All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're confusing and conflating 'non-initiation of force' with 'responsive self defense'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Molesting a child psychologically alters a child for life. Many adult molesters are in fact victims of child molestation. Killing that molester seems entirely appropriate since he has murdered that child's normal future.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A law that is not Constitutional is a nullity. Thus any law that portends to eliminate or restrict any human's natural right to self defense and the means necessary for that right is null and void.

    The sooner we all learn that and apply it in our lives, the sooner we all live in a safer world.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that the discussion of "rights" is misleading. Often today rights are understood as something given by the state; this is dangerous because that which is given by a manmade entity can also be rescinded. I would simply state that I MAY defend my life, if I so choose. Rights have nothing to do with it. Rights, frankly, are only that which the state should give you or not, depending on appropriated judicial principles and social conduct beneficial to individuals. For instance, means of transportation and laws ruling the conduct thereof, etc.... Concerning individual freedoms, rights do not come into play.

    This is the lie the state has foisted upon a beguiled and inept public who is more interested in entertainment than the ability to think. Even the Founding Fathers knew that certain rights had to be spelled out because there would be folks who would need to have them written down somewhere so they would not be forgotten; however, these "rights" are not given, they simple exist, regardless of the state. The state forgets, so easily and conveniently, that it exists because individuals allow it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Justice should never be meeted out based on emotion, but only by Truth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I appears there may be confusion as to what I meant here.

    I meant that the death penalty is RIGHT, but not because it is a deterrent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by tdechaine 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To put it another way, it is not rational to take an action that is beyond what reason dictates is reasonable. E.g. killing when punching the guy out and calling the police.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by tdechaine 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Emotions are automatic response to values; some of the responses show emotions that are not in line with rational values.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    this is getting creepy. Self defense is not murder. Advocating that people be empowered in their self defense is a good thing. Killing a rapist attacking you is a GOOD thing.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivists also believe the reason that decides is your own. Apparently you draw the line of reason differently than most.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    People are emotional, you can try and deny it all you like, but that is delusional.

    Just as delusional as people that claim men and women are not physically different and can perform the same physical feats, no matter what.

    That position denies both basic biology and real world experience just about anyone can point to.

    People can try to be perfectly logical and rational when the situation is not active in front of them.

    When the situation is active and in front of you and the stress and adrenaline kicks in nobody is debating morality, you are reacting to a situation. Indecision at that point likely means you are the next victim.

    If they are killed on the other hand, they will have no more victims, and maybe any previous ones will have fewer nightmares.

    The law does condone the use of force, including deadly force, against someone committing a crime. Deadly force can become problematical depending on circumstances. But if you kill a child molester that you catch in the act, odds of winding up in jail are not terribly large. It is after all, Justifiable Homicide in most jurisdictions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "...think is doing harm..." Not what said. He wasn't referring to maybe/maybe not scenarios.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Who EVER feels like shooting someone? Even when it's the right and just and moral thing to do? Make some sense please.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo