User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 51

  1. #11
    The King Liason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oakysage View Post
    Well you see, it's quite hard to figure this one out on what we have to right to do or not. Because you see, my values and my logical side are fighting in my mind right now on what should be the case. One side says no on certain aspects where the other side agrees with you whole opinion on the matter.
    Isn't that what makes this sort of thing so fun?
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  2. #12
    Listening Oaky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    6,168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    Isn't that what makes this sort of thing so fun?
    Quite.

  3. #13
    The King Liason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oakysage View Post
    Quite.

    My logical views are much higher than my emotional views, thusly, they can easily condemn and shut them out. Although balance is often needed for most situations, I am not easily able to integrate my Feeling functions to my Te+Ni thought process.
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  4. #14
    Junior Member The Curator's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    In my opinion, if someone enters your home whilst not having permission to, you should be able to kill them. Regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, monetary or political status, or popularity[if they are famous or not]. I understand that the family could be throwing a surprise birthday party, but generally a member of the family is with the "surprised" member at the time. Someone could be coming home late, and accidents, though rare, do and have happened. Even so, it is common knowledge that certain aspects of societal doctrine must cater to the majority, as with many statistically supported facts.
    Argue/Agree/Acquiesce with/to me?
    To some extent, I agree on the basis of a person has the right to their own home and their own personal space, their domain as we do now in the States to some degree. I feel that the right to one's personal space is one of the fundamental rights of a person, we all need our space be it in the physical world in the form of a home or a room or in the mental in-materialistic plane, within our minds. I seem to be going off topic.

    However, we must still take into account what has been mentioned that some people may take the right of being able to just off somebody in their home because they are uninvited, there are SO many variables that can go into it. One resident of a house has someone over, another resident of the home arrives there, sees someone they don't know and well I don't have to elaborate on what could happen. Albeit those incidents could be rare and few and far in between, the likelihood of them happening is enough to make me question it. Also the wonderful media would BLOW it completely out of proportion when and if it did happen and make people think that it happens all the time and is a terrible atrocious law and sway their opinion because it would "make good tv".

    In my opinion, there needs to be some restrictions on the amount of power a person has in their own domain to protect the lives of others and of the person themselves. The least amount of Government involvement for the most benefit possible.
    "It is an easy thing to find a man who often, opens his mouth but rarely says anything. It is a difficult thing to find a man who rarely speaks but says volumes" - Unknown Author

    "A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave."
    - Mohandas Gandhi

    "Human Salvation lies in the hands of the creatively Maladjusted" - Martin Luther King Jr.

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    3

    Default

    In the US, some states have what are affectionately referred to as "Make My Day" ordinances. If I recall correctly, if you suspect that you, your property, or someone in your care is in imminent danger of being harmed or stolen - including tresspassers who stubbornly refuse to leave - you have the right to kill. In the real world, there's no requirement for a written agreement, as such would be rather impractical in everyday circumstances. Verbal permission to enter or assumed permission (leading someone into your home) is sufficient to grant safe passage, if you will.

    That being said, here's my opinion. Every person has the right to decide what happens to him- or herself and his or her property, unless that right is deferred to another through social contract, written or verbal, and not by some means revoked. Essentially, i agree with the above summary of laws. The reaction should be proportional to the threat, but it's sometimes hard to say what the threat really is. If someone can justify their fears, they can end the threat by any means within their power - defensive manslaughter notwistanding.

    Naturally, if you trust someone or see them as a non-threat, you won't kill them. You wouldn't have a valid justification and you'd have many other responses more proportionate to the situation. A right to kill, as Rain said, is not an obligation to kill. No one is commanding you to stab your wheelchair-bound grandmother in the eye if she wanders into your apartment looking for you. The right to do that should never be granted to anyone, even if you hate your grandmother and suspect that she'll annoy you... you still have the more proportional option of simply wheeling her out and locking the door.

    Basically, this right is ethically valid and correct, in my opinion, if it is used with care. It is not an excuse to lure your enemies into a trap and murder them. Murder is not a right. Defense is.

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    Alright. I'm Rain, let's hit this. I'm going to shoot out my opinion on a certain topic, and when I've exhausted it, I'll shoot out another. It's also perfectly fine to ask my opinion on another topic, and I'll respond, keeping in mind the topic of this subforum, I'm making this an ethical and logistical argument.

    In my opinion, if someone enters your home whilst not having permission to, you should be able to kill them. Regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity, religion, monetary or political status, or popularity[if they are famous or not]. I understand that the family could be throwing a surprise birthday party, but generally a member of the family is with the "surprised" member at the time. Someone could be coming home late, and accidents, though rare, do and have happened. Even so, it is common knowledge that certain aspects of societal doctrine must cater to the majority, as with many statistically supported facts.
    Argue/Agree/Acquiesce with/to me?
    First of all, I don't know what you mean by "should be able to kill them". I'm going to assume you're either referring to "should it be ethical?" or "should it be legal?" I'll respond to both.

    First, morality. It's hard to argue based on morality, because no matter how good your logic or your reasoning is, people are going to have different core beliefs. My core moral belief is a secular humanist stance -- the well-being and the happiness of people are the ends that morality serves. In this instance, I do not believe you have justified your stance that it is necessary to take someone's life solely based on unauthorized entry. Breaking into someone's home, while an infringement on the victim's rights to safety and property, is not a capital crime in and of itself. In my opinion, when someone breaks into your house, you should have the right to detain the criminal using the minimum enforcement necessary to execute the detainment. Yes, minimum enforcement may require lethal force. However, using any more force than what is required is a breach of the core ethics of humanism, and therefore, once you cross that line, you are breaching morality. You are no longer protecting yourself, you are carrying out an execution.

    Now, the legal side. If someone breaks into a person's home and is killed, the burden of proof should be on the side of the killed to prove that excessive force was used. If excessive force was used, then that's voluntary manslaughter, possibly murder.

  7. #17
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    No. This is a bad idea.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    No. This is a bad idea.
    Could we have you expand on that? We're interested in your opinion, but we'd like to understand it.

  9. #19
    The King Liason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Curator View Post
    However, we must still take into account what has been mentioned that some people may take the right of being able to just off somebody in their home because they are uninvited, there are SO many variables that can go into it. One resident of a house has someone over, another resident of the home arrives there, sees someone they don't know and well I don't have to elaborate on what could happen. Albeit those incidents could be rare and few and far in between, the likelihood of them happening is enough to make me question it.
    Once again, if you read a previous response, it is entirely hypothetical. This society would be a bit more ideal and rather not based upon any country's current societal foundation. Broader in order to enhance applicability to hypothetical implementation. Small picture, broad operation.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Curator View Post
    Also the wonderful media would BLOW it completely out of proportion when and if it did happen and make people think that it happens all the time and is a terrible atrocious law and sway their opinion because it would "make good tv".
    The media isn't a factor in such. It isn't to be considered the reaction of the public, but the true ethical choice that should be made legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Curator View Post
    In my opinion, there needs to be some restrictions on the amount of power a person has in their own domain to protect the lives of others and of the person themselves. The least amount of Government involvement for the most benefit possible.
    Anti-federalist you!
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  10. #20
    The King Liason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rein View Post
    Could we have you expand on that? We're interested in your opinion, but we'd like to understand it.
    I second this motion. Here here!
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] The role of argumentation in ENTPs
    By Udog in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 02:08 PM
  2. The Fruitlessness of Arguments
    By TickTock in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 04:11 PM
  3. [MBTItm] The merit of stuffed animals
    By nightning in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 10:49 AM
  4. Web 2.0 - the death of culture?
    By Langrenus in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 08:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO