Pacifism isn’t declining to use violence for on the spot vengeance, it’s declining to use violence for any reason. Vengeance still isn’t legal, though in the Molotov scenario you can probably lie your way out of an arrest.
1 Like
Right. What role do these people think that prisons play for the most part in American society if not vengeance? Please don’t say lol rehabilitation
I’m fine with retribution, after the perp has had his day in court. We try to discourage people from settling scores themselves with good reason.
The research is already done. Just study Krav Maga. That’s basically exactly what it is.
I guess the question was if you were on a jury would you send the shooter to prison?
It sounds like that’s a no, based on the fact that you say the shooting is not justified.
I don’t understand how you reconcile that with some of the other stuff you said. Didn’t you say somewhere above that if someone starts acting in an aggressive way towards you, then they don’t get to decide the magnitude of your response. I’m paraphrasing, but I think it was something like that. So how does that thinking lead to unjustified in this case?
I would have expected you to say, that the victim threatened to take the shooter’s gun and then actually grabbed at it. Then shooter shot him in response. Nothing wrong with that, good shoot. That’s what I thought you would have said based on your past posts. So it’s a bit puzzling that, according to you, this shoot is no good for some reason.
KM is ancient garbage. Better to just learn situational awareness or how to avoid conflict than poking someone in the eye or grabbing their nuts. If that all fails, just shoot the poor bastard.
I don’t really have any strong feelings about Krav Maga. It just seemed like NBZ was trying to re-invent the wheel, so I wanted to save him some time. I have no idea if it is actually a worthwhile pursuit.
I decided to comment because I remember taking a MA class that discussed KM when I was pretty young and the instructor didn’t seem too keen on in, iirc. It was teached as a defense technique when you’re basically getting your ass beat. But this was for a younger audience. The only info that I felt was helpful was learning how to avoid conflict and then to de escalate. Then poke em in the eye.
From what I saw, I would. There never seemed to be an imminent threat of serious bodily harm making the shooting unjustified imo
Why would it sound like a no? Well over 50% of the thoughts people try to put in my head around here are wrong
The guy was there for his kids arguing with his ex over times. He presumably had a right to be there doing that. The short dude seemed the bigger antagonist. He came out of the house aggressively. You also can’t trespass someone without giving them ample time to leave
That was definitely the dicey part, but again I never saw an imminent threat. If you’re going to try and disarm someone you gotta do a better job than that. Maybe the bigger guy thought the gun was unloaded or was convinced the little dude wouldn’t really shoot him? I don’t know, but he definitely wasn’t taking the situation seriously enough. Also, the shooter quickly regained control of his weapon neutralizing whatever threat there was
Maybe what you’re missing about my position on defense (of which guns just happen to be one aspect of), is that I favor the non-aggressor. The one who’s just going about his business and gets fucked with. And I’ll usually side against the person who goes out of their way and inserts themselves into someone else’s business. You can argue that’s what Rittenhouse did, but the reality is he had a right to be there just as the protesters did and some of them were armed as well. I didn’t see too much hand wringing on here about them though
So you think prisons should serve as institutions for retribution? I think that’s precisely one of the things wrong with our judicial system. They should be designed for rehabilitation for all but the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world imo.
A case could be made that they should receive even less attention so as not to encourage copycats.
It’s just so much easier today than when you were in school for an already unstable kid to just lose his shit. I think the pressures of social media may have a lot to do with it. I feel lucky that I didn’t get all wrapped up in social media mainly because my parents kept us too busy to have much time for it. I sometimes wonder if maybe the parents of these disturbed kids should be charged. It’s easy to feel sorry for them and say how could they have known, but shouldn’t they?
First of all, it’s not that ancient. And second of all, 
That was a typo on my part. I should have said sounds like a “yes”. Sorry about that.
Look at how outraged Unstuckers get when Republicans get away with crimes and the consequent and undermining of society in the LOL Law thread. It’s important.
It feels like you are not applying this standard the same way in both cases.
Rittenhouse is running around with his gun at a protest and he is “just going about his business and gets fucked with”
In the Lubbock shooting, there is a guy who is on his own property, telling someone to leave, then gets his gun, and tells him to leave again. But that guy is not “just going about his business”.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that you see the shooter as a criminal in the Lubbock case. But it really doesn’t seem consistent with your prior posting.
It also feels like what you’re doing is looking at the shooting, deciding who was in the right, and then retroactively applying the aggressor label to which ever party was in the wrong.
It’s great that you identify the shooter as the aggressor here, but it would have surprised no one if you saw the tape and decided that the victim was the aggressor since he was asked to leave, got in the shooters face, and grabbed for the gun.
This part also sounds weird coming from you. Are you saying the shooter should have just kept allowing the victim to keep grabbing at the gun until he did a “better job” (but not good enough to actually get it) and only then shoot? Because that also sounds at odds with your many posts on this subject.
I try to be consistent until the point of absurdity and then I have to back down. So I appreciate you trying to point them out…
It’s not like he just showed up to some random dude’s house. He was there to pick up his kids, which is a perfectly valid reason
That’s because they only key in on the parts that trigger them and gloss over the rest. They want to think there’s no such thing as responsible gun ownership and that anyone who is prepared to use one is some raving lunatic
I’m saying the father was never a threat. To the point that it was hard for me to believe he was even for real. The other guy easily regained control of his weapon and I just couldn’t see any good reason to open fire. And yes, much of my “opinion” stems from the fact that he was supposed to be there and didn’t do anything that warranted having a gun pulled on him
But what I really don’t get is why I’m so seriously engaged on here. Why spend so much time chasing the opinions of people who aren’t that bright?
So much of the political change in our country over the last 5 years has been driven by people who aren’t that bright. Gaining a better understanding of how they think might help me make sense of it all.
I do a lot of things to this end. For example, I spend way too much time browsing Chiefsplanet.
2 Likes
You should probably change your calculus for assessing who’s bright and not. Independent thinkers willing to break from the pack are rarely the dim bulbs. It’s a huge mistake to confuse someone like myself with a Republican, a Trump supporter, or a drooling MSM consuming Democrat
This is a misconception. Smart people often break from the pack because they approach things with genuine curiosity and they look for reliable data to form opinions. When you do that, you will often find new information that challenges old orthodoxies.
But the converse is not true. The total set of people that break from the pack is mostly made up of people that are simply ignorant. Because they don’t know anything about where the conventional view comes from, they create uninformed oppositional narratives that have no basis in reality.
There is nothing inherently smarter about opposing the “mainstream”. You have to do the actual work of breaking down orthodoxies with real evidence. Don’t kid yourself, the vast majority of independent thinkers don’t do this.
19 Likes
The vast majority of people I see trying to think outside the box should stop. The box is there to protect them from their own stupidity. Most ‘independent thinkers’ particularly people who define themselves as ‘independent thinkers’ are actually just morons who want to be able to redefine reality any way it suits them personally.
7 Likes