You can dissect anything you want until it is unrecognizable then put it back together again into something different. THAT is what you are trying to do here.Bubbalo wrote:
You don't seem to understand, lowing, that relying on implications is something that cannot be done by an organisation like the UN. Wording must be clear and unambiguous. Further, that fact that you accept the meaning of self defense to be something doesn't mean you aren't using it incorrectly (a perfect example here would be the term "irony/ic").lowing wrote:
IMPLIED is the key word here bubbalo. We all know what the accepted meaning of self defense is, and yours is not in the realm of reality, or acceptance by anyone else, except for maybe jonsimon, but that is nothing to be proud of
Poll
Self Defense (Not Gun Related), Do you think self defense is valid?
| Yes | 95% | 95% - 246 | ||||
| No | 4% | 4% - 11 | ||||
| Total: 257 | ||||||
1Marriage and self-defense are still sort of a mismatch for comparison, unless you want to joke about domestic violence.Bubbalo wrote:
That the definition of a term under US law doesn't make it the correct definition.1unnamednewbie13 wrote:
They're unrelated issues, so what's your point?I have never said that.2unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If you don't want to strike back at anyone attacking you, then that's your choice.And I agree with that.3unnamednewbie13 wrote:
However, I happen to value my own hide more than that of some jerk about to deface it.And, as has been said before, nobody here is arguing for that. We are simply saying that whilst self defense is perfectly acceptable, it is not a right like the right to life or freedom.4unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It still boggles my mind that anyone would be for legislation against the innocent who wish to defend themselves and their kin from the tender attentions of violent criminals.
2Nor did I say that you said that specifically. But would you strike back if you didn't have a specific right to do so? Do you think it just to imprison those who defend themselves when they had no choice (other than allowing themselves to be injured and killed with no objection)? And just to add another interesting question, should a criminal attempt to charge their intended victim with injuries inflicted (to said criminal) by an act of self defense? Or, on a more irrelevant note, injuries sustained by contact with inanimate environment independent of, say, a victim's direct influence (ex., falling through a skylight, impale self on kitchen knives)?
3Cleared. That's what I get for coming in on the ass end of an argument.
4You can't exactly say that someone has a right to life and freedom and then say that self-defense is not a similar right. For example, how are they to preserve their right to life if they have no right to do so?
[edit]
*cough*Bubbalo wrote:
Do you even read what you type to check it for typos, or grammar errors...
Not everybody's innocent on that account, bubbalo.
[/edit]
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-01 06:20:11)
Collins Compact Australian Dictionary wrote:
self-defence or US self-defense
n1 the act or skill of defending oneself against physical attack. 2 the act of defending one's actions, ideas, or rights.
That is now three dictionary definitions, lowing. I'm kind of confused: I make my argument based on the actualy meaning of the word, and yet somehow I'm dissecting something then putting it back together again? What did I dissect? Do you even read what you type to check it for typos, or grammar errors, or, y'know, making sense?Chambers Family Dictionary wrote:
self-defence the act of defending one's person own person, rights &c.
Not when the subject is "things which have a meaning under US law which isn't necessarily their actualy meaning".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Marriage and self-defense are still sort of a mismatch for comparison, unless you want to joke about domestic violence.
If they were impinging upon my rights a specific right would not be required: rather, I would be justified in doing so due to the right they were impinging upon.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Nor did I say that you said that specifically. But would you strike back if you didn't have a specific right to do so?
Did you skip the part where I said that no-one was saying that (except, of course, where excessive force is used, but that's irrelevant since there are limits to rights anyway)?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Do you think it just to imprison those who defend themselves when they had no choice (other than allowing themselves to be injured and killed with no objection)? And just to add another interesting question, should a criminal attempt to charge their intended victim with injuries inflicted (to said criminal) by an act of self defense? Or, on a more irrelevant note, injuries sustained by contact with inanimate environment independent of, say, a victim's direct influence
Did that actually happen, or is it an urban myth?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
(ex., falling through a skylight, impale self on kitchen knives)?
Well, I wouldn't expect you to wade through six pages of crap just to avoid a simple and easily correctable mistake like that (just to clarify, not being sarcastic, it really would be a waste of time given that there was no harm done).unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Cleared. That's what I get for coming in on the ass end of an argument.
