“I really mean what I said, if burglars don’t want to get shot, then they need to stop breaking in"

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.dailytribune.net/articles/2011/08/16/news/doc4e4a9f62218dc365505876.txt

"“As I said earlier, we do not intend to pursue any charges against the caretaker for his actions, because of the Texas Castle Law which allows an individual to protect his property or property he is responsible for against burglars,” said Ingram.

“Of course, once the suspects fired at the caretaker, he was also justified in shooting at them because he was acting in self-defense,” he said.

“One of the things I love about living in Texas is the Texas Castle Law,” Ingram said.

“I can guarantee you that if someone breaks into my house, I’m going to shoot him,” he said.

“I really mean what I said, if burglars don’t want to get shot, then they need to stop breaking into people’s homes,” said the Sheriff. "

Defense of life, defense of property. In Texas, all of this is A-OK, as it should be. Kudos to the caretaker for standing up to criminals, instead of running away.

[Lunabelle]

1. As a woman I can tell you this is only fair game.

You break in to the sanctuary of my home, I'm gonna kill you before I let you harm me. And just by breaking in I'm going to assume harmful intent.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

12. Refuse to be a victim...I applaud you.

[Lunabelle]

14. Thank you

Believe me, I oppose most guns and the stupid NRA etc..., but self defense happens. I;ll fucking gouge your eyes out with my thumbs if I don't have a gun. I'm gonna fight until there is no fight left in me. I am a fierce proud feminist!

[DWC]

77. From one fierce, proud human being to another

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

21. ah, I love the smell of ...

Oh, you know, when my words go poof. It's kind of amusing.

So let's do this again.

You break in to the sanctuary of my home, I'm gonna kill you before I let you harm me.
And just by breaking in I'm going to assume harmful intent.

Your words make me puke. Allow me to explain.

One does not kill another human being on the basis of an assumption. Not if one is civlized, not if one adheres to "liberal" values, integral to which is the overriding value placed on the lives of human beings.

And one is not permitted to kill another human being on the basis of an assumption in a modern, civilized society -- what one might call a "liberal democracy", a society that adheres to those liberal values.

You didn't say that you are prepared to use force to defend yourself. You said you are "gonna kill" someone who breaks into your home. The, uh, syntax is quite clear.

So there, you see, is my opinion, backed up by things like several decades of international consensus, international instruments, Eleanor Roosevelt, and stuff like that. Human beings have inherent worth and inalienable rights. And individuals who recognize those principles -- individuals who adhere to liberal values -- don't announce that they are prepared to kill someone on the basis of an assumption. They just don't. Eleanor Roosevelt wouldn't have.

http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm

We wanted as many nations as possible to accept the fact that men, for one reason or another, were born free and equal in dignity and rights, that they were endowed with reason and conscience, and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

We feminists will forgive her her archaic nouns and look at what she was saying. And it wasn't "I'm gonna kill you sucka."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. You do seem to enjoy it so...

You similarly reject the Castle Defense doctrine, though it too is not illiberal by nature.

The argument here is whether the presumption that someone breaking into an occupied dwelling intends to do the occupants harms is valid. We are not going to settle it here. The US is increasingly moving to Castle Defense and Stand Your Ground doctrines. However, it is still up to the individual as to what they choose to do before and while they are being the victim of violent crime.

To claim that those placing their lives and that of their loved ones above those of criminals are somehow not liberal or otherwise out of step is not true in the US. What goes on elsewhere is not particularly relevant, though my family came from Canada so I do give a shit about what happens in Canada.

You and I have both been crime victims. We have taken different courses about it since then. Today I still believe being prepared and helping others to be prepared to effectively resist violence is a very effective form of direct action. You clearly disagree.

[iverglas]

25. yes, happy hour, when we start slurring our words ...

the Castle Defense doctrine

The what, now?

You similarly reject the Castle Defense doctrine, though it too is not illiberal by nature.

I'll assume you are referring to the "castle doctrine" laws becoming prevalent in states of the US.

They are wholly contrary to liberal principles, since they allow the killing of human beings without justification -- not just without requiring justification, simply with anything resembling the justification that civilized societies have long required.

And they are contrary to some fundamental legal principles, in that they prohibit the authorities from rebutting the presumptions they contain, or even investigating the circumstances of an event once the presumption is triggered. They are, as they have been described by experts in the field in the US, and to paraphrase, a complete dog's breakfast, legally speaking.

The right to life out the window: murder with impunity in.

They are about as far from "liberal" as it is possible to get without actually decriminalizing cannibalism.

Do we really have to have this discussion once a week?


To claim that those placing their lives and that of their loved ones above those of criminals are somehow not liberal or otherwise out of step is not true in the US.

And if you find someone claiming that, you be sure to give them a good talking too.

God damn you're boring.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. You clearly have been enjoying happy hour...

I however, rarely imbibe.

You continue to mis-characterize Castle doctrine/Castle Defense doctrine. There is justification...the presence of people in the property being broken into. It does not legalize set guns or other booby traps. It allows investigation to verify the circumstances indeed meet the standards set out. The example often used is how to make sure it is not used to allow someone to shoot their ex, when they were invited over as a setup. It is not legalized murder by any means. It does indeed reverse some legal burdens. So far I have not seen that to be a problem.

