I agree completely, but you need to understand cardinally, what the fundamental essence of the constructs of the ideas of ownership and theft are, which I’ve outlined twice I believe, in this thread.
If ownership is arbitrary - thus, it is whatever a ruling class stipulates, then theft is arbitrary. I, as the ruler, can simply tell you what ownership is, so I can take from you, say you didn’t own it, then declare that what I did is not theft. The state already does this universally throughout the world today in the form of taxation.
But that is a semantics problem, not an ideas problem. Theft and ownership remain only what they CAN be logically, not what someone arbitrarily thinks they are. You cannot own that in which is stolen and you cannot steal that in which you own. To own, you require two fundamental criteria: Desire to own, and that you have not engaged in any actions of which violated the will of another within a logical order of operations as pertaining to that thing.
Theft is any act of which violates the will of another as it pertains to property.
In short, if I desire to own a thing nobody else desires, I own it. If you come along and want it and I do not want to give it to you, you have to rob me in order to get it. There is no alternative. Saying you deserve it more because of X, Y, or Z is irrelevant. Even if I own 10,000 years of food for example and you’re starving, this does not mean to stole your food and you’re just taking it back.
So if you’re going to make a claim of theft, you have to be able to both support it logically, AND support it with evidence. For example, how is Walmart stealing from you? Because it won’t give you the deal you want if you were to seek consensual employment? That isn’t theft.
If I have food and I want $100 for it and you want me to give it to you for $10 I’m not robbing you. You don’t get my property without my consent. I have to either agree to gift it to you, sell/trade it to you, or throw it away so I no longer want it whereas you claim it after. Anything other means of which you obtain exclusive authority over my property is theft.
What if we know a famine is coming and so I create a food stand and sell burgers at $5 a burger to everyone and 1 billion people buy a burger from me when they could have bought something else to eat pre-famine. Now I’ve made 5 billion dollars (we’re going to greatly simplify this thought experiment) and I buy up tons of food.
How did I obtain all of that food? Well, 1 billion people consented to a trade with me for burgers in exchange for money. So now what if those people all get together and say, we want you to give us 50% of your food!
Well, why the hell did you all consent to $5 a burger then? You could have literally negotiated it at $2.50 a burger and then saved the other $2.50, couldn’t you? Or why didn’t you all buy $1.00 salads at the other shop instead and save up the remaining $4.00? Do you understand that to demand what I have now is to simply say you consented to $5 then decided to show back up with a mob and threaten me unless I sold it for $2.50? And what if I wouldn’t have consented to $2.50 so I stopped selling burgers and went out of business? Then everyone could have just got that $1 salad instead and saved that money for future food.
So now we’re in a famine and people are without food and I’m to blame because I have food? I need to give everyone back because everyone changed their mind due to future circumstances?
And hell, I would personally be more than happy to help GOOD people in need, but how do I know who’s good? Would you feed the child rapist if you had the food? Would you let them into your home and feed them? Or just expect someone else to do all of that for you and assume you’re playing your part because you vote and get taxed?
So some people don’t deserve your food even if you have an abundance, do they? And what if I let someone into my home and they don’t just take what I offer, but they try to take all of it? What if they try to kill me and my family? Should I trust the next person who comes by asking for food? If a mob shows up at my door with pitchforks and demands - the same ones who CONSENTED to pay me for my burgers before, do I just open my doors happily?
You’re simplifying a hugely complex construct. Life isn’t as simple as this and people aren’t as trustworthy as this. I’d see all rapists and murderers dead. The ONLY reason I am actually NOT in favor of the death penalty is because I do not want a single innocent person murdered for something they did not do. If we had an unequivocal way of knowing rapists and murderers committed the acts, I would say immediate death penalty for each and every one without question.
Not all human life has the same value. We all know this and we all live this way, we just don’t want to think about it and certainly don’t want to talk about it in public because it’s not the politically correct thing to talk about.
And that would be your choice, but then what? Do you let them share a bed with your child? Or do you even have limits? Do you detain them and cage them after? Do you just let them go free? What if it was your child they raped?
Rehabilitation for individuals who have committed sexual offenses reduce those sexual reoffending (recidivism) by roughly 35% compared to not receiving treatment.
So if there are 100 rapes, your method will reduce that down to 65. Removing that person from society completely reduces it by 100%.
Also, in the case of someone who will not stop unless immediately put down, there is no alternative choice.
Even having this conversation with you is really disturbing. I’m guessing you don’t have children of your own? I have an infant daughter, for example, and if I ever saw a man on her trying to do something that horrific, why on earth would you think that my impulse should be to just assume I can stop him and she won’t be violated or even killed? How do I know that he won’t win in a strength contest with me and keep going, or even do worse after that point? How do I know what his ultimate motives even are? How do I know his end-goal isn’t to kill me and my whole family? How do I know if he has a gun, or a knife? All I know is there’s a man trying to rape my daughter. I don’t have the time to ask 20 questions and I don’t know what he’s doing or what he’s capable of, or who he even is!
The ONLY rational answer is to kill the man, if at all possible. The fact that he broke into my home and is attempting to assault my child is all the information needed to make the single most rational choice a father could make.
If you’re not a parent and your take is you think you can toss this person around and hope your child, yourself, and/or your family won’t be violated or murdered, then please for the love of god don’t have children, I beg you.
But this is only your opinion, not an objective fact of life.
Do ALL humans deserve food and water? What about child rapists? And if you say yes even to that, what about child rapists who are not incarcerated? Does the child rapist who is currently raping a child right now deserve life? If you had a gun and you were there to stop it and you couldn’t stop it without the gun, would you kill that rapist?
I hope so, and if so, then what you’re declaring there is that you DO have limits on who deserves what and it has nothing to do with being human and everything to do with what KIND of human you are. We all do this all the time, but most people haven’t given it any level of high-end thought, so it defaults to this generic idea of “human life has value”, which is nonsense.
SOME human life has value. Did Hitler’s life have value? Did it when he was 1 years old? How about 10? 20? Pre Nazi Germany? Post? Where’s the line? When does he stop being deserving of life? You know the answer, or at the very least you’re likely not so stubborn or stupid to think you don’t have some idea.
And therein lies the rub. You’re saying that you - the wise and just ruler - will take from me - the sinister and selfish barbarian - because you see me as such as see yourself as ordained to make decisions you believe me incapable of making. This just makes you an unjust and unethical tyrant.
You are entitled to NOTHING from me unless I agree, and therein lies your fundamental problem in this argument. You are not all wise and understanding of all that which is just and moral. You are a human, possibly not even as moral or educated as I am. For all we know, YOU are the barbarian in this conversation but your ego will refute that until our last typed words.
Being able to accept that you do NOT have all the answers and that other people are NOT the barbarians so long as they don’t do as your worldview pervades is a step closer to understanding how to live an actually just and moral life. There are other ways to see and live a human life and one of those does not intrinsically have to be that other people value what you value in the manner in which you value them.
I can see for instance, my life’s work as having more value than the life of a rapist. But it’s just work. But it’s also my life. So we’re comparing the fruits of one life to the fruits of another. Maybe my life’s work is a cure for cancer, or maybe it’s just a new alternator for a Toyota. It isn’t for you to choose how I value - my property can hold more value than a human life if I want it to, because it’s MY value.
And you’re free to disagree with me, and so be it! So give up your money and feed and water whomever you like. I will do the same, and maybe I’ll feed more than you will, or less, but the bottom line is you do not have the right to tell me what is valuable and what isn’t. That notion is nonsensical, not to mention irrational.
Human life is not negotiable and debatable. That is it. Humans deserve to live. “My property is worth more than human life” is not a respectable opinion.
The life of a child rapist has no value - that is my opinion.
There is no such thing as an objective value of human life. The mere notion that you could believe that a child rapist’s life has value is not a respectable opinion to me either, and neither of us are ordained by some god to be the wiser here in what is a respectable opinion.
Did Hitler’s life have value? How much value, exactly? If killing him would save the lives of others, did his life have less value? If so, then you’re already agreeing that you have a measurement for human value. What about Hitler at 1 years old? 10 years? After he became the Nazi dictator? So Hitler’s life has different value levels depending on his choices? Would you kill someone else if it was the only way to save the life of your child or significant other? If so, then you are also enacting a relative and arbitrary structure of human value onto others. My guess is you already do this but wouldn’t admit it here because it would nullify your previous statement there, which would make you feel foolish.