Because by having that right they are given the ability to defend it. If they weren't, there wouldn't be much point to have rights anyone? Instead, there'd be right to self defence in cases a, b, c etc, covering life being threatened, freedom being taken away, etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You can't exactly say that someone has a right to life and freedom and then say that self-defense is not a similar right. For example, how are they to preserve their right to life if they have no right to do so?
The point was the making sense bit at the end, typos happen all the time.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
[edit]*cough*Bubbalo wrote:
Do you even read what you type to check it for typos, or grammar errors...
Not everybody's innocent on that account, bubbalo.
[/edit]
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-01-01 06:24:16)
---mincemeat cluster of quotes wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Not when the subject is "things which have a meaning under US law which isn't necessarily their actualy meaning".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Marriage and self-defense are still sort of a mismatch for comparison, unless you want to joke about domestic violence.But since dictionaries have been brought up in this thread,Bubbalo wrote:
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right2. What's your point?marriage
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.1Then it was a misunderstanding, if I misread (2) as an attack against the acceptability of self-defense. I've had multiple discussions with those who were completely from the impotent "turn the other cheek" camp.Bubbalo wrote:
If they were impinging upon my rights a specific right would not be required: rather, I would be justified in doing so due to the right they were impinging upon.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Nor did I say that you said that specifically. But would you strike back if you didn't have a specific right to do so?1Bubbalo wrote:
Did you skip the part where I said that no-one was saying that (except, of course, where excessive force is used, but that's irrelevant since there are limits to rights anyway)?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Do you think it just to imprison those who defend themselves when they had no choice (other than allowing themselves to be injured and killed with no objection)? And just to add another interesting question, should a criminal attempt to charge their intended victim with injuries inflicted (to said criminal) by an act of self defense? Or, on a more irrelevant note, injuries sustained by contact with inanimate environment independent of, say, a victim's direct influenceConsider it a hypothetical question.Bubbalo wrote:
Did that actually happen, or is it an urban myth?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
(ex., falling through a skylight, impale self on kitchen knives)?1, also:Bubbalo wrote:
Because by having that right they are given the ability to defend it. If they weren't, there wouldn't be much point to have rights anyone? Instead, there'd be right to self defence in cases a, b, c etc, covering life being threatened, freedom being taken away, etc.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
You can't exactly say that someone has a right to life and freedom and then say that self-defense is not a similar right. For example, how are they to preserve their right to life if they have no right to do so?
I'm still left scratching my head a little though. According to what I'm reading here, you're (mostly2) for self-defense, and lowing is for self-defense...I wonder what the object of this argument is about? I'll guess that the answer is buried within some six-odd pages of vague dispute that I'm unwilling to search through.
On second thought, scratch some of the above. Without reading anything, I'm going to assume that lowing supports unrestrained self-defense up to killing for any violent offense against his person (I could be incorrect), and that you're for using minimum force in matters of self-defense (I'm fairly sure that I'm correct). Personally, I'm for restraint when at all possible and wise. I'm not a combat expert, so I couldn't afford to play around.
Too tired and too lazy to update this post now that I've written it. New Years fireworks have been making my ears ring.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-01 06:51:49)
No, the difference is that considers this another example of the evil UN trying to make it easier for the Muslim super-villains to kill him, whereas as I'm pointing out that whilst they don't consider self-defence a right, per se, they do consider it acceptable.
