7 ms·

> First - why should I value life of someone who's actively robbing me? Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that killing someone for theft is a reasonable an

> First - why should I value life of someone who's actively robbing me? Jesus Christ. You're actually arguing that killing someone for theft is a reasonable and proportionate response? That is a dangerous and unhinged statement and I roundly condemn you for saying it.

shard972 5y ago
also is the law of the land, you being morally offended doesn't change that
Eelongate 5y ago
All you've done here is reiterate what he said and insult him for thinking it. That's not even remotely persuasive.
- quadrangle 5y ago
  The person above wasn't making a reasoned persuasive argument, they were making a moral assertion. The purpose wasn't to insult someone nor to convince them. It was just an expression of moral outrage.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    That's precisely what I pointed out.
    - pasquinelli 5y ago
      cool
    - quadrangle 5y ago
      Yes, but your comment reads as if you were giving feedback. Implication is that the intent was or should be persuasion, and you saying it's failing at that. Anyway, I don't think "I condemn you for X" is an insult of the normal sort where it's ad hominem, even though it would be better and less ad hominem as "I condemn the idea" (as opposed to the person).
      - andybak 5y ago
        Thank you. This is exactly correct. I was fully aware that I wasn't making a persuasive argument and it wasn't intended to be one. I wanted to emphasise and reiterate what I believe is a widely held moral norm. The commenter I replied to seemed to unaware how far they had strayed beyond reasonable ethical statements. I don't think I could persuade them to change their position but I couldn't let that go unchallenged. Norms change one person at a time and speaking out is important.
- geofft 5y ago
  What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Why isn't morality axiomatic? Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying that a private citizen who catches a thief stealing their catalytic convertor can torture them slowly and painfully for weeks without actually killing them. You owe them no moral consideration, it's a deterrent, etc. Do you need someone to make a persuasive argument against the merits of that to realize that it's abhorrent?
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    > What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Morality is subjective. Here you are asserting that your personal morality is the "basic morality", without much in the way of supporting argument. > Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying [something that wasn't said] Strawmanning is not a persuasive line of argument either. I'll demonstrate this by doing it back to you (this will be unpersuasive, demonstrating my point): "If 'basic morality' dictates that you owe every person a moral consideration even if they are in the process of victimizing you, then by your logic it shouldn't be permitted to shoot somebody who's raping you" I sincerely doubt I've persuaded you with that strawman, and nor have you persuaded me with yours.
  - tonyarkles 5y ago
    If morality were axiomatic, then worldwide we would have a collective shared understanding of what is right or wrong, immutable over time. That’s clearly not the case.
    - pasquinelli 5y ago
      maybe not in every detail, but are the broad strokes really so varried?
      - naniwaduni 5y ago
        Yes.
      - deleted 5y ago
hnaccy 5y ago
A significant portion of our waking life is spent doing things to obtain property. When thieves steal it they are stealing spent life and possibly livelihood. I don't find it surprising that thieves face more gruesome punishments like hanging, cutting off hands, etc in places especially when there may be little recourse for the victims of theft and the theft represents a significant impact on their life. I think reasonable argument against such things is that it is too easy for people to mistakenly hurt a non-thief on accident. That's more convincing to me than simply saying property < life at all times. If I was poor and needed my vehicle to get to work everyday and you're stealing it then yes I would be willing to shoot you to stop you.
- redanddead 5y ago
  I've noticed this phenomenon grow over time and it piqued my curiosity: if the Muslim way is more representative of what Americans would like to live (ie. executing criminals), why do they vilify Muslims? I think I read recently that the Americans were praising the Taliban for beating their "weak" soldiers and being conservative I'm not trying to take away from your argument, just curious about this thing I've noticed over time
  - howdydoo 5y ago
    There is more than one American and they don't all think the same way.
  - esyir 5y ago
    So, I believe this is in part because of lax enforcement and the seeming ineffectiveness of the state with regard to property crime. The endgoal is low crime, that's what most people want. If the more humane methods fail, people are going to happily go along with more brutal methods. If the state is sufficiently derelict of it's duty, then you'll see vigilantism.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Many people in the US who admire the conservative aspects of Muslim religious law (as commonly perceived) also fear forced religious conversion or subjugation and believe that Muslims would like to apply their religious law in the US.
nice_byte 5y ago
I don't really see anything wrong with that statement. why should i value my material possessions less than the life of some crook i don't even know?
sgtnoodle 5y ago
You make it sound like everyone has complete knowledge of a thief's intent, and that the motivation for shooting them is retribution rather than self defense. If a thief breaks into someone else's home in the middle of the night, they should have a healthy fear of being shot to death. If the homeowner believes their life is in immediate danger, it seems to me like they are well within their moral and legal right to incapacitate the intruder with a firearm. There's no judgement involved, only reaction under fear of imminent violence. If the thief dies, it was due to their own poor decisions. Likewise, if the homeowner catches a thief jumping out of a window with their beanie baby collection, it would be unreasonable for the homeowner to take some shots at the thief just to try to injure them, and would probably be a chargeable felony. If the thief died, it would probably be deemed a homicide.
- perth 5y ago
  Ok but we're talking about people running away with cat converters being shot in the back here
  - sgtnoodle 5y ago
    Sure that's the original topic, but I thought this thread was relatively deep down a more general tangent. Regarding whether or not it's justified to shoot someone making off with an automotive part, I personally wouldn't consider that inherently just, but it depends on the details of the scenario. If the car was parked on the street, then definitely not. If the car was in a closed and locked garage and the thief broke in, then the owner caught them in the act while armed with a firearm and the thief did anything but lay down on the floor or dart out of the door, then shooting them is probably justified. If the car was jacked and taken to a chop shop with the owner's toddler in the back seat, then I personally would be fine with a "Liam Neeson" level of response. I think the earlier poster's question about the legality of defending property with force in Texas is interesting. I also think the subsequent poster's belief that society would benefit from more readily shooting criminals is a rational claim rather than an unhinged one, whether or not it's a good idea. It's certainly true that there would be less theft, whether it's because of deterrence or by the simple fact that thieves would tend to get shot. There's most certainly some complexity and nuance to appreciate there. Singapore canes people for overstaying their travel visas to discourage illegal immigration, and unsurprisingly it seems to be an effective deterrent.