Some legal "experts" in the US do indeed decry castle defense, others have welcomed it. The common knowledge about lawyers, get 3 in a room, you can get 5 opinions. More over, it is for the most part settled law. That some legal academics do not like it is in many ways moot.

We will have this discussion as often as you post your mis-statements, obfuscations, and snide comments. There is a Burke quote that covers the reason.

[iverglas]

30. listen, son, if you're going to make the allegation, back it up

They are wholly contrary to liberal principles, since they allow the killing of human beings without justification -- not just without requiring justification, simply with anything resembling the justification that civilized societies have long required.
There is justification...the presence of people in the property being broken into.

Did I say that a legislature could not permit anything it wanted?

The same legislatures that are making these laws could permit the killing of mothers-in-law on Friday when there is a full moon, as long as the proof is there that the person was a mother-in-law, the day was Friday, and the moon was full.

By the provisions of those laws, the killings would be justified.

There would still not be the JUSTIFICATION that civilized societies have long required if someone met those prerequisites and killed their mother-in-law.

What there would be is IMPUNITY. And IMPUNITY is what "castle doctrine" laws confer.


Some legal "experts" in the US do indeed decry castle defense, others have welcomed it. The common knowledge about lawyers, get 3 in a room, you can get 5 opinions.

Yeah? Find me one "expert" who has welcomed this garbage. Pandering politicians do not count.


More over, it is for the most part settled law. That some legal academics do not like it is in many ways moot.

Somebody smack me for discussing law with someone who doesn't have a clue. Do you even know what "settled law" means? It doesn't mean "whatever the legislature enacted last week".

What very much is settled law throughout the civilized world is that the killing of a human being (or any use of force against a human being; the killing fetish is actually not relevant) is not permissible unless it can be demonstrated that the person who used the force actually had a reasonable belief that it was necessary in order to defend against an assault and actually believed that they had no reasonable alternative. That's what is settled law.

And that's what your foul "castle doctrine" laws have ousted in the jurisdictions where they apply. The jury is still out on them, of course. Nothing much becomes settled law in the space of five years.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. Self defense and protection of the innocent are also liberal values

The real argument is over the presumption of eminent great bodily harm based on entering an occupied dwelling. The impunity is the same with prior approaches, it is the presumption that has changed and in some places the burden of proof.

Several profs at our ABA accredited law school have found castle defense a good thing, mostly because it eliminates the Monday morning quarterbacking and the differing way the standards were applied in different jurisdictions. There are others out there as well. One legal "expert" seems about as good as any other. As I understand it, no substantive challenges are underway to castle defense, and it is in fact expanding in the US. It seems pretty settled, at least by US civilian standards.

What the jury is out on is the long term impact of changing to castle defense from the other approaches. I am not expecting a radical change. It addresses a small and declining number of crimes and is generally a positive thing.

Truly settled laws go back to Sir Issac Newton or cover things like entropy.

The Burke quote still holds

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

Did you REALLY just claim that a criminal breaking in your home and you defending yourself is NOT

liberal?

[iverglas]

45. incoherence

Did you REALLY just claim that a criminal breaking in your home and you defending yourself is NOT liberal?

1. Actions are not really "liberal", or "purple", or "tasty". One bangs one's head.

Even if one could define an action as "liberal", one would have to demonstrate some liberal principle that it advanced, at least on balance. This involves examining the particular action. There are undoubtedly particular instances where giving money to the poor, say, would not be a "liberal" action.


2. Defending yourself against what?

You do see how the "against" part is kind of a necessary part of the equation, right?

Otherwise, we have that Cuban billboard problem: the billboard that was all over Havana one year when I visted, saying "emulación" with all the exclamation marks. I asked the local English teacher I was seeing what we were emulating. No, he said, it's just "emulation". I tried to explain how "emulate" is a transitive verb, and you have to emulate something (or someone), but I got nowhere.

So here we are, defending ourselves in a vacuum.

If someone breaks into your home and there actually are reasonable grounds to believe that you are about to suffer harm at their hands, well there you are, something/someone to defend yourself against. Unless and until, nope. One does not defend one's self in a vacuum.

Had I happened to come home while my house was being burglarized many years ago -- they did get in through an open window, but then used a sledgehammer they found conveniently stored in the front hall to get through the wall into the locked ground floor unit -- your pet "castle doctrine" laws would have allowed me to hit them over the head with said sledgehammer until they were dead. In point of fact, I know who they were (having become unwillingly acquainted with some of the local drug-dealing community), and I know that if I had surprised them going through my jewelery drawer, they would have hightailed it out the back door. I would have had nothing to defend myself against, but under your "castle doctrine" laws I could have simply cornered them and started bashing, rather than yell and wait.

No, don't be trying any tricks -- I am not saying that anyone who surprises a burglar in their home must yell and wait, or would not be justified in wielding the sledghammer. I am saying that in that case I would not have been defending myself, I would have been committing homicide with no excuse or justification, since I would have had no reasonable belief that I needed to use force to avert injury or death.

So there's the lesson for you.

Try to ask coherent questions, and you won't look like you are setting up a deception or like you don't know what you're talking about.