As for my part in your post, add to it not just me but my family. If someone breaks into my house with so much as a toothpick, you had better kill me with it, for I will surely kill you without moments hesitation to bubbalo's bullshit as to whether or not I have a "right" to do so.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
---mincemeat cluster of quotes wrote:
Bubbalo wrote:
Not when the subject is "things which have a meaning under US law which isn't necessarily their actualy meaning".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Marriage and self-defense are still sort of a mismatch for comparison, unless you want to joke about domestic violence.But since dictionaries have been brought up in this thread,Bubbalo wrote:
And the legal definition of marriage doesn't include gays, that doesn't make it right2. What's your point?marriage
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.1Then it was a misunderstanding, if I misread (2) as an attack against the acceptability of self-defense. I've had multiple discussions with those who were completely from the impotent "turn the other cheek" camp.Bubbalo wrote:
If they were impinging upon my rights a specific right would not be required: rather, I would be justified in doing so due to the right they were impinging upon.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Nor did I say that you said that specifically. But would you strike back if you didn't have a specific right to do so?1Bubbalo wrote:
Did you skip the part where I said that no-one was saying that (except, of course, where excessive force is used, but that's irrelevant since there are limits to rights anyway)?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Do you think it just to imprison those who defend themselves when they had no choice (other than allowing themselves to be injured and killed with no objection)? And just to add another interesting question, should a criminal attempt to charge their intended victim with injuries inflicted (to said criminal) by an act of self defense? Or, on a more irrelevant note, injuries sustained by contact with inanimate environment independent of, say, a victim's direct influenceConsider it a hypothetical question.Bubbalo wrote:
Did that actually happen, or is it an urban myth?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
(ex., falling through a skylight, impale self on kitchen knives)?1, also:Bubbalo wrote:
Because by having that right they are given the ability to defend it. If they weren't, there wouldn't be much point to have rights anyone? Instead, there'd be right to self defence in cases a, b, c etc, covering life being threatened, freedom being taken away, etc.
I'm still left scratching my head a little though. According to what I'm reading here, you're (mostly2) for self-defense, and lowing is for self-defense...I wonder what the object of this argument is about? I'll guess that the answer is buried within some six-odd pages of vague dispute that I'm unwilling to search through.
On second thought, scratch some of the above. Without reading anything, I'm going to assume that lowing supports unrestrained self-defense up to killing for any violent offense against his person (I could be incorrect), and that you're for using minimum force in matters of self-defense (I'm fairly sure that I'm correct). Personally, I'm for restraint when at all possible and wise. I'm not a combat expert, so I couldn't afford to play around.
Too tired and too lazy to update this post now that I've written it. New Years fireworks have been making my ears ring.
Bubbalo, I am wondering if you were ever put in a scenario (a real life one) where you had to defend yourself. It is a serious question and if the answer is yes, I'm curious as to how you handled the situation.
Malloy must go
They can't consider self defense as "acceptable" since a criminal fighting the cops is not "acceptable". Therefore YOU are talking about 2 different things. Hense a criminal fighting the cops, IS NOT SELF DEFENSE!!!Bubbalo wrote:
No, the difference is that considers this another example of the evil UN trying to make it easier for the Muslim super-villains to kill him, whereas as I'm pointing out that whilst they don't consider self-defence a right, per se, they do consider it acceptable.
Whatever you want to call it, just know if you break into my house you better kill me first.
Last edited by lowing (2007-01-01 09:47:46)
All those who voted for "no" here are pretty easy kills.
Of course it's difficult to tell where actual self-defence becomes unnecessary aggression, but every human being should have the right to fight, when death would be the initial consequence of surrender.
Of course it's difficult to tell where actual self-defence becomes unnecessary aggression, but every human being should have the right to fight, when death would be the initial consequence of surrender.
Its pretty simple Bubbalo. I am given the right, at birth, to exist. If anyone fucks with that right, then they will cease to exist. A criminal is not given the right to plunder, rape, steal, etc. If they forfeit their right to act humane, they will be apprehended in a manner up to and including inhumanely. In other words: Dont act like an immature thug or Johnny Law will get you. Laws were established by people. The laws are upheld by people paid by other people. See my direction yet? Humans dont like other humans who are dickheads.
Malloy must go
Wrong, I will not get mamed or so much as a fat lip because some thug wants my wallet. I can honestly say that if you were to attempt harm on me or my family, and you are a serious enough threat to POTENTIALLY cause death. I will kill you where you stand.Stormscythe wrote:
All those who voted for "no" here are pretty easy kills.
Of course it's difficult to tell where actual self-defence becomes unnecessary aggression, but every human being should have the right to fight, when death would be the initial consequence of surrender.
Malloy must go
I think I've got it now. Lowing is actually a dog, and as such can only view things in black and white to matter how long you spend trying to help him. Apparently deeznutz is the same. Sorry about putting any effort into my arguments guys, it looks like it was a waste of time.