shard972 5y ago

also is the law of the land, you being morally offended doesn't change that

Eelongate 5y ago

All you've done here is reiterate what he said and insult him for thinking it. That's not even remotely persuasive.

quadrangle 5y ago
The person above wasn't making a reasoned persuasive argument, they were making a moral assertion. The purpose wasn't to insult someone nor to convince them. It was just an expression of moral outrage.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  That's precisely what I pointed out.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    cool
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    Yes, but your comment reads as if you were giving feedback. Implication is that the intent was or should be persuasion, and you saying it's failing at that. Anyway, I don't think "I condemn you for X" is an insult of the normal sort where it's ad hominem, even though it would be better and less ad hominem as "I condemn the idea" (as opposed to the person).
    - andybak 5y ago
      Thank you. This is exactly correct. I was fully aware that I wasn't making a persuasive argument and it wasn't intended to be one. I wanted to emphasise and reiterate what I believe is a widely held moral norm. The commenter I replied to seemed to unaware how far they had strayed beyond reasonable ethical statements. I don't think I could persuade them to change their position but I couldn't let that go unchallenged. Norms change one person at a time and speaking out is important.
geofft 5y ago
What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Why isn't morality axiomatic? Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying that a private citizen who catches a thief stealing their catalytic convertor can torture them slowly and painfully for weeks without actually killing them. You owe them no moral consideration, it's a deterrent, etc. Do you need someone to make a persuasive argument against the merits of that to realize that it's abhorrent?
- Eelongate 5y ago
  > What, exactly, is the persuasive counterargument for basic morality? Morality is subjective. Here you are asserting that your personal morality is the "basic morality", without much in the way of supporting argument. > Let's put it this way - the argument above would also apply to saying [something that wasn't said] Strawmanning is not a persuasive line of argument either. I'll demonstrate this by doing it back to you (this will be unpersuasive, demonstrating my point): "If 'basic morality' dictates that you owe every person a moral consideration even if they are in the process of victimizing you, then by your logic it shouldn't be permitted to shoot somebody who's raping you" I sincerely doubt I've persuaded you with that strawman, and nor have you persuaded me with yours.
- tonyarkles 5y ago
  If morality were axiomatic, then worldwide we would have a collective shared understanding of what is right or wrong, immutable over time. That’s clearly not the case.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    maybe not in every detail, but are the broad strokes really so varried?
    - naniwaduni 5y ago
      Yes.
    - deleted 5y ago