So you value the way you want to value and I will value the way I want to value. And if you try to stop me from killing a child rapist who enters my home I will kill you for being evil and trying to stop me from protecting my family from evil, because in my view, that renders you too, as evil.
But I’m not about to go seek you out for your values. I would only use violence to protect myself, my family, or the innocent. As a good person, I believe I should not be made to suffer the existence of a rapist or murderer. Goodliness and weakness are not an intrinsic combination.
Also, gods don’t exist, so if your argument is related to some kind of god-being, just know I am **always **going to throw your argument out the window.
Which life has more value? Hitler, or your child’s? If given the choice, would you have killed Hitler to stop what he did?
Would you kill a child rapist to stop them from raping a child? What if it was the only way to stop them?
You’re stuck. If you say you Hitler has the same value, you wouldn’t have killed him, you wouldn’t kill the child rapist, etc., then you’re either deluded, trolling, stupid, or evil, but if you agree you would then you’re admitting that human value is not only subjective, but that you yourself personally and wholly understand that all human life has not only subjective value and relative value, but also kills your statement entirely.
But what if it is? What if they look you in the eye and tell you that unless you kill them, they will go do it again and again and again? What if people tried to stop him and he killed them and did it again? How much of a risk do we take until someone simply puts him down? Your use of absolutes makes you look incredibly naive.
Hitlers life had the same value during his entire lifetime. I would shoot to disable (for the child rapist question) and yes, a child rapist deserves life and rehabilitation
You dodged because you’re not stupid enough to not understand the ramifications against your ego.
You will either dodge entirely, or make some other quandary up like, “there’s always a non-violent way”. Which is false. Sometimes the only way to stop someone from committing an atrocity is to kill them.
What would you have done in the case of some of these school shootings if you were there and armed? Would you just try and talk to the shooter, who is probably undergoing some level of psychosis, who while you’re talking, is currently murdering children? Or do you shoot them to save lives?
If you cannot answer that question and do it honestly, just admit that. Don’t give me some spiel here about how you would find a way to win over their heart and get them to not kill kids. If that is truly your outlook then you are delusional. It’s that simple.
Life is messy and would always continue to be so. If someone breaks into your home you have a lot of choices to make and suddenly, and you might not have enough time to make them. If the person who breaks in has a gun and intent to murder you and your family, you could be the only thing that could stop that, so do you try to take them out in a non-lethal manner, potentially understanding that if they kill you your whole family is going to die next? If you’re armed, do you hesitate and ask questions? Are you confident enough that this person isn’t a legal threat to you and your family? How can you know, after all? And if you do hesitate, for how long? What do you do and say, exactly? Remember, you might only have 3 seconds left before you’re murdered and then your entire family is subsequently murdered, so take all the time you need.
Here’s the thing though. You broke into my home and I don’t know you. You broke into my home. All I know about you thus far is that you - for one reason or another - are willing to disregard a very pivotal aspect of the overarching trusting society. This is my castle in my own kingdom and I the ruler of that kingdom. It is my responsibility to first and foremost, protect those under my care. I MUST protect my family first and you, a distant second. I don’t necessarily have time to ask questions, or try alternative methods of detainment that may not work. I own firearms and have gone shooting many times. There is a reason why both military and police are trained to shoot in the torso - leg/arm shots are to difficult even on a non-moving target, and even if you DO succeed with such a shot, it guarantees nothing. I could shoot an assailant in the leg and they could still have full mobility in that leg, or they now shoot me with the gun they were holding, then move on to murder 4 other people, 3 being children.
The notion that you bring up shooting to disable tells me you don’t own a firearm and have possibly never even fired one. This is a children’s fairytale. With lives on the line with someone who broke into your home you can’t rely on a sentiment so childish. Tasers don’t even work on everyone, nor does pepper spray. People have been murdered after being tased. Here is a excerpt from the New Haven Register:
Several high-profile cases involve violent suspects or murderers who were completely unaffected by police Tasers. According to data and law enforcement field reviews, Tasers fail to incapacitate a target roughly 40% of the time.
With respect, homosapien, you seem super naive to the world. How old are you and where are you from? I ask that ironically understanding you are not likely to tell the truth to those questions.
