4 ms·

No, it is not. It is in fact explicitly illegal to do a great many of things, even in defense of your own property.

by txcwpalpha 8y ago

weberc2 8y ago
It is. “Legal” != “moral”.
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  The very first sentence of your comment says "the law...". This is a discussion about the law, aka legal issues. Morality is not, and never was, in question. Stop moving the goalposts, it makes you look silly. And just for the hell of it, no, it is not categorically innocent even when talking about morals, either. Morality is, by definition, something that is personal to each person. Therefor there can be no such thing as "categorical innocence", as moral innocence will be different for each person.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    We’re debating the morality of the law. My comment is criticizing the law. You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct based on a legal definition of innocence (and probably also defense). And while each person may have their own opinion about morality, every society in the world has decided that theft is wrong enough to outlaw, so clearly morality isn’t purely subjective (certainly not by definition). Similarly, every society respects an individual’s right to defend themselves (note that “defense” here is defined as some minimal force required to confidently stop an aggressor thereby excluding things like executing an aggressor after he’s been subdued) so clearly this is moral as well. Please don’t accuse me of moving goal posts. It’s clear that I haven’t. If you can’t participate in good faith this conversation is over.
    - txcwpalpha 8y ago
      >You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct Find one place where I said that the law is morally correct. I'll save your trouble: you can't, because I never did so. So now not only are you moving the goalposts, but you're setting up a strawman. Nice. Two fallacies for the price of one. This conversation has been about the law and legal liability since the beginning. Nobody brought up morality until you did in your attempt to, yes, move the goalposts. It is very clear that you have done so, and it's absurd of you to accuse me of not participating in good faith, when you're doing all you can possibly do to avoid admitting that your argument is ridiculous.

No, it is not. It is in fact explicitly illegal to do a great many of things, even in defense of your own property.

weberc2 8y ago

It is. “Legal” != “moral”.

txcwpalpha 8y ago
The very first sentence of your comment says "the law...". This is a discussion about the law, aka legal issues. Morality is not, and never was, in question. Stop moving the goalposts, it makes you look silly. And just for the hell of it, no, it is not categorically innocent even when talking about morals, either. Morality is, by definition, something that is personal to each person. Therefor there can be no such thing as "categorical innocence", as moral innocence will be different for each person.
- weberc2 8y ago
  We’re debating the morality of the law. My comment is criticizing the law. You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct based on a legal definition of innocence (and probably also defense). And while each person may have their own opinion about morality, every society in the world has decided that theft is wrong enough to outlaw, so clearly morality isn’t purely subjective (certainly not by definition). Similarly, every society respects an individual’s right to defend themselves (note that “defense” here is defined as some minimal force required to confidently stop an aggressor thereby excluding things like executing an aggressor after he’s been subdued) so clearly this is moral as well. Please don’t accuse me of moving goal posts. It’s clear that I haven’t. If you can’t participate in good faith this conversation is over.
  - txcwpalpha 8y ago
    >You’re trying to argue that the law is morally correct Find one place where I said that the law is morally correct. I'll save your trouble: you can't, because I never did so. So now not only are you moving the goalposts, but you're setting up a strawman. Nice. Two fallacies for the price of one. This conversation has been about the law and legal liability since the beginning. Nobody brought up morality until you did in your attempt to, yes, move the goalposts. It is very clear that you have done so, and it's absurd of you to accuse me of not participating in good faith, when you're doing all you can possibly do to avoid admitting that your argument is ridiculous.