Of course, the real lesson you need to learn is: be honest in all you do. That, I think, is a liberal value.

You asked a "question" designed to make it look to third parties as if I had said something I have never said (or possibly to trip me up, and there's a lesson there too: you can't do it).

If you want to allege or insinuate that I said something: QUOTE ME.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Again you dance and obfuscate

Your comments about castle defense become less and less coherent. Ironic since it is something you accuse the poster of being.

[cleanhippie]

80. Well, it looks like you just continue to post more of the same.

[cleanhippie]

24. "And just by breaking in I'm going to assume harmful intent."

Uhm, yes.

Is that a trick question?

[Lunabelle]

34. By the time you question the intruder about their intent

You're already hogtied with a gag in your mouth and something even more unspeakable in your private area. Let me be clear, as a female on planet earth and a survivor of a violent relationship, If you break into my sanctuary I am assuming harmful intent. You're gonna die or I'm gonna die trying to gouge your eyes out.

[cleanhippie]

35. Funny thing is, the poster that disagrees with you claims to have gone through JUST THAT!!!!

:shrug:

[Lunabelle]

39. Well, then her reaction to violence is not up to me to decide.

I just have a very strong survivor's instinct. My favorite goddess is Kali-ma. She is both life giver and life taker. I believe that humans have a carnal nature. Maybe some loving and generous souls can rise above it, but I am not made of such stuff on this earth. I am more given to earthly pleasures. I like the dark. I like the edges.

[iverglas]

48. blah blah blah

I would have used force to defend myself had it become necessary (actually, I did at an earlier point in the incident, unsuccessfully). I chose the infinitely smarter option, smarter because it was a real option vs. the possibility of having another one, and escaped when I got the chance.

I was lucky to have the chance, a split-second window of opportunity. But I would have been very, very stupid not to take it and to have decided instead to exercise my righteous option of using force ... i.e. hoping I got the chance to use force ... and hoping it would work.

If somebody breaks into my home, or threatens my security or life in any other circumstance, that will still and always be my first choice if it is available to me. Get the fuck out of harm's way. I can't imagine that it would not be the first choice of anyone with the power of reason.

Nothing really to do with philosophy. Just plain, basic human reason. If one wants to avoid injury / save one's life, one does the thing most likely to achieve that end. If one has other goals or motivations that somehow outweigh the desire to save one's life, one might choose to do something else.

I prefer life to "the dark".

[iverglas]

46. whyever would you imagine such ridiculous scenarios?

By the time you question the intruder about their intent

Why on earth would you do that? I mean, in some situations, it might be a reasonable thing to do, like if the person looks like a Mormon missionary or something, or is a 10-yr-old child. But you say this as if someone expected you to do that. Why would you invent such silliness?

Let me be clear, as a female on planet earth and a survivor of a violent relationship, If you break into my sanctuary I am assuming harmful intent. You're gonna die or I'm gonna die trying to gouge your eyes out.

Did you actually think you hadn't been clear? It almost sounds as if you're getting pleasure out of these thoughts.

Since I've been perfectly clear in my response to that, I feel no need to repeat myself.



html fixed

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. "One does not kill another human being on the basis of an assumption."

There you go again making assumptions.

[iverglas]

67. "One does not kill another human being on the basis of an assumption. ...

... Not if one is civlized, not if one adheres to "liberal" values, integral to which is the overriding value placed on the lives of human beings.

As actually spoken by moi.

Spoken by you in, well, reply is too strong a word:
"There you go again making assumptions."

There you go again, misrepresenting for whatever reason was in your head at which I will not presume to guess, and ending up with total incoherency anyway.

My statement could have been read as normative or descriptive, but it does look more descriptive.

So it's an assertion of fact. No assumption there, my love.

You can try (or pretend) to refute the statement if you like.

But posting burble really doesn't enhance anyone's life.



html fixed

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. re: No assumption there, my love.

Well, you've made my night. :party:

However, I'm spoken for.

There was never intended any refutin', jest some good-ole fun-in witcha. ;)
I couldn't resist as you ignored my Canadian joke.

-Cheers-

[iverglas]

73. I ignored a Canadian joke?

I may have missed it or I may not have regarded it as a joke. You can send directions.

Just in case it merits a trade, it must be time for my favourite.


ACTUAL transcript of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. This radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on 10-10-95.

Americans: "Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision."

Canadians: "Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision."

Americans: "This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course."

Canadians: "No, I say again, you divert YOUR course."

Americans: "THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT'S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP."

Canadians: "This is a lighthouse. Your call."


Okay, so it isn't an actual transcripb ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. Copied here with the "Torontonian" correction from another DU poster:

There are three guys walking together, a Newfie, a Quebecer , and a Torontonian. They come across a lantern and a genie pops out, "I will give you each one wish, that's three wishes."

So the Newfie says "I am a fisherman, my dad's a fisherman, and his dad was a fisherman, and my son will be one too. I want all the oceans full of fish" 'POOF' the oceans were full (of fish that is).

The Quebecer was amazed, he said "I want a wall around the province of Quebec, so nothing will get in." 'POOF' there was a wall around Quebec.

The guy from Toronto says "Tell me more about this wall."