Black and white situations? Life or Death is applicable to a black and white situation if you ask me. People who wait around to explore the grey area in a life or death situation spill red. I dont need help viewing scenarios regarding my personal safety, especially from someone who gets an allowance.Bubbalo wrote:
I think I've got it now. Lowing is actually a dog, and as such can only view things in black and white to matter how long you spend trying to help him. Apparently deeznutz is the same. Sorry about putting any effort into my arguments guys, it looks like it was a waste of time.
Malloy must go
Bubbalo, am I a dog because you cannot argue this? Am I wrong because there is no flaw?deeznutz1245 wrote:
Its pretty simple Bubbalo. I am given the right, at birth, to exist. If anyone fucks with that right, then they will cease to exist. A criminal is not given the right to plunder, rape, steal, etc. If they forfeit their right to act humane, they will be apprehended in a manner up to and including inhumanely. In other words: Dont act like an immature thug or Johnny Law will get you. Laws were established by people. The laws are upheld by people paid by other people. See my direction yet? Humans dont like other humans who are dickheads.
Malloy must go
As in the fact that I do not consider self defense a right does not mean that I don't think you can engage in it.
WHICH I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED AD NAUSEUM
WHICH I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED AD NAUSEUM
Better don't visit a weapons exhibition with your family. ;-)deeznutz1245 wrote:
Wrong, I will not get mamed or so much as a fat lip because some thug wants my wallet. I can honestly say that if you were to attempt harm on me or my family, and you are a serious enough threat to POTENTIALLY cause death. I will kill you where you stand.Stormscythe wrote:
All those who voted for "no" here are pretty easy kills.
Of course it's difficult to tell where actual self-defence becomes unnecessary aggression, but every human being should have the right to fight, when death would be the initial consequence of surrender.
PS: If that on the pic in your sig there is you, I'm potentially a bigger danger to myself
Hhhmm. Well lets see a picture of you Bubbalo, Im sure you wont post it though. And there is no need to visit an arms show with my family. I have a nice little cache in my home.Stormscythe wrote:
Better don't visit a weapons exhibition with your family. ;-)deeznutz1245 wrote:
Wrong, I will not get mamed or so much as a fat lip because some thug wants my wallet. I can honestly say that if you were to attempt harm on me or my family, and you are a serious enough threat to POTENTIALLY cause death. I will kill you where you stand.Stormscythe wrote:
All those who voted for "no" here are pretty easy kills.
Of course it's difficult to tell where actual self-defence becomes unnecessary aggression, but every human being should have the right to fight, when death would be the initial consequence of surrender.
PS: If that on the pic in your sig there is you, I'm potentially a bigger danger to myself
Malloy must go
You are a twit.
and you Bubbalo, are a pussy.
Malloy must go
Bubbalo it's 4 AM where you're at, I think you need some bed rest.Bubbalo wrote:
You are a twit.
I see, you will not refute my post that shut you down on what you and the UN deemed "acceptable" and instead just call me a dog?? Tell ya what, refute my post instead, how 'bout that?Bubbalo wrote:
I think I've got it now. Lowing is actually a dog, and as such can only view things in black and white to matter how long you spend trying to help him. Apparently deeznutz is the same. Sorry about putting any effort into my arguments guys, it looks like it was a waste of time.
Happy New Year though!!deeznutz1245 wrote:
and you Bubbalo, are a pussy.
Malloy must go
I am a dog also.......lowing wrote:
I see, you will not refute my post that shut you down on what you and the UN deemed "acceptable" and instead just call me a dog?? Tell ya what, refute my post instead, how 'bout that?Bubbalo wrote:
I think I've got it now. Lowing is actually a dog, and as such can only view things in black and white to matter how long you spend trying to help him. Apparently deeznutz is the same. Sorry about putting any effort into my arguments guys, it looks like it was a waste of time.
A Devil Dog bitches!
Misunderstood and misunderstood.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Hhhmm. Well lets see a picture of you Bubbalo, Im sure you wont post it though. And there is no need to visit an arms show with my family. I have a nice little cache in my home.Stormscythe wrote:
Better don't visit a weapons exhibition with your family. ;-)
PS: If that on the pic in your sig there is you, I'm potentially a bigger danger to myself
Nvm, and a happy new year