• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Argument Of Rain

Kingfisher

full of love
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,685
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
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!


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?
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
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.

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.
 

CollisionCourse?

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
52
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

Liason

I'm more offensive in person!
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
185
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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,
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.
 

Liason

I'm more offensive in person!
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
185
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Liason

I'm more offensive in person!
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
185
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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 ^_^
 

CollisionCourse?

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
52
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

Rein

New member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
3
MBTI Type
ISFP
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.

:yes:

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.
 

CollisionCourse?

New member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
52
MBTI Type
INTP
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.
 

Liason

I'm more offensive in person!
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
185
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If people didn't abuse laws, we wouldn't need laws in the first place.

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.
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
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?
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
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)

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?

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.
 

Liason

I'm more offensive in person!
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
185
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
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.
 
Top