Capital punishment as self-defense: an intellectual imposture
Euroguy
punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the
individual. The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the
individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly
force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person,
society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment.
However, for this analogy to be a successful, it must parallel the accepted
principle that self-defense with deadly force is justified only when there
is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing). This means we must see
whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term
imprisonment). Further, the self-defense with deadly force is grounded in
the moral right of self-preservation. However, only people, properly
speaking, have moral rights; abstract entities and institutions such as
governing bodies do not. Consequently, the analogy between capital
punishment and self-defense fails it a basic level.
Euro
Peter Morris
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c63e...@news1.meganetnews.com...
If you kill someone and plead self defence you have to demonstrate
that the dead person was actually in the process of committing an
act of violence which caused you direct and immediate danger.
If you cold-bloodedly plan to kill somebody based on the abstract
notion that at some point in the future the chance exists that he
might possibly cause you harm, no court in the world would accept
the self-defence plea.
LMac
"Peter Morris" <no_sp...@se.com> wrote in message
news:a417hn$qsv$1...@lyonesse.netcom.net.uk...
No argument about your analogy as presented. However, the DP is (or rather
_should be_ IMHO)considered by retentionists as a defense of society not of
self; they are two separate issues. Other examples of defense of society
include war. Deaths caused during the course of a war to protect the
homeland are not considered crimes, they are preventative measures employed
to insure the well being of the populace. Obviously, there is a difference
of scale...
Mac
A Planet Visitor
As in his other arguments in the three posts he has
provided, none of the words contained in the posts
are ACTUALLY the words of euroguy, yet he has
neglected to provide an attribution to his comments.
One wonders if euroguy is not actually a 'talking
head,' having no REAL thoughts of his own. See
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/capitalp.htm
"Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c63e...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> Another defense of capital punishment is based on an analogy that capital
> punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the
> individual.
Quite wrong, IMHO. Society defines self-defense for itself
as exactly what it says -- 'Society self-defense,' not necessarily
requiring it to meet the standards it sets for INDIVIDUAL
self-defense. Certainly there is the fact that society sets a
standard against an INDIVIDUAL holding another against their
will (we call it kidnapping). But society sets a quite different
standard for itself in holding another against their will (we call
it incarceration). This PROVES that society sets different
standards for itself then it does for individual members of
society. If society can do so in that respect, and we accept it
can do so, then society can do so in EVERY respect, if we
accept it can do so. And we accept it when our legislative
representatives establish penalties for crimes.
> The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the
> individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly
> force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person,
> society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital punishment.
>
> However, for this analogy to be a successful, it must parallel the accepted
> principle that self-defense with deadly force is justified only when there
> is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing).
This is nonsense, of course. euroguy, in plagiarizing a
source, has attempted to turn what is an opinion based
argument, into an axiomatic statement defining 'self-defense'
as HE wishes to see 'self-defense.' There is NO accepted
principle that 'self-defense' can only be justified as he
presumes. Even dirt has recognized that. There need only
be a PRESUMPTION of a threat. Certainly society
does not establish defense forces in it own 'self-defense' with
the understanding that there is an alternative of 'fleeing.' Where
would society 'flee' to? And how does society 'flee' from the
possibility of a proven murderer murdering again? Society does
so by taking ANY action it feels necessary, recognizing that
'society' cannot 'flee' from a murderer, but must act in
self-defense to prevent a REOCCURRENCE of what has clearly
been seen to be a violent and proven attack on itself.
> This means we must see
> whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term
> imprisonment).
No, it certainly does not MEAN that! Your source should not
draw false conclusions from faulty premises. In effect, even if
the first statement were true (which it is NOT), long-term
imprisonment is just as much a 'self-defense' act of
society as is the DP. It is recognized that we are
defending ourselves from the possibility of a further attack
on society -- at the least during the period of incarceration.
