17
   

What Does it Take to Justify Violence?

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 01:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
What Does it Take to Justify Violence?
Abusive original violence is necessary to justify retributive counterviolence,
or to justify a pre-emptive disabling attack.





David
Obviously the question should be: Whom does it take to justify violence... Is my English correct all you grammerians???
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 06:17 pm

It takes a bad guy and his violations of our rights to justify violence.





David
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 06:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
what makes the guy a bad guy? perspective?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 07:36 pm
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
what makes the guy a bad guy? perspective?
the violation of someone 's rights
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2011 08:56 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

hamilton wrote:
what makes the guy a bad guy? perspective?
the violation of someone 's rights
I thought that was the reasonable way to discover if you are violating some ones rights: When they objected...

Think of all the capitalists and clergy that might have to suffer violence under your justification...
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 07:05 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
well, we all do that at some point or an other throughout our lives...
does that make two bad guys fighting?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 09:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


It takes a bad guy and his violations of our rights to justify violence.

David


not just our rights so much but our existence , life-death
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 09:54 pm
@Fido,
hamilton wrote:
what makes the guy a bad guy? perspective?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
the violation of someone 's rights
Fido wrote:
I thought that was the reasonable way to discover
if you are violating some ones rights: When they objected...
No; logically, that does not work.
If it did,
then no successful pickpocket woud ever violate
his victim's rights on-the-job.




Fido wrote:
Think of all the capitalists and clergy that might have to suffer violence under your justification...
I have no idea what u mean (which is probably just as well).





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 09:59 pm
@north,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


It takes a bad guy and his violations of our rights to justify violence.

David


north wrote:
not just our rights so much but our existence, life-death
I don't see it that way. Violence in defense of your property is OK; peachy.
MY response to the question addresses morality, in my vu,
not legal justification, which varies from one jurisdiction to another.





David
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 10:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


It takes a bad guy and his violations of our rights to justify violence.

David


north wrote:
not just our rights so much but our existence, life-death
I don't see it that way. Violence in defense of your property is OK; peachy.
MY response to the question addresses morality, in my vu,
not legal justification, which varies from one jurisdiction to another.

David


my point is , is your and/or families life threathened , not so much property

property can be replaced , a life cannot
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 10:57 pm
@north,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


It takes a bad guy and his violations of our rights to justify violence.

David


north wrote:
not just our rights so much but our existence, life-death
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I don't see it that way. Violence in defense of your property is OK; peachy.
MY response to the question addresses morality, in my vu,
not legal justification, which varies from one jurisdiction to another.

David
north wrote:
my point is, is your and/or families life threathened, not so much property

property can be replaced, a life cannot
We ALREADY KNOW that, Mr. North. This information does not come as news.

MY point is that, morally (with no comment qua the law),
violence is also justified in defense of your PROPERTY,
not only lives.
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


It takes a bad guy and his violations of our rights to justify violence.

David


north wrote:
not just our rights so much but our existence, life-death
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I don't see it that way. Violence in defense of your property is OK; peachy.
MY response to the question addresses morality, in my vu,
not legal justification, which varies from one jurisdiction to another.

David
north wrote:
my point is, is your and/or families life threathened, not so much property

property can be replaced, a life cannot
We ALREADY KNOW that, Mr. North. This information does not come as news.

MY point is that, morally (with no comment qua the law),
violence is also justified in defense of your PROPERTY,
not only lives.


fine , but where do you draw the line , between property and life ?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:16 pm
@north,
wherever u want to
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

wherever u want to


thats the problem
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:28 pm
@north,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
wherever u want to
north wrote:
thats the problem
Yeah, for the bad guy !
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
wherever u want to
north wrote:
thats the problem
Yeah, for the bad guy !


hmm.. but is the " bad guy " just trying to make money to feed his family ?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:40 pm
@north,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
wherever u want to
north wrote:
thats the problem
Yeah, for the bad guy !
north wrote:
hmm.. but is the " bad guy " just trying to make money to feed his family ?
Does his victim GIVE a rat's ass??

There is a DIFFERENCE between a beggar and a robber.





David
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:44 pm
OmSigDAVID,

that is the complication of life , right now

is the violence upon a person justified by the defence of property alone

remember that some people simply don't have the opportunity nor the enviroment in which to develope a normal life , in which the threat to someone's property doesn't even cross their mind

the thinking should be how do we solve this problem
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jun, 2011 11:50 pm
@north,
Y do u have spaces on BOTH sides of your commas ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 12:21 am
@north,
north wrote:
OmSigDAVID,

that is the complication of life , right now
Its not complex.


north wrote:
is the violence upon a person justified by the defence of property alone
Yes.




north wrote:
remember that some people simply don't have the opportunity nor
the enviroment in which to develope a normal life ,
That IS the norm for them.





north wrote:
in which the threat to someone's property doesn't even cross their mind
As long as thay r not predatory, thay 'll remain intact.






north wrote:
the thinking should be how do we solve this problem
by having the victims sufficiently WELL ARMED to control the situation when predators attack

That 's how.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 03:22:15