DescentBB

vision wrote:All I'm saying is that there is a better way. You have to stop being afraid though.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd also like to state that when an otherwise peaceful person shoots a violent person in self-defense, the world is made LESS violent. Violence is not some kind of an undying entity that multiplies every time there is a violent occurrence. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

woodchip wrote:Vision, it is just a matter of which violence you want to be responsible for. If you do nothing you will be responsible for violence to your sister. If you resort to violence against the attacker you are responsible for violence against him. Take your pick.

Which one is right?

Will Robinson wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:We ask our protectors to capture the murderers alive if possible...that is compassion governed by survival.

I don't believe it is always right to treat the status-quo as the ideal, and I would argue that it is not compassion which governs the live capture of murderers, but the existence of a system of justice in which a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. So the reason we don't just go out and kill murderers is that law enforcement officers are not judge, jury, and executioner. It is my opinion that murder should receive the death penalty. I might be willing to accept that maybe it shouldn't be so in the absence of truly damning evidence. I do think there is reason to believe that when justice is not done that it ultimately does damage to a society.

I'm thinking 'justice' is born, in part, from compassion. Otherwise having the captor perform as the judge would be expedient and probably where we would end up. Judge Dredd etc.

Will Robinson wrote:Maybe a minor distinction but 'justice' isn't an inherent human characteristic but empathy and compassion and anger are. I think of the concept of justice as the result of us focusing a culmination of base human desires/emotions. Without our empathy and compassion we would be dishing out revenge instead of justice.

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote: If the government stopped administering violence on our behalf though I think you soon would be afraid and it wouldn't be caused by an old sheepdog like me, it would be the wolves out there realizing you are an easy lunch. You might find a sudden liking for my ways....

Maybe you didn't read my other post. I will not act violently under any circumstances. I take "though shall not kill" more seriously than most (which is weird since atheists are supposed to suffer from moral relativism, haha).

woodchip wrote:Well let me ask you this vision, in the case of your younger sister, which actions you took/not took... would you be able to look her in the eye and see you did the right thing.

vision wrote:[...
The point of that post was to show contradiction. One of you says there is the same amount of violence, just transferred from one to another, the other claims a decrease in overall violence. Which is true?

woodchip wrote:We have some talented people here

callmeslick wrote:wow, this thread has gone 21 pages and morphed into abstract mathematics.....

tunnelcat wrote:True. But I'm thinking something more fun and challenging. You have to start with something related to Descent and be sure to end up right back at Descent again by the seventh post. How many connections can be made and for how long? Just thinking...............

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:[...
The point of that post was to show contradiction. One of you says there is the same amount of violence, just transferred from one to another, the other claims a decrease in overall violence. Which is true?

I don't know if you are really that dense to not be able to think it through but here's the condensed '...for Dummies' version:
In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

vision wrote:[...
The point of that post was to show contradiction. One of you says there is the same amount of violence, just transferred from one to another, the other claims a decrease in overall violence. Which is true?

I don't know if you are really that dense to not be able to think it through but here's the condensed '...for Dummies' version:
In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.

Cool, glad to see you like to add assumptions into your theories. Well done.

Will Robinson wrote:In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.....

Well my theory is literally one of the most practiced and proven systems of control ever used in the history of mankind!
I bet you could find more than a fair amount of documentation to back it up...like pehaps volumes of psychology studies, scholars who specialize in the study of that practice and such!
if you could pull your head out long enough to think about it.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:In the moment you stop an aggressors violence by an act of violence you have a net zero tally of acumulated violence in the world. In the timespan that contains an aggressors death or incapacitation you have a reduction on the accumulation of violence based on the amount of violence he would have caused and an additional reduction based on the deterrence factor caused by other people recognizing that violence will be happening to them if they become aggressors too.....

Well my theory is literally one of the most practiced and proven systems of control ever used in the history of mankind!
I bet you could find more than a fair amount of documentation to back it up...like pehaps volumes of psychology studies, scholars who specialize in the study of that practice and such!
if you could pull your head out long enough to think about it.

Yep. The United States "stopped an aggressors violence by an act of violence" when we preemptively invaded Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were not killed as a result and violence has gone down since the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Sounds legit. Thanks for clarifying that up for me. Now if we could just get Israel to attack Iran, who clearly wants to act violently toward them, world peace will happen.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:True. But I'm thinking something more fun and challenging. You have to start with something related to Descent and be sure to end up right back at Descent again by the seventh post. How many connections can be made and for how long? Just thinking...............

I'll do it in one. Obama is a spawn camping drone whore.

tunnelcat wrote:Hmmm. I guess someone actually saved others by using their gun - lawfully. The exception to the norm can happen sometimes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/finally-g ... 12631.html

TunnelCat wrote:It's an exception to the norm if one only listens to the mainstream press.

tunnelcat wrote:It's an exception to the norm if one only listens to the mainstream press. So you're right Will, self-defense scenarios using a personal gun does happen a lot more than is reported. My fail. Which begs the question, why is there so much need to defend oneself with a gun in a "supposedly civil society". ...

tunnelcat wrote: Which begs the question, why is there so much need to defend oneself with a gun in a "supposedly civil society". Scary.

http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

On December 28, 14 days after the brutal shooting of Sitting Bull, the U.S. Army sought to disarm and relocate the Lakota people, who failed to stop their Ghost Dance.

The U.S. authorities ordered the arrest of another Lakota chief, Big Foot. Big Foot’s band, which consisted mostly of women who had lost their husbands and other male relatives in battles with Custer, Miles and Crook, had danced until they collapsed, hoping to guarantee the return of their dead warriors. Big Foot and about 350 Lakota marched to Pine Ridge Reservation to seek protection from the military. At Pine Ridge they surrendered on December 28, 1890, and were escorted to Wounded Knee by the military, where they established a camp at Wounded Knee Creek.

The following morning, December 29, 1890, the military ordered all Indian weapons to be relinquished and burned. A medicine man advocated armed resistance telling the other Indians that their Ghost Dance shirts were bulletproof.

A shot was fired by an unidentified gunman.

On the frozen plains at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation, government troops opened fire on the mostly unarmed Lakota people, and massacred 290 Sioux men, women and children, including many trying to flee, in a matter of minutes. Thirty-three soldiers died, most from friendly fire, 20 Medals of Honor were presented to surviving soldiers.

In a 2009 handbook, for example, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users "do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications."

Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, government officials only need a subpoena, issued without a judge's approval, to demand that an Internet company turn over emails that have been opened or that are more than 180 days old.

tunnelcat wrote:The ONLY good thing going for it.