The genie says "Well its about 150 feet high, 50 feet thick and nothing can get in or out."

So the Torontonian says "Fill it up with water."

:)

[iverglas]

83. oh, that one

It's one of those borderline things ... ethnic humour works that way ...


edit - I was actually thinking of a different version that I've now looked up, which is nastier in its "ethnic" humour.

So ... haha.


How did hockey get introduced into Montreal?

A Newfie was playing on the Gulf of St Lawrence and got a breakaway.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

85. I see.

Well: You know you're from Newfoundland when...
You have more miles on your snowblower than your car.
You find -40C a little nippy.
You have 10 favourite recipes for bottled moose.
You design your Halloween costume to fit over a snowsuit.

[iverglas]

88. heh, except for the bottled moose (?)

Those apply to all real Canadians (the Hallowe'en costume is the classic, and totally true, although it depends on the year).

Torontonians and Vancouverites not being real Canadians, of course.

Toronto Life magazine had an article a few years ago (actually, I may have read it a few days before the snowstorm for which the army got called out to dig Torontonians' cars out of the snow) about how other Canadians were divided on whether they hated Toronto or not. Torontonians couldn't decide whether to be flattered or insulted that not everybody hated them, since one way or the other their rightful place in the centre of the universe didn't seem to be getting recognized.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. But seriously...

...the post you replied to said, "You break in to the sanctuary of my home, I'm gonna kill you before I let you harm me. And just by breaking in I'm going to assume harmful intent."

Perhaps the phrasing chosen by this poster was not as precise as you would prefer but there is no prudent inference, assumption, divination or interpretation to reasonably be made of the act of breaking into an occupied home other than HARMFUL INTENT. Nowhere in these words is it explicitly found nor can it be concluded beyond doubt that the intent was BREAK INTO MY HOUSE AND I WILL KILL YOU. Killing based on an assumption is not found here other than your inference.

...just sayin'. ;)

[iverglas]

84. indeed

The post I replied to said:

"You break in to the sanctuary of my home, I'm gonna kill you before I let you harm me. And just by breaking in I'm going to assume harmful intent."

and this means:

If you break into my home, I am going to assume harmful intent and I am doing to kill you.

There simply is no refuting that interpretation. No "inferring" or "assumping" or "divining" is needed. It's right there on the face of it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. Well no it doesn't...

...but it's okay if you wish to think so.

[gravity556]

90. And that's the beauty of Castle Doctrine.

I don't have to wait around while trying to discern if you're just there to steal my TV or to rob me and sexually assault my wife-you used force to gain entry to a domicile where you have no legal standing to be in. Legally, you have just declared intent to do me harm because you forcibly entered my home.

I don't have to ask you what you want. I don't have to ask if you had a crappy childhood and did bad in school. I don't have to inquire as to your future hopes and dreams, because if you're not face down on the floor with your hands behind your head quietly waiting for the police to arrive and take you to someplace much safer for you than my living room-like jail, you're quite possibly going to end up ventilated in some spots you're supposed to be watertight.

It's very, very simple to avoid such a fate-even amongst bloodthirsty gun owners. Ready? It's a secret, but I feel like I can trust you guys with it. The secret to not ending up drowning in your own blood in a stranger's living room is this-DON'T BREAK INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSES. I know, some folks just can't help themselves, they see a locked door late at night and wonder what kind of goodies are inside, so they (not having a key or permission to be in the house) break in. And once again, Uncle Chuck kicks someone out of the gene pool.

So, to review, breaking into a house in a state with castle doctrine is like playing russian roulette. You might break into someone like Iverglas's place, in which case you'd likely end up with help carrying the TV out to your car and a nice cup of tea and a sandwich. Or, you might break in someplace where they're not so cooperative, but let you tie them up while you steal everything not nailed down.

Or, you could break into a house owned by someone like me. In which case, the BEST possible outcome is that you end up un-perforated and in jail, facing home invasion charges. Or you don't realize that you've broken into the house of someone who takes their personal safety very seriously and values their own life and the life of his spouse so much more than they value your worthless, theiving existence that you'd have run screaming in terror had you only known *before* you kicked in that door.

[SteveM]

2. The "castle doctrine" flies in the face of those opposed to self-defense...

At the heart of much of the gun control/ban debate is the belief that citizens do not have the right to self-defense. Even among those who concede self-defense as a right, the action would be so circumscribed as to put a home-owner at risk of prosecution, even if an intruder has broken into his/her house.

Breaking into one's house is pretty strong evidence that the resident is under imminent threat. Don't expect a discussion of intent, relative harm, "proportional" actions, or long-term social consequences when you break in to one's home. Expect self-defense.

[iverglas]

9. yeah, it really is happy hour

You've reached the point where even your vile misrepresentations of people who disagree with you have become totally incoherent.

The "castle doctrine" flies in the face of those opposed to self-defense...

:wtf: Maybe you want to look up the meaning of the expression "flies in the face" ... ?

While you're on that expedition, maybe you can find somebody opposed to self-defence and bring them back for exhibition here. A really really zealous member of some small religious sect somewhere, maybe? who even then likely would not oppose anyone else acting in self-defence ...