I agree completely, but you need to understand cardinally, what the fundamental essence of the constructs of the ideas of ownership and theft are, which I’ve outlined twice I believe, in this thread.
If ownership is arbitrary - thus, it is whatever a ruling class stipulates, then theft is arbitrary. I, as the ruler, can simply tell you what ownership is, so I can take from you, say you didn’t own it, then declare that what I did is not theft. The state already does this universally throughout the world today in the form of taxation.
But that is a semantics problem, not an ideas problem. Theft and ownership remain only what they CAN be logically, not what someone arbitrarily thinks they are. You cannot own that in which is stolen and you cannot steal that in which you own. To own, you require two fundamental criteria: Desire to own, and that you have not engaged in any actions of which violated the will of another within a logical order of operations as pertaining to that thing.
Theft is any act of which violates the will of another as it pertains to property.
In short, if I desire to own a thing nobody else desires, I own it. If you come along and want it and I do not want to give it to you, you have to rob me in order to get it. There is no alternative. Saying you deserve it more because of X, Y, or Z is irrelevant. Even if I own 10,000 years of food for example and you’re starving, this does not mean to stole your food and you’re just taking it back.
So if you’re going to make a claim of theft, you have to be able to both support it logically, AND support it with evidence. For example, how is Walmart stealing from you? Because it won’t give you the deal you want if you were to seek consensual employment? That isn’t theft.
If I have food and I want $100 for it and you want me to give it to you for $10 I’m not robbing you. You don’t get my property without my consent. I have to either agree to gift it to you, sell/trade it to you, or throw it away so I no longer want it whereas you claim it after. Anything other means of which you obtain exclusive authority over my property is theft.
if you hoarde 10,000 years of food whilst everyone else is starving, …
But what’s the situation here?
What if we know a famine is coming and so I create a food stand and sell burgers at $5 a burger to everyone and 1 billion people buy a burger from me when they could have bought something else to eat pre-famine. Now I’ve made 5 billion dollars (we’re going to greatly simplify this thought experiment) and I buy up tons of food.
How did I obtain all of that food? Well, 1 billion people consented to a trade with me for burgers in exchange for money. So now what if those people all get together and say, we want you to give us 50% of your food!
Well, why the hell did you all consent to $5 a burger then? You could have literally negotiated it at $2.50 a burger and then saved the other $2.50, couldn’t you? Or why didn’t you all buy $1.00 salads at the other shop instead and save up the remaining $4.00? Do you understand that to demand what I have now is to simply say you consented to $5 then decided to show back up with a mob and threaten me unless I sold it for $2.50? And what if I wouldn’t have consented to $2.50 so I stopped selling burgers and went out of business? Then everyone could have just got that $1 salad instead and saved that money for future food.
So now we’re in a famine and people are without food and I’m to blame because I have food? I need to give everyone back because everyone changed their mind due to future circumstances?
And hell, I would personally be more than happy to help GOOD people in need, but how do I know who’s good? Would you feed the child rapist if you had the food? Would you let them into your home and feed them? Or just expect someone else to do all of that for you and assume you’re playing your part because you vote and get taxed?
So some people don’t deserve your food even if you have an abundance, do they? And what if I let someone into my home and they don’t just take what I offer, but they try to take all of it? What if they try to kill me and my family? Should I trust the next person who comes by asking for food? If a mob shows up at my door with pitchforks and demands - the same ones who CONSENTED to pay me for my burgers before, do I just open my doors happily?
You’re simplifying a hugely complex construct. Life isn’t as simple as this and people aren’t as trustworthy as this. I’d see all rapists and murderers dead. The ONLY reason I am actually NOT in favor of the death penalty is because I do not want a single innocent person murdered for something they did not do. If we had an unequivocal way of knowing rapists and murderers committed the acts, I would say immediate death penalty for each and every one without question.
Not all human life has the same value. We all know this and we all live this way, we just don’t want to think about it and certainly don’t want to talk about it in public because it’s not the politically correct thing to talk about.
I would feed the child rapist
And that would be your choice, but then what? Do you let them share a bed with your child? Or do you even have limits? Do you detain them and cage them after? Do you just let them go free? What if it was your child they raped?
rehabilitation
Let’s use some real life data.
Rehabilitation for individuals who have committed sexual offenses reduce those sexual reoffending (recidivism) by roughly 35% compared to not receiving treatment.
