to rape people, then? After all, he's not trying to kill you, so it's not an issue and we certainly shouldn't try to stop him."

But I won't, because that's fucking bullshit and I know it. When y'all manage to have the same consideration, I'll bother responding.

[scriver]

If they didn't want to get shot they shouldn't have been stealing. I'm not going to say it isn't sad, but they brought it on themselves.

Victim blaming is always fun, isn't it.

Now this seems like an exaggeration of the term. Tell me, at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?

People are always responsible for their own actions. Getting shot is not the thiefs action, it is the shooter who is shooting him. Hence the thief is the victim of the shooting, and blaming him for getting shot is blaming the victim.

If you're doing something morally wrong, generally stupid, and incredibly dickish (especially if you are harming someone else in the process), people are not going to have much sympathy when there are negative consequences - in effect, they'll see it as you having it coming. I'm perfectly okay with that.

And here we what seems to be the number one cause of America's troubles; no solidarity and too little empathy tor your fellow man.

Conversely, let's assume that all criminals are just hard-luck cases driven to it by socio-economic disparities and grant a mass pardon. 

Don't strawman, RedKing. This is completely beyond the scope of the discussion and even if it were only your strawman would be arguing for a "mass pardon" just because "physical" criminal behavior has a general cause.

[GlyphGryph]

Don't strawman, RedKing. This is completely beyond the scope of the discussion and even if it were only your strawman would be arguing for a "mass pardon" just because "physical" criminal behavior has a general cause.

This was a sarcastic hyperbole response to an equally sarcastic hyperbolic statement. Not really strawmanning (though also not particularly helpful as a rhetorical tool, on either end)