Whatever, I hope you find someone, because otherwise your representation will just look like made-up poop you've decided to try and smear on some other members of this website. You missed, and it really isn't becoming on you.


At the heart of much of the gun control/ban debate is the belief that citizens do not have the right to self-defense.

At the heart of gun militant discourse is a complete inability/unwilingness (I have been unable to guess) to speak accurately, candidly and sincerely.

[SteveM]

10. Then have another one! I'll buy. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. You are indeed an expert at the vile misrepresenation of others...

[Starboard Tack]

29. Why do you resort to such cheap shots?

Is it because you find it so hard to argue with someone who has such a better understanding of the subject at hand. You should save your homilies and stories about shooting goblins for your gullible students.
But, you are right about one thing. She is an expert. An expert at slicing and dicing anyone's bullshit.

[iverglas]

31. I like that one

I've been needing a sig line ...

iverglas ... expert at slicing and dicing anyone's bullshit

I could hang out a shingle and solicit for trade too, maybe. ;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. Using her own words against her...debunking her falsehoods

Its a good liberal thing to do

[Starboard Tack]

55. I think you are way out of your league, professor.

Must be hard, not being the smartest kid in class.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. You are welcome to that opinion

But given her penchant for name calling the demands for civil discourse are truly amusing

[Starboard Tack]

57. She dances around the line of civility from time to time, as many of us do in this forum

I think it goes with the territory. It's hard not to get a little prickly sometimes when discussing the subject of life taking tools and public policies pertaining to the use of those tools.

[iverglas]

59. but *civil discourse* really does mean something (edited)

and I really do mean something when I say it. And I really do mean that virtually no one arguing the gun mlitant case in this place practises it.

I've posted this in this forum considerably more than once.

http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue2_1/03Schroeder.html

There is an unfortunate tendency to assume that civil discourse has occurred whenever two or more people are nice to each other, say something, and don’t get into an argument. That is misleading on all three counts.

Civil discourse is city speech, implying, as Richard Luecke (1968; 1996) has suggested many times, that it is not only how we speak in cities but also how cities speak.

City speech is not simply or uniformly nice; on the contrary, it is often confrontational and rough. A place in which speech was simply and uniformly nice would be homogeneous and have nothing but smooth edges. I am aware that this may well be what Aristotle (1990) had in mind when he described the city in terms of friendship and excluded those who were not “beautiful” (not to mention those who did not speak Greek) from full participation. But, as Martha Nussbaum (1986) has pointed out, Aristotle truncated his own city at this point and (unfortunately) did not allow himself to be carried away by his method. That method is certainly capable of carrying us to a city with a more inclusive aesthetic. Beauty is defined not by excluding those who do not fit within existing boundaries but by crossing boundaries to acknowledge the fittingness of diversity encountered in the city. Crossing boundaries involves confrontation and is rarely smooth. But that it is part of city speech means that civil discourse has not occurred if boundaries have not been crossed.

Nor is city speech simply a matter of saying something. If it does not also ensure space and time in which to say nothing, the listening essential to discourse becomes impossible. In terms of boundary crossing, this means that civil discourse has not occurred if boundaries that define spaces of sound and spaces of silence have not been recognized and honored. Both sound and silence are crucial if the city is not simply to degenerate into a place of violence.

Finally, and most emphatically, city speech does not avoid argument. In fact, the rhythm of crossing, recognizing, and honoring boundaries is descriptive of the discipline of argument. (Remember the formulation at the beginning of this essay: liberal arts are concerned with discovery, appreciation, orientation, and application—redefined here in terms of crossing, recognizing, and honoring boundaries.) Where there is no argument, there is no civil discourse, and there is no city. Such a place is likely to be defined in one of three ways: either it is surrounded by an essentially impermeable boundary that excludes difference; or it is marked by violent struggle for control of turf; or (most likely) it is a mixture of both, with enforced homogeneity near the center of power and violent struggle for control of turf on the fringes.

Insult, misrepresentation, deceit, demagoguery, dishonesty, false claims, unsubstantiated claims ... none of these are "argument".


edit - another brief bit found in various places:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_discourse

Civil discourse is engagement in discourse (conversation) intended to enhance understanding.

Refusing to address what another participant has said, pretending another person said something other than what they said, pretending to draw conclusions from something another person said knowing that the conclusion is in no way possible, and on and on and on, all the ugly tactics seen in this forum -- none of them are intended to enhance understanding.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. If that is what you want to call it...

Here are some examples of her "dancing around the the line of civility" in posts made in response to multiple parties in this thread:

- Try to ask coherent questions,
- One bangs one's head.
- Blah blah blah
- Why would you invent such silliness?
- say something unimaginably dumb
- not even a little learning, in this case
- God damn you're boring.
- Your words make me puke
- You've reached the point where even your vile misrepresentations of people who disagree with you have become totally incoherent.


in post #62 she proffers a definition for civil discourse, it ends with:

Insult, misrepresentation, deceit, demagoguery, dishonesty, false claims, unsubstantiated claims ... none of these are "argument".

Which in fact enumerates the primary features of her posts. For her to claim to be on the side of civil discourse is ludicrous.

.

