User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 51

  1. #21
    Senior Member TopherRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    2w3 so/sx
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    Agreed.

  2. #22
    full of love Kingfisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    1,687

    Default

    hey Liason,
    i have seen 'trespassing law' a lot from the homeowners side-
    my dad ran people off several times with his shotgun when i was a kid. he DEFINITELY took shots, and once he hit a guy in the arm with stray shot.
    and i have run people off from my own apartments, not with a gun as a weapon because i am not into that, but i had deadly force on my mind every time, definitely.
    but i think trespassers law is a good thing, it's right that it takes the homeowners side, as a baseline.

    hey Liason, why did you say "i'm Rain"? just curious.
    my last name is Rain, for what it's worth!


    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?

  3. #23
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Alright, due to time constraints earlier today, I was unable to make a worthwhile contribution to this topic. Hopefully there is still some room for thought, and hopefully I won't be repeating someone elses statements.

    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 have multiple problems with this statement:

    a) How would the murder of an innocent, and naive person(s) be justifiable by any legal standard; this is nonsensical. To say that one has the right to murder because of apparent circumstance that may or may not be as you see it, is unjust, especially if one is murdered unjustly.

    b) I don't like this idea of, people having more or equal power over lives than the police, or a judicial system. This seems to me like a Judge Dredd mentality, placed into the hands of civilians. I don't want someone to legally be able to kill me because the majority of those someone(s) are stupid.

    This reminds me of those Wild West movies.

    c) Even if someone was breaking into your house, killing them would be an extreme and unecissary reaction, that is, if it was unecissary. It would only be justified if it was self-defense.

    Having said that, this reminds me of a case not to long ago, where man entered two other mens house illegally. Shortly after he had broken in, the two men returned home and promptly beat the burglers head in with, I think it was golf clubs. Those two men were sent to jail for murder.
    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...



  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    Only if said party refused to leave after you revoke permission, via destroying their written legal permission. In this idea, there would be two legal documents existing of written permission. A bit similar to the law where a woman can be topless[in some states], but cannot enter stores and such etc. Basically you must have documentation to enter a persons private abode. If the person granted permission's copy is destroyed, they must attain another, and if the person giving the permission :destroys/accidentily destroys: the copy then the permission is invalid likewise.
    If both parties have to own a copy of the permission in order to make the invited party (B) protected from being killed, then they are still at mercy of the inviting party (A), since there would be no way to prove, if B refused to leave or not, after A destroyed their own copy. If it would be A's intention to kill B, I bet they wouldn't record the conversation, right?

    Also, there's no way to prove that A intentionally murdered B, if they (A) destroy their copy AFTER killing B and before calling cops. And even if B's copy would be sufficient to claim a permitted entrance, A can always destroy B's copy after killing them and can potentially clear all evidence, that any kind of written permission existed in the first place.

  5. #25
    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 CollisionCourse? View Post
    If both parties have to own a copy of the permission in order to make the invited party (B) protected from being killed, then they are still at mercy of the inviting party (A), since there would be no way to prove, if B refused to leave or not, after A destroyed their own copy. If it would be A's intention to kill B, I bet they wouldn't record the conversation, right?

    Also, there's no way to prove that A intentionally murdered B, if they (A) destroy their copy AFTER killing B and before calling cops. And even if B's copy would be sufficient to claim a permitted entrance, A can always destroy B's copy after killing them and can potentially clear all evidence, that any kind of written permission existed in the first place.
    Alright. Let's go over this again. The situation is trying to find if one should have the right to kill trespassers[summarization]. It is not on how it would be abused and all the ways it could be. We are assuming that people would use it correctly. As I said with the curator,
    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    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.
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  6. #26
    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 Kingfisher View Post
    hey Liason,
    i have seen 'trespassing law' a lot from the homeowners side-
    my dad ran people off several times with his shotgun when i was a kid. he DEFINITELY took shots, and once he hit a guy in the arm with stray shot.
    and i have run people off from my own apartments, not with a gun as a weapon because i am not into that, but i had deadly force on my mind every time, definitely.
    but i think trespassers law is a good thing, it's right that it takes the homeowners side, as a baseline.

    hey Liason, why did you say "i'm Rain"? just curious.
    my last name is Rain, for what it's worth!
    My name is Rain. lol.
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  7. #27
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    We are assuming that people would use it correctly.

  8. #28
    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
    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.

    Preciseley ^_^
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  9. #29
    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 Blairvoyant View Post
    Whyever not?
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  10. #30
    Energizer Bunny Resonance's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    740

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    Whyever not?
    If people didn't abuse laws, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.

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