100 years ago today

[GenSeneca]

It's quite interesting that someone who keeps redefining terms until all meaning is lost...

Jeopardize and Violate are not synonyms, yet you use the two words as though they are interchangeable, when it suits you that is...

According to you, jeopardizing the rights of others is a violation of rights... Except when you think it's not.. And you explain this inconsistent application of the definitions by claiming that it's all some big "gray" area.

If the definitions are losing meaning somewhere, it's in your "gray" area.

All individuals have the same rights.

Then try using force against someone who is not using force against you and see what happens. You will not be able to claim self defense under such circumstances and that is the only right you have that allows you to use force against others.

I have no problem with someone being confronted when "jeopardizing" your rights, however, you cannot use force against them, or deprive them of their liberties, until they have initiated the use force against you. So pull over the public street racer and give him a warning, let him know his actions are putting others at risk and he is thereby putting himself at risk of losing his liberties but do not take liberty away from, or use force agaisnt, people who have not used force against anyone.

 

[PLC1]

Jeopardize and Violate are not synonyms, yet you use the two words as though they are interchangeable, when it suits you that is...

According to you, jeopardizing the rights of others is a violation of rights... Except when you think it's not.. And you explain this inconsistent application of the definitions by claiming that it's all some big "gray" area.

If the definitions are losing meaning somewhere, it's in your "gray" area.


Then try using force against someone who is not using force against you and see what happens. You will not be able to claim self defense under such circumstances and that is the only right you have that allows you to use force against others.

I have no problem with someone being confronted when "jeopardizing" your rights, however, you cannot use force against them, or deprive them of their liberties, until they have initiated the use force against you. So pull over the public street racer and give him a warning, let him know his actions are putting others at risk and he is thereby putting himself at risk of losing his liberties but do not take liberty away from, or use force agaisnt, people who have not used force against anyone.

Pull over the crazy street racer, fine him, impound his vehicle, and then give him a stern warning.

Jeopardize and violate are not synonyms, neither are force, force, and force as you've been using them.

I really don't care whether you or anyone else defines driving drunk, firing weapons in populated places, racing on public streets, rolling boulders down the hill, or any other idiotic thing people do as "using force" or not. Since we can't outlaw idiocy, the best we can do is to outlaw idiotic behavior that jeopardizes the rest of us.

And yes, there is a gray area. Every time you get behind the wheel, however careful you may be, there is some risk. That risk becomes unacceptable when you, or anyone else, starts to ignore common sense and the vehicle code. When that violation becomes egregious, then it is "black" in your black and white world.

Nothing is totally risk free. It is a matter of degree. Gray.

 

[GenSeneca]

Pull over the crazy street racer, fine him, impound his vehicle, and then give him a stern warning.

Jeopardize and violate are not synonyms, neither are force, force, and force as you've been using them.

I really don't care whether you or anyone else defines driving drunk, firing weapons in populated places, racing on public streets, rolling boulders down the hill, or any other idiotic thing people do as "using force" or not. Since we can't outlaw idiocy, the best we can do is to outlaw idiotic behavior that jeopardizes the rest of us.

And yes, there is a gray area. Every time you get behind the wheel, however careful you may be, there is some risk. That risk becomes unacceptable when you, or anyone else, starts to ignore common sense and the vehicle code. When that violation becomes egregious, then it is "black" in your black and white world.

Nothing is totally risk free. It is a matter of degree. Gray.

I ask again, what right of yours gives you the power to use force against an individual who has not used force against anyone?

 

[PLC1]

I ask again, what right of yours gives you the power to use force against an individual who has not used force against anyone?

Force, as you defined it, is needed for moving any object. The examples given are all of moving objects against the rest of us.

Since intent doesn't matter, moronic recklessness is using force against the rest of us, whether or not the person doing it intends us harm.

If you want to live in a society that gives street racers and such a "warning" and lets them keep doing what they're doing until they actually kill someone, then fine, do so. I prefer to have the right to reasonable safety.

 

[GenSeneca]

I prefer to have the right to reasonable safety.

Is this the answer to my question? This "right to reasonable safety" authorizes you to initiate the use of force against others?

 

[PLC1]

Is this the answer to my question? This "right to reasonable safety" authorizes you to initiate the use of force against others?

No, but it does authorize the peace officers, acting under the laws passed by the representatives that you and I have elected, to arrest idiots before their idiocy does violate our rights. If that requires them to move objects around, then they must use force. They can't very well stop them by mind power, after all.

 

[GenSeneca]

No, but it does authorize the peace officers...

Are "peace officers" individuals?

 

[PLC1]

Are "peace officers" individuals?

individuals we've hired to protect us from morons, among other things, yes.

 

[GenSeneca]

individuals we've hired to protect us from morons, among other things, yes.

Then I'd like to repeat what I said a few posts ago:

You are asserting that some individuals should have rights that other individuals do not while I believe that all individuals should have equal rights. ​

So it seems you believe we all have the "right to reasonable safety" but only certain individuals are permitted to actually exercise that "right", while the rest of us are not.

 

[PLC1]

Then I'd like to repeat what I said a few posts ago:

You are asserting that some individuals should have rights that other individuals do not while I believe that all individuals should have equal rights. ​

So it seems you believe we all have the "right to reasonable safety" but only certain individuals are permitted to actually exercise that "right", while the rest of us are not.

So, does that mean you want the ability to arrest people yourself, as opposed to calling 911 and letting the cops do it?

No, I'm not for vigilante justice, if that's what you're talking about.

 

[Pandora]

So, does that mean you want the ability to arrest people yourself, as opposed to calling 911 and letting the cops do it?

No, I'm not for vigilante justice, if that's what you're talking about.

What about a citizens arrest? There are times the police wont come in time.

 

[GenSeneca]

So, does that mean you want the ability to arrest people yourself, as opposed to calling 911 and letting the cops do it?

It means what I said it means; You believe some individuals should have rights that the rest of us do not have, or at least the rest of us are not allowed to exercise.

No, I'm not for vigilante justice, if that's what you're talking about.

You're the one claiming that certain individuals have a "right" to initiate the use of force against people who have not used force against anyone. I believe in our Right of Self Defense, which means I can only use force in response to someone using force against me.

The state is an extension of the individual, the only rights the state may exercise are the rights held by all individuals. Self Defense is a Right of all individuals, therefore the state may only use force against those who have initiated the use of force against others. Allowing certain individuals to exercise the "right of reasonable safety", which is not a right held in common with all other individuals, is nothing more than a legalized form of vigilante justice.

 

[PLC1]

It means what I said it means; You believe some individuals should have rights that the rest of us do not have, or at least the rest of us are not allowed to exercise.


You're the one claiming that certain individuals have a "right" to initiate the use of force against people who have not used force against anyone. I believe in our Right of Self Defense, which means I can only use force in response to someone using force against me.

The state is an extension of the individual, the only rights the state may exercise are the rights held by all individuals. Self Defense is a Right of all individuals, therefore the state may only use force against those who have initiated the use of force against others. Allowing certain individuals to exercise the "right of reasonable safety", which is not a right held in common with all other individuals, is nothing more than a legalized form of vigilante justice.

So, why have cops at all?

 

[GenSeneca]

So, why have cops at all?

For the same reason we should have a military, to act as the agents of our right of self defense - so the rest of us may go about our daily lives.

 

[PLC1]

For the same reason we should have a military, to act as the agents of our right of self defense - so the rest of us may go about our daily lives.

And, does the military have rights that the rest of us don't have, then?