So if there are 100 rapes, your method will reduce that down to 65. Removing that person from society completely reduces it by 100%.
Also, in the case of someone who will not stop unless immediately put down, there is no alternative choice.
Even having this conversation with you is really disturbing. I’m guessing you don’t have children of your own? I have an infant daughter, for example, and if I ever saw a man on her trying to do something that horrific, why on earth would you think that my impulse should be to just assume I can stop him and she won’t be violated or even killed? How do I know that he won’t win in a strength contest with me and keep going, or even do worse after that point? How do I know what his ultimate motives even are? How do I know his end-goal isn’t to kill me and my whole family? How do I know if he has a gun, or a knife? All I know is there’s a man trying to rape my daughter. I don’t have the time to ask 20 questions and I don’t know what he’s doing or what he’s capable of, or who he even is!
The ONLY rational answer is to kill the man, if at all possible. The fact that he broke into my home and is attempting to assault my child is all the information needed to make the single most rational choice a father could make.
If you’re not a parent and your take is you think you can toss this person around and hope your child, yourself, and/or your family won’t be violated or murdered, then please for the love of god don’t have children, I beg you.
the burgeoise steal billions of dollars a year in wage theft. All humans deserve food and water.
But this is only your opinion, not an objective fact of life.
Do ALL humans deserve food and water? What about child rapists? And if you say yes even to that, what about child rapists who are not incarcerated? Does the child rapist who is currently raping a child right now deserve life? If you had a gun and you were there to stop it and you couldn’t stop it without the gun, would you kill that rapist?
I hope so, and if so, then what you’re declaring there is that you DO have limits on who deserves what and it has nothing to do with being human and everything to do with what KIND of human you are. We all do this all the time, but most people haven’t given it any level of high-end thought, so it defaults to this generic idea of “human life has value”, which is nonsense.
SOME human life has value. Did Hitler’s life have value? Did it when he was 1 years old? How about 10? 20? Pre Nazi Germany? Post? Where’s the line? When does he stop being deserving of life? You know the answer, or at the very least you’re likely not so stubborn or stupid to think you don’t have some idea.
And therein lies the rub. You’re saying that you - the wise and just ruler - will take from me - the sinister and selfish barbarian - because you see me as such as see yourself as ordained to make decisions you believe me incapable of making. This just makes you an unjust and unethical tyrant.
You are entitled to NOTHING from me unless I agree, and therein lies your fundamental problem in this argument. You are not all wise and understanding of all that which is just and moral. You are a human, possibly not even as moral or educated as I am. For all we know, YOU are the barbarian in this conversation but your ego will refute that until our last typed words.
Being able to accept that you do NOT have all the answers and that other people are NOT the barbarians so long as they don’t do as your worldview pervades is a step closer to understanding how to live an actually just and moral life. There are other ways to see and live a human life and one of those does not intrinsically have to be that other people value what you value in the manner in which you value them.
I can see for instance, my life’s work as having more value than the life of a rapist. But it’s just work. But it’s also my life. So we’re comparing the fruits of one life to the fruits of another. Maybe my life’s work is a cure for cancer, or maybe it’s just a new alternator for a Toyota. It isn’t for you to choose how I value - my property can hold more value than a human life if I want it to, because it’s MY value.
And you’re free to disagree with me, and so be it! So give up your money and feed and water whomever you like. I will do the same, and maybe I’ll feed more than you will, or less, but the bottom line is you do not have the right to tell me what is valuable and what isn’t. That notion is nonsensical, not to mention irrational.
Human life is not negotiable and debatable. That is it. Humans deserve to live. “My property is worth more than human life” is not a respectable opinion.
That’s your opinion.
The life of a child rapist has no value - that is my opinion.
There is no such thing as an objective value of human life. The mere notion that you could believe that a child rapist’s life has value is not a respectable opinion to me either, and neither of us are ordained by some god to be the wiser here in what is a respectable opinion.
Did Hitler’s life have value? How much value, exactly? If killing him would save the lives of others, did his life have less value? If so, then you’re already agreeing that you have a measurement for human value. What about Hitler at 1 years old? 10 years? After he became the Nazi dictator? So Hitler’s life has different value levels depending on his choices? Would you kill someone else if it was the only way to save the life of your child or significant other? If so, then you are also enacting a relative and arbitrary structure of human value onto others. My guess is you already do this but wouldn’t admit it here because it would nullify your previous statement there, which would make you feel foolish.