[Starboard Tack]

63. I have no problem with any of those quotes

They appear to be honest reactions to the absurd arguments proffered by you and a handful of other toters. You can slam her all you like, but she is clearly the most incisive, articulate, informed, funny and fearless member participating in this forum.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Interesting standards of civility you have

[iverglas]

65. aw shucks

she is clearly the most incisive, articulate, informed, funny and fearless member participating in this forum

Now that MrBenchley isn't here to compete, anyhow. ;)

Or the others who were eulogizing Pellet Gun Bill ...

[iverglas]

66. snork

You left out my recent favourite:

"proof that a little learning makes Jack a dull boy"

(spoken to what is now a tombstone, dang)

It may be because it went right over your head, I dunno.

Not quite as funny as "bear arms in a coat", but close runner-up in my own not very humble estimation.


in post #62 she proffers a definition for civil discourse, it ends with:
Insult, misrepresentation, deceit, demagoguery, dishonesty, false claims, unsubstantiated claims ... none of these are "argument".
Which in fact enumerates the primary features of her posts. For her to claim to be on the side of civil discourse is ludicrous.

My dear fellow -- discourse implies more than one participant.

For there to be civil discourse, there must be at least two participants.

I can't really engage in civil discourse all by my lonesome -- that would be like that emulación paradox (oh dear oh dear, someone took offence at my Havana tale? I find it not).

So in none of the instances you quoted did I claim to be engaged in civil discourse since that would have been an impossible attempt (a concept known to the criminal law, and in fact something I have indeed undertaken hereabouts many, many times, just not on those occasions).

But anyhow, you've gone and done it again.

The line of mine you quoted about insult etc. was not about civil discourse. It was me saying that none of the poop that gets smeared around here qualifies as argument.

Civil discourse, in instances where parties are voicing disagreement, calls for argument.

When I am offered no argument to respond to, well, I'm left to my own devices, aren't I?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. So you hold others to a standard you do not measure yourself against

No wonder so few take you seriously.

[iverglas]

74. snork

I think no comment is needed ... other than maybe: res ipsa loquitur.

[iverglas]

58. I suspect

our professor is used to not being the smartest kid in the class ...

[krispos42]

26. I would suspect that you have a narrower range for "potentially lethal force in self-defense"...

...than others in this forum do.


Which is the issue... where does self-defense start?

In some states (and to some people) it starts when a person enters your house without permission.

In some states (and to some people) it starts when a person enters your house between dusk and dawn without permission.

In some states (and to some people) it starts when a person enters your house without permission and is threatening you or a family member.

In some states (and to some people) it starts when a person enters your house without permission, is threatening you or a family member, and you have attempted to retreat from the person in a reasonably safe manner.

In some states (and to some people) it stops when a resident uses more force than person entering the house is using or threatening to use.




Of course, we're talking about a right to act, not necessarily that the act will happen simply because circumstances allow it to happen legally.

[iverglas]

27. words ... and the meanings they actually have ...

Which is the issue... where does self-defense start?
In some states (and to some people) it starts when a person enters your house without permission. (etc.)

No, you see, it doesn't.

Entitlement to use force against another person may start there, if so provided in law.

That does not -- does not -- make the use of force "self-defence", by anything other than a specious definition in a piece of crapola legislation or someone's fevered mind.

Actual self-defence actually starts when force is used against a person without provocation or when a person has a reasonable belief that force is about to be used against them, and the person reasonably believes there is no alternative to using force to defend against that force.

Nothing else is self-defence.

Legislation can with no problem at all define a cat as being a dog -- a definition that will be operative for the purposes of the legislation. And people can believe (or claim to believe) that cats are dogs. Neither actually makes a cat a dog.

[krispos42]

36. A cognizant statement

Between the legal start of self-defense and the actual start of self-defense.

[iverglas]

49. as I said

Specious definitions.

[tularetom]

3. I agree 100% with what the sheriff said but I still have to ask

If this law is so effective, why DO burglars keep breaking into people's homes?

[Atypical Liberal]

4. Seems less and less are doing so.

Violent crime has been on the decline for some time. I imagine burglary is likewise down.

[SteveM]

8. I don't see the "castle doctrine" as social policy...

This may answer your question: "If this law is so effective, why DO burglars keep breaking into people's homes?"

The castle doctrine is about self-defense, an eminently personal choice protected by the Constitution. If it has a bearing on social policy, then it will have to be shown by some advanced statistical models. The sheriff may hope that his publicizing the event (something MSM has been loath to do til recently) will change the perceptions thugs have regarding the advisability of breaking in, but that is not the point of the laws.

The gun-controller/prohibitionist wishes mightily that CCW and castle doctrine laws ARE in fact social policy, one which they can later point to as failures when gun-crimes go up. But this is merely constructing over and over the same straw man. Self-defense is a right, not social policy.

[tularetom]

15. Are we disagreeing? I'm not sure

To tell you the truth I have never given a thought to any castle doctrine, I have always just assumed I had the right to self defense and that included an armed response to anybody forcibly breaking into my home.

This point of view was validated some years back when our sheriff publicly stated that he could not provide patrols or even a reasonable response time to calls from our remote area of the county. He was lobbying for increased staffing with the county dads , but the point was not lost on the few of us who choose to live here.