hnaccy 5y ago

A significant portion of our waking life is spent doing things to obtain property. When thieves steal it they are stealing spent life and possibly livelihood. I don't find it surprising that thieves face more gruesome punishments like hanging, cutting off hands, etc in places especially when there may be little recourse for the victims of theft and the theft represents a significant impact on their life. I think reasonable argument against such things is that it is too easy for people to mistakenly hurt a non-thief on accident. That's more convincing to me than simply saying property < life at all times. If I was poor and needed my vehicle to get to work everyday and you're stealing it then yes I would be willing to shoot you to stop you.

redanddead 5y ago
I've noticed this phenomenon grow over time and it piqued my curiosity: if the Muslim way is more representative of what Americans would like to live (ie. executing criminals), why do they vilify Muslims? I think I read recently that the Americans were praising the Taliban for beating their "weak" soldiers and being conservative I'm not trying to take away from your argument, just curious about this thing I've noticed over time
- howdydoo 5y ago
  There is more than one American and they don't all think the same way.
- esyir 5y ago
  So, I believe this is in part because of lax enforcement and the seeming ineffectiveness of the state with regard to property crime. The endgoal is low crime, that's what most people want. If the more humane methods fail, people are going to happily go along with more brutal methods. If the state is sufficiently derelict of it's duty, then you'll see vigilantism.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Many people in the US who admire the conservative aspects of Muslim religious law (as commonly perceived) also fear forced religious conversion or subjugation and believe that Muslims would like to apply their religious law in the US.

nice_byte 5y ago

I don't really see anything wrong with that statement. why should i value my material possessions less than the life of some crook i don't even know?

sgtnoodle 5y ago

You make it sound like everyone has complete knowledge of a thief's intent, and that the motivation for shooting them is retribution rather than self defense. If a thief breaks into someone else's home in the middle of the night, they should have a healthy fear of being shot to death. If the homeowner believes their life is in immediate danger, it seems to me like they are well within their moral and legal right to incapacitate the intruder with a firearm. There's no judgement involved, only reaction under fear of imminent violence. If the thief dies, it was due to their own poor decisions. Likewise, if the homeowner catches a thief jumping out of a window with their beanie baby collection, it would be unreasonable for the homeowner to take some shots at the thief just to try to injure them, and would probably be a chargeable felony. If the thief died, it would probably be deemed a homicide.

perth 5y ago
Ok but we're talking about people running away with cat converters being shot in the back here
- sgtnoodle 5y ago
  Sure that's the original topic, but I thought this thread was relatively deep down a more general tangent. Regarding whether or not it's justified to shoot someone making off with an automotive part, I personally wouldn't consider that inherently just, but it depends on the details of the scenario. If the car was parked on the street, then definitely not. If the car was in a closed and locked garage and the thief broke in, then the owner caught them in the act while armed with a firearm and the thief did anything but lay down on the floor or dart out of the door, then shooting them is probably justified. If the car was jacked and taken to a chop shop with the owner's toddler in the back seat, then I personally would be fine with a "Liam Neeson" level of response. I think the earlier poster's question about the legality of defending property with force in Texas is interesting. I also think the subsequent poster's belief that society would benefit from more readily shooting criminals is a rational claim rather than an unhinged one, whether or not it's a good idea. It's certainly true that there would be less theft, whether it's because of deterrence or by the simple fact that thieves would tend to get shot. There's most certainly some complexity and nuance to appreciate there. Singapore canes people for overstaying their travel visas to discourage illegal immigration, and unsurprisingly it seems to be an effective deterrent.