User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 51

  1. #31
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    DRUNK INTJ POSTING.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    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,
    If you're considering rigths, their abuse is one of the most important topics. I just described an easy way to use your hypothetical proposal for an almost perfect murder.

    If by "This society would be a bit more ideal" you mean "This society would consist of good boys and girls", then, as Blairvoyant already mentioned, they wouldn't need the right to kill trespassers in the first place, since trespassing would be illegal, and no one would do that - for the same reason they wouldn't abuse the right to kill trespassers.

    I have no problem with hypothetical discussion, and I accepted your conditions. It's your call, if this is a society with members able to break a law, or if it's not.

  3. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CollisionCourse? View Post
    If you're considering rigths, their abuse is one of the most important topics. I just described an easy way to use your hypothetical proposal for an almost perfect murder.

    If by "This society would be a bit more ideal" you mean "This society would consist of good boys and girls", then, as Blairvoyant already mentioned, they wouldn't need the right to kill trespassers in the first place, since trespassing would be illegal, and no one would do that - for the same reason they wouldn't abuse the right to kill trespassers.

    I have no problem with hypothetical discussion, and I accepted your conditions. It's your call, if this is a society with members able to break a law, or if it's not.
    It seems to me that the question really isn't: "can we make a practical law that lets people kill tresspassers?" It's more like: "should people have an ethical right to kill others in defense of their rightful domain and property?" I don't think the intent was to have us design a society.



    That aside, I have a question of my own to present to the community, but first, let me delve into the background facts that set me on this course. Not terribly long ago, in the state of Iowa, a court ruling legalized same-sex marriage. As a result, same-sex couples from all over the country flocked to the state to be wed. This was a mostly symbolic gesture, as the marriage was null and void in their home states when they returned, however, they did it anyway. Why? Because they felt it was important to declare their devotion to one another and have it officially acknowledged. It gave them a sense of closure, if you will.

    So my question is this: should people be granted the right to express their beliefs and feelings and to have those views acknowledged by their peers? By acknowledgement, I mean for others to accept their views as valid without demeaning them as simply stupid or wrong. Granted no one can require another to see things this way... my question is, therefore, should they - not can we make them.

    [EDIT] -- To clarify, this is also not a question about same-sex marriage. That was the example that first came to my mind, but please consider this in terms of the general principle, rather than specific scenarios.

  4. #34

    Default

    Thanks, Rein, but I think you can hardly overlook practical effects, when you're evaluating ethicality of an action (or a right for an action). That's like if you witnessed a hit and run accident and considered the driver to be 'rather rude', bacause you would focus on his behavior alone and ignore the full impact it would have on the pedestrian. You can't just eliminate a part of the one side of the equation, especially if you're erasing the 'wrong parts', and then evaluate, if the whole thing is right or wrong. That's just manipulating the outcome.

    Every action has consequences and every right has implications. You can't just chop them off and act like it's a legitimate situation. If someone says "It's okay to walk on a road, when sidewalks are too crowded, because it's faster", then pointing out that "that's where the cars are" is not nitpicking. And if the answer is "there are no cars in that universe", well, then why are there roads? There is no point to build them. If they wouldn't be ever built, how can you evaluate if it's right to walk on them or not?

    Universe 1 - People are able to break a law

    I already described a problem I have with that in this universe. You would be able to just show a torn paper and tell cops to get that dead hooker out of your bathroom, and I think that the law allowing it would be ethically very wrong.

    Universe 2 - People are not able to break a law

    And now we're allowing people to defend against trespassers in an ideal world where trespassers don't exist. The law would have no effect whatsoever, and how would you ethically evaluate something, that has no good or bad consequences? You can say it's pointless, but you can't say if it's good or bad (unless of course, you look at it in a broader context, like "it's a bad law to solve the homelessness problem", or something). It's just allowing people to walk on roads that don't exist.

  5. #35
    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
    If people didn't abuse laws, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by CollisionCourse? View Post
    Thanks, Rein, but I think you can hardly overlook practical effects, when you're evaluating ethicality of an action (or a right for an action). That's like if you witnessed a hit and run accident and considered the driver to be 'rather rude', bacause you would focus on his behavior alone and ignore the full impact it would have on the pedestrian. You can't just eliminate a part of the one side of the equation, especially if you're erasing the 'wrong parts', and then evaluate, if the whole thing is right or wrong. That's just manipulating the outcome.

