I hear you, but generally societies and the law have tried to introduce the concept of proportionality in these situations. I.e. the victim’s response can’t be wildly out of proportion to the harm they have experienced. If I cut you off in traffic and you shoot me in the head, hardly anybody thinks that is pro-social conduct.
3 Likes
Either might makes right or it doesn’t. The idea that someone spits on your shoe and you get to break their nose in response is ridiculous. Proportionate response isn’t a weird legal theory. This is how we ended up with the stand your ground rules. If you kill someone who is trespassing on your property you should be charged with murder. Let the prosecutor and defender figure out the exact degree but you should be doing some time. Again, the devil is in the details, if you fuck around, you should find out, but it shouldn’t be a life altering punishment.
I agree. But even proportional responses can quickly get out of hand. So you burn my house down and then I burn your house down and everyone starts burning each other’s houses down is not a society I’d want to live in either. I think it’s better to live under the notion that if you go around starting shit, someone may act disproportionately, so maybe just don’t start shit?
My value is that tribalism against MAGA is good and I invite everyone to share that value.
This is a bad way to choose your values because even if you defeat maga you still have to figure out how you’re going to govern afterwards.
To circle it back to the OP, it’s the primary flaw with the LOL Democrats. They don’t stand for anything besides being against Trump.
I’m again all Republicans, not just Trump.
I’m in favor changing the process so you don’t need a super-majority to pass things. I think the LOL Dems should join me on being pro-guillotine.
This sounds like a good problem to have.
1 Like
Libs should be bringing large guns to protests along with their signs. I haven’t seen one person holding an AK get pepper sprayed yet.
1 Like
This seems to be a bit of a strawman argument because it’s not like people that think you shouldn’t retaliate violently also think that people should “start shit”. I think you’ve made up a (honestly pretty conservative coded) idea that liberals actively want people to commit minor crimes because they don’t want people executed for those crimes.
1 Like
this seems like a fairly good definition of a police state. little panopticon of an environment.
That got dark fast. Also, drive better apparently.
Would the sign say:
THINK TWICE BEFORE
YOUR NEXT ACTION
?
1 Like
I don’t feel like I’m making anything up. Just saying that I don’t see anything inherently wrong with someone defending themselves or their property against attacks. And if their response is harsher than you think is appropriate then I guess it either sucks to be you or you shouldn’t have attacked them in th first place. You think that’s a conservative idea? Maybe. Never really thought about it in those terms
Now if you’re talking about just words, that’s an entirely different story. I know a guy who wasn’t out of jail a month before he went back in for putting a guy in the hospital for insulting his mother. He didn’t care because he was defending her honor (in his words). I think that’s dumb, but I guess we’re talking about subjective rather than objective morality here. What’s right for some, might not be right for others
LOL just read the lyrics. I always thought it was just about burglars and didn’t realize it was about the guy cheating with his girlfriend
Hmm. Maybe that is what I’m saying. While I definitely don’t believe in a police state, I do pretty much live by the rule that if I physically attack someone I don’t know or their property, I’m prepared for anything and will only blame myself if I get hurt. This pretty much keeps me from doing that
No, the conservative idea is where you are claiming that you disagree with “liberals”. It is not a general characteristic of “liberals” that they believe in proportionality of response. This is a belief that is held by almost everybody because your version of having each individual in each situation decide an appropriate punishment / response is a terrible idea. You yourself probably wouldn’t have it in the real world, you just keep bringing up imaginary hypotheticals where A “attacks” B and B has a free hand to do whatever he wants to A. In your mind B always deserves it, but that’s a gross oversimplification that divides the world into Good Guys and Bad Guys. This is very conservative coded.
In the before times, the FBI was a legal institution, so it uses strict legal definitions. “Violence” must be directed at a person.
Most people are not compiling statistics to categorize data like attacks on people, so they do not use these strict legal definitions.
If you see someone bashing a car in, you’re unlikely to warn anyone passing by that there’s an arsonist in the area, and will probably warn them that there’s someone acting violently and they should be wary.
FAFO for thee but not for me
That’s not what I said..
If you break into someone’s house with the only intention of stealing some belongings and you get shot dead, I am NOT saying you deserved to die! But I am saying it’s your fault that you’re dead. Now I suppose your loved ones (and prosecutors) could argue that you suffered a disproportionate response for your crime, but it won’t matter because.. Well you’ll still be dead and arguing proportionality seems kinda moot. Should’ve went to a movie
Who’s saying that?