I live in CA and we have no "castle doctrine" here. Nevertheless, I would not hesitate to defend my family and my property to any extent required by the situation. I'm almost 70 years old and I would gladly take a chance with a jury if I did act.

[SteveM]

17. No. I don't know, however, if home-invaders will get the message...

If they did, and committed fewer home break-ins, that would be "social policy," in my estimation.

[hack89]

23. Because they are stupid? nt

[gravity556]

32. Well, if I had to guess, I would have to say

that it's because the best and the brightest don't generally end up living a life of crime. To put that more succinctly, criminals are generally morons. Which is why they need such a strong support lobby, like the pro-criminal safety organizations like the Brady Bunch, VPC and HCI. All doing their part to make sure that young criminals grow up to be big and strong adult criminals.

[iverglas]

33. ah, so now we have an IQ test to determine eligibility to live

Damn, and you thought that idea of some kind of test for voting was bad.



A guy goes into a bar, there's a robot bartender.

The robot says, "What will you have?"

The guy says, "Martini."

The robot brings back the best martini ever and says to the man, "What's your IQ?"

The guy says, "168."

The robot then proceeds to engage him in a discussion about physics, space exploration and medical technology.

The guy leaves, but he is curious...

So he goes back into the bar.

The robot bartender says, "What will you have?"

The guy says, "Martini."

Again, the robot makes a great martini gives it to the man and says, "What's your IQ?"

The guy says, "100."

The robot then starts to talk about Nascar, Budweiser and John Deere tractors.

The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time.

He goes back into the bar.

The robot says, "What will you have?"

The guy says, "Martini," and the robot brings him another great martini.

The robot then brings him a colouring book and some crayons.

"What's up?" the guy asked. "Don't you want to know my IQ?"

"Nah, that's okay," the robot says. "I saw the gun."

[rl6214]

41. Wrote that one yourself did you?

Don't give up your day job.

[iverglas]

43. nah, just had to adapt it

I'm sure it was already adapted (since Nascar, Budweiser and John Deere don't apply locally and should have been changed to the Leafs, Molson's and Massey-Ferguson), but the ending in the version I got was originally:

The guy leaves, but finds it very interesting, so he thinks he will try it one more time.
He goes back into the bar.
The robot says, "What will you have?"
The guy says, "Martini," and the robot brings him another great martini.
The robot then says, "What's your IQ?"
The guy says, "Uh, about 50."
The robot leans in close and says,
"So, are you people still happy you voted for Harper?"

:rofl:

It was sent to my 80+ yr old mum by her brother's childhood friend, a politically active / lesbian retired member of the clergy of my once upon a time church. ;)

[gravity556]

72. re:so now we have an IQ test to determine eligibility to live

It used to be called "natural selection", and the environment and predators killed off the members of the species without a stong instinct to stay close to the herd for protection from predators. Predators who failed to recognize prey that toxic to them died. Hunter gatherer societies who failed to learn what plants were poisonous died, the ones who learned which ones were psychoactive were revered.

Now we put foam bumpers on all of life's sharp little edges. We tell the kids in jail that they just need some more self esteem, even if they're in for assaulting someond for "disrespecting them" over something as inconsequential as scuffing his shoes. How about some parental involvement in support of the teachers. I know that if I acted up repeatedly in class, a call from my teacher to my folks would result in a whuppin'. Not an angry tirade at the teacher for singling their kid out.

Nobody faces any real consequences anymore, and the few consequences they do face are skewed 10 ways from Sunday. Someone who commits a violent crime like assault, armed robbery, rape and the like, involving unprovoked violence (sucker punch at the bar, guy who threw the punch is the assailant, there should be no penalties for someone defending himself) or violence to force compliance-rape, carjacking, armed robberies should carry mandatory minimum sentences with no parole. Stop throwing people in prison for minor drug charges, particularly if every time you get some fool who got caught with an ounce of weed it means you have to kick a rapist loose to free up a bed. At the very least, depending on the crime and the severity of that crime set the scale from 5 to 35 years (say, 5 for assault, 10-15 for armed robbery/mugging and 30-35 years (per count) for rape.

And as more and more municipalities trim their budgets, that thin blue line is going to get thinner and thinner, meaning that the average citizen is going to have to start looking out for himself. As more and more do (and have been for a while now, judging by the increase in dead home invaders in the news), you're absolutely spot on in that it will be an intelligence test, graded pass/fail. Decide on a life of crime and chance 30 years with no parole for breaking in to an occupied structure IF you manage to rob the place without getting shot in the face.

Like the police chief said, " if burglars don’t want to get shot, then they need to stop breaking in".

[iverglas]

75. oh whiiiine ... it's the nanny state, mummy

And once again, the voice of the liberal / progressive / democrat / Democrat is heard in the land ...

[gravity556]

87. You're right. It's the politiically intelligent thing to do...

...we should definintely get the message out that the Democratic party supports criminal safety! Wouldn't want to lose that critical convicted felon voting bloc. You could write the campaign ads-"If you're carjacked at gunpoint, please, don't resist. He's probably armed, even though here in Chicago it's pretty much illegal to carry anything with which to protect yourself. And don't be angry-he probably needs your car worse than you do, so make sure to give him some gas money! And all you carjackers and muggers out there, do us a favor and if they're cooperative and promise to vote Democrat, try not to beat them totally unconcious!"