    Every action has consequences and every right has implications. You can't just chop them off and act like it's a legitimate situation. If someone says "It's okay to walk on a road, when sidewalks are too crowded, because it's faster", then pointing out that "that's where the cars are" is not nitpicking. And if the answer is "there are no cars in that universe", well, then why are there roads? There is no point to build them. If they wouldn't be ever built, how can you evaluate if it's right to walk on them or not?

    Universe 1 - People are able to break a law

    I already described a problem I have with that in this universe. You would be able to just show a torn paper and tell cops to get that dead hooker out of your bathroom, and I think that the law allowing it would be ethically very wrong.

    Universe 2 - People are not able to break a law

    And now we're allowing people to defend against trespassers in an ideal world where trespassers don't exist. The law would have no effect whatsoever, and how would you ethically evaluate something, that has no good or bad consequences? You can say it's pointless, but you can't say if it's good or bad (unless of course, you look at it in a broader context, like "it's a bad law to solve the homelessness problem", or something). It's just allowing people to walk on roads that don't exist.
    The both of you are saying near the same thing. Blair, with fewer words, props. Sorry for the late reply, exams.

    The specifications surrounding this situation, upon reflection, I can see to be more important. My thinking being rather straightforward in my head, perhaps [most likely] disregarding certain details that would prove useful for others to make their decision.

    The ideal would be that there were some sort of mechanism that would make it impossible to, or close enough that it be legal, that people could lie upon questioning. Note the society would have to be a bit more ideal, perhaps a few decades futuristically seen, but generally similar to the current circumstances. The mechanism would be some sort of lie detector, but a bit more accurate, enough, as earlier stated, to be legal. It wouldn't halt people using said rights to murder/abuse them, but it would prove a great concern in the long run, as they would be questioned by authorities, and if found guilty via the mechanism, would be further questioned. It would not be fail safe, as they could be lying for some other reason, but they would be put under severe limitations in society unless they said the truth of what had occurred. Probably, a law dictating circumstances to change a bit when involving homicide. Similar to exceptions of the law, for example when the President of the U.S. can order a state of emergency and violate any of the amendment rights, but more situation oriented and less severe with a smaller scale.

    Hope this clears a bit up.
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  6. #36
    Lasting_Pain
    Guest

    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?
    What if the bank actually owns your home and consider you to be trespassing. Do they have the right to kill you?

  7. #37
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    No, the right of another to live outweighs your right to personal privacy. (yeah but now I have to go think of all permutations to that f'ed up declaration)

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    EDIT-additional clarification

    To clarify on permission, we are under the assumption that people in extreme situations seeing smoke from your home, you have not left/entered/had activity in a while are exceptions. The idea is to argue why my opinion is wrong or right on the punishment to trespassers of ill intent. Also, this is me building upon a simple idea in my brain, finding what I feel is right. My views may build, but won't change i e switch.
    feel based upon values or logic?

    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.
    that is cool....I do this all the time.

  8. #38
    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 Lasting_Pain View Post
    What if the bank actually owns your home and consider you to be trespassing. Do they have the right to kill you?
    Uh, no. This is personal. Home owner as stated would be 1 person. It isn't even a possibility. If the home was owned by the bank, then they would not be possessing of property rights [the person living there if such were the case]. If the bank owned it, no one would be living there.
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  9. #39
    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 Orobas View Post
    feel based upon values or logic?
    Logic. Mixed with rationality.
    The Symbol of the King*The Absolute Does Not Exist*Kingship Will Bring Me Freedom
    5w4-4w5-1w9

  10. #40
    Lasting_Pain
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Liason View Post
    Uh, no. This is personal. Home owner as stated would be 1 person. It isn't even a possibility. If the home was owned by the bank, then they would not be possessing of property rights [the person living there if such were the case]. If the bank owned it, no one would be living there.
    oh, my bad, so this hypothetical person has fully paid for the hypothetical house.

    Which means this hypothetical man or woman has no hypothetical house note, mortgage payment, or any debt that is owed to a hypothetical bank.

    If this is the case yes this hypothetical man or woman can shoot this hypothetical intruder, but he or she must also be aware of the hypothetical consequences and the hypothetical guilt that may follow afterward.

    But if this hypothetically man does pay a hypothetical mortgage, house note, or what have you, then he or she is not the sole owner of the house and the bank which lent him or her the money can declare the hypothetical person as a trespasser and proceed to blow the hypothetical person away.

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