So you value the way you want to value and I will value the way I want to value. And if you try to stop me from killing a child rapist who enters my home I will kill you for being evil and trying to stop me from protecting my family from evil, because in my view, that renders you too, as evil.
But I’m not about to go seek you out for your values. I would only use violence to protect myself, my family, or the innocent. As a good person, I believe I should not be made to suffer the existence of a rapist or murderer. Goodliness and weakness are not an intrinsic combination.
Also, gods don’t exist, so if your argument is related to some kind of god-being, just know I am **always **going to throw your argument out the window.
Human life is NOT an opinion. that is objective. It is NEVER debatable nor SUBJECTIVE.
Except that it is, and you are patently wrong.
Which life has more value? Hitler, or your child’s? If given the choice, would you have killed Hitler to stop what he did?
Would you kill a child rapist to stop them from raping a child? What if it was the only way to stop them?
You’re stuck. If you say you Hitler has the same value, you wouldn’t have killed him, you wouldn’t kill the child rapist, etc., then you’re either deluded, trolling, stupid, or evil, but if you agree you would then you’re admitting that human value is not only subjective, but that you yourself personally and wholly understand that all human life has not only subjective value and relative value, but also kills your statement entirely.
Neither
I wouldn’t have killed him, more like non-lethal options
Killing them is NEVER the only way to stop them
But what if it is? What if they look you in the eye and tell you that unless you kill them, they will go do it again and again and again? What if people tried to stop him and he killed them and did it again? How much of a risk do we take until someone simply puts him down? Your use of absolutes makes you look incredibly naive.
So much western propaganda here I can smell the LSD
No propaganda at all. I am anti-government.
you think you are
Correct.
Hitlers life had the same value during his entire lifetime. I would shoot to disable (for the child rapist question) and yes, a child rapist deserves life and rehabilitation
You didn’t answer my questions though.
You dodged because you’re not stupid enough to not understand the ramifications against your ego.
You will either dodge entirely, or make some other quandary up like, “there’s always a non-violent way”. Which is false. Sometimes the only way to stop someone from committing an atrocity is to kill them.
What would you have done in the case of some of these school shootings if you were there and armed? Would you just try and talk to the shooter, who is probably undergoing some level of psychosis, who while you’re talking, is currently murdering children? Or do you shoot them to save lives?
If you cannot answer that question and do it honestly, just admit that. Don’t give me some spiel here about how you would find a way to win over their heart and get them to not kill kids. If that is truly your outlook then you are delusional. It’s that simple.
“if you believe in rehabiliation you are delusional” truthsocial vibes
Rehabilitation of rapists prevents 35% of reoccurring events. Incarceration/death prevents 100%.
deleted by creator
Non Lethal options:
Shoot to Disable
Tase
Pepper spray
Etc
Here’s the thing though. You broke into my home and I don’t know you. You broke into my home. All I know about you thus far is that you - for one reason or another - are willing to disregard a very pivotal aspect of the overarching trusting society. This is my castle in my own kingdom and I the ruler of that kingdom. It is my responsibility to first and foremost, protect those under my care. I MUST protect my family first and you, a distant second. I don’t necessarily have time to ask questions, or try alternative methods of detainment that may not work. I own firearms and have gone shooting many times. There is a reason why both military and police are trained to shoot in the torso - leg/arm shots are to difficult even on a non-moving target, and even if you DO succeed with such a shot, it guarantees nothing. I could shoot an assailant in the leg and they could still have full mobility in that leg, or they now shoot me with the gun they were holding, then move on to murder 4 other people, 3 being children.
The notion that you bring up shooting to disable tells me you don’t own a firearm and have possibly never even fired one. This is a children’s fairytale. With lives on the line with someone who broke into your home you can’t rely on a sentiment so childish. Tasers don’t even work on everyone, nor does pepper spray. People have been murdered after being tased. Here is a excerpt from the New Haven Register:
With respect, homosapien, you seem super naive to the world. How old are you and where are you from? I ask that ironically understanding you are not likely to tell the truth to those questions.