*this ad sponsored by the Pro-Criminal Safety Organization. gun control is our goal!

[DWC]

5. It is becoming more and more unhealthy

to be a violent criminal in America.

Kudos for a successful defense.

Semper Fi,

[Philippine expat]

6. I also live in Texas

once you have decided to take my property YOU decided that my property is worth more then your life

[iverglas]

11. and another one who conflates himself and his gun

No agency in either one.

What a sad life it must be to have so little control of one's trigger, and to feel so little responsiblity for one's actions. An empty existence, obviously. Hardly a life worth defending, if you asked me.

[ileus]

16. Well said...do what you must within the law.

America is great...

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Angry Dragon]

18. ........

:popcorn:

[Hoopla Phil]

20. I agree 100%!!! k and r

[Lunabelle]

40. Not that it really matters

I don't even own a gun and the last time I held one was back when I was 12 years old on my granfather's property and we were shooting at pine cones in the lake with a 22.

[ileus]

42. Someone breaks into your home you have no option

no time to second guess their intentions...You have seconds to engage and neutralize the threat, and lucky for us here in America we also have the law on our side (in most states) that allow you to take action, without fear of civil suits, or charges.

My life and the lives of my family are way to enriched and valuable to willingly become a victim to prove a point of how liberal I am.

[brendan120678]

47. Absolutely true.

"My life and the lives of my family are way to enriched and valuable to willingly become a victim to prove a point of how liberal I am."

I couldn't have stated that better myself. My duty to protect the lives of my wife and children (2 young boys, and a third on its way) far outweighs my duty to be a pacifist when it comes to a potentially violent home invader.

If someone comes into my house at night, forcibly and uninvited, I have no other choice but to presume that it is with the intent of doing harm to my family. I am happy to live in a state where it isn't overly difficult to obtain a handgun permit.

[iverglas]

50. "engage and neutralize the threat"

Having such an excellent script in one's head ... well, it does speak volumes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. What terminology would you perfer?

You retreat in double talk often enough so what phrase would you prefer that describe the lawful defense of your home while you are there with deadly force.

Bear in mind that E&E is becoming less and less of a requirement.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. Your posts speak volumes as well....

...however they rarely have any real content

[Union Scribe]

62. We get it, you like attention.

And apparently you think the best way of getting it is insinuating that fellow DUers are bloodthirsty killers-in-waiting, as you have several times in this thread alone, not to mention most threads I've seen you in.

[iverglas]

68. actually, you've got it all wrong

apparently you think the best way of getting it is insinuating that fellow DUers are bloodthirsty killers-in-waiting

That really wasn't what I was insinuating at all, although I can understand that some would find it more flattering to think they were being called bloodthirsty killers-in-waiting than to admit to themselves and/or another person that they know what I was really insinuating.

;)

as you have several times in this thread alone

That's as may be, but you'd need to quote me.



aargh, typo, typing too fast, just time to watch the Coronation Street tape before BB13 starts ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. He is pretty close to right on

Some quotes from this thread targeting multiple posters:

- Try to ask coherent questions,
- One bangs one's head.
- Blah blah blah
- Why would you invent such silliness?
- say something unimaginably dumb
- not even a little learning, in this case
- God damn you're boring.
- Your words make me puke
- You've reached the point where even your vile misrepresentations of people who disagree with you have become totally incoherent.

[iverglas]

78. maybe you're one of those aural learners

Pixels on a page, they just go in one eye and out the other, to an aural learner. I can sympathise -- I'm a visual learner (with a little kinetic thrown in) -- words in the air go in one ear and out the other; I have to see it (or write it down) to absorb and remember it.

Anyhow, that could explain why you see this:

"insinuating that fellow DUers are bloodthirsty killers-in-waiting"

and offer up these:

- Try to ask coherent questions,
- One bangs one's head.
- Blah blah blah
- Why would you invent such silliness?
- say something unimaginably dumb
- not even a little learning, in this case
- God damn you're boring.
- Your words make me puke
- You've reached the point where even your vile misrepresentations of people who disagree with you have become totally incoherent.

as somehow evidence that I have insinuated that fellow DUers are bloodthirsty killers-in-waiting.

Mind you, with some of them, you may have done a decent job of explaining what I, um, might actually have been insinuating ...

Incoherency - and also failing to understand or remember what one sees -- could perhaps arise from blind rage. Should I consider that possibility?

[GreenStormCloud]

69. It does greatly simplify the situation.

I don't have to make detached reflections and weight nuances in fractions of seconds. Instead I have a clear, simple, legal, formula. If an intruder has illegally broken into my home I can and will open fire with no warning. I will aim for center mass. I will fire multiple shots until the intruder is clearly no longer a threat. I don't have to guess what level of armament he may have or what his intentions are, as they is irrelevant. Then call 911.

[Philippine expat]

79. Well said

[gravity556]

89. Would you prefer, perhaps, this one?

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

[DWC]

54. I've never heard or read

my philosophy better stated.

Your post is definitely a Keeper!

Semper Fi,