We remove that threat, either temporarily or permanently,
with the understanding that society cannot 'flee' from those
who commit crimes, but still must 'defend' itself against those
attacks. That's why we even HAVE a criminal justice
system. In effect, ALL penalties for crimes are intended
in many respects (not all), to provide 'society self-defense,'
either temporarily or permanently. Providing incarceration
for criminals is done so with the understanding that society
CANNOT 'flee' from those who commit crimes upon the
body of society, while certainly recognizing it must act in its
own 'self-defense.'
> Further, the self-defense with deadly force is grounded in
> the moral right of self-preservation.
Yes... it most certainly IS. Thanks to your source
for reminding us. Of course 'self-preservation' is not a
NATURAL right. It is given as a 'right' between men, when
men decide to do so, because of the realization that nature
provides an INSTINCT called 'self-preservation.' Not a 'right'
to self-preservation. There is no NATURAL 'right' to
self-preservation. If there were, there would be no
murder. Natural rights CANNOT be usurped by man,
just as man cannot presume to change the 'right' of
the planets to make their way through the heavens in
the paths nature provides through physical principles.
Nature gives an 'instinct' to survive to EVERY
biological species, as part of an evolutionary
process . From the microbe to the fruitfly to the
zebra to the human species. But a NATURAL 'right' to
self-preservation??? Explain that natural 'right' to a
starving child in Africa. And don't make me laugh.
> However, only people, properly
> speaking, have moral rights;
Oopsss.. drawing those false axioms. Philosophers
throughout the ages have clearly expressed that society
has both moral responsibilities and moral rights. And
in one simplistic statement your source has attempted to
define both 'moral,' and 'rights' for the rest of us. Pardon
me for remaining skeptical.
> abstract entities and institutions such as
> governing bodies do not. Consequently, the analogy between capital
> punishment and self-defense fails it a basic level.
>
What nonsense. Governing bodies certainly have the
'moral rights' to prosecute those who harm members
who have expressly given those governing bodies that
'moral right.' There is nothing natural about any 'moral
rights.' It is subjective, and if the members, in their
subjective opinions, provide that 'moral right' to their
governing bodies, it BECOMES a 'moral right' of those
bodies. If you presume that the DP fails as 'society
self-defense,' at its basic level, then you must also
presume that ALL punishments for crime fail at their
most basic level as well. Is your source or you prepared
to say that when we incarcerate a rapist, we are not
providing a level of 'self-defense' to prevent that
individual from raping again while incarcerated?
Are you prepared to say we do not have a 'moral right'
to DO SO?
> Euro
Richard Jackson
Self defense does not fail as an argument for me. BTW, you forgot one
other reason for self defense which is most often argued by
abolitionists, self-defense as a response to immediate danger. Self
defense is defined in the English language as:
"self-defense
self-defense (sèlf´dî-fèns´) noun
1.Defense of oneself when physically attacked: She was taking a course
in self-defense.
2.Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
3.Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened
violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.
- self´-defen´sive adjective
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company."
Please note the third definition of self-defense, which is "The right
to protect oneself against violence or THREATENED violence with
whatever force or means is necessary." Also please note that this is
the definition generally accepted in Law in most nations. It is based
upon the judgement of the individual as to how much danger they are in
at the time of the act of violence or threatened violence against
them. Society is made of of people. People who have the right to not
only protect themselves, but be protected through their legal system.
It is possible to incarcerate a criminal for the remainder of his
natural life, but such incarceration cannot, despite the best efforts
of man, totally remove the threat to kill that some people represent.
As long as a violent human wants to cause harm to other humans, and as
long as there is any opportunity to do so, that threat is present.
This includes ultra-maximum security prisons, and the best of
proceedures. Even in the strictest of prisons, prisoners sometimes
meet oyther humans. This is inevitable. The others they meet may be
warders, or visitors, can be medical or legal team members, but no
matter what, sooner or later, the opportunity to be with others in one
form or another presents itself.
A prison is only a system designed by human beings. Humans are
fallable, and mistakes in design or proceedure are inevitable. It is
those mistakes which allow murderers in prison to kill again in the
best of circumstances. Due to this fact, there is only one way which
is totally effective in preventing murderers from killing again, and
that is a properly carried out execution.
Good try, but your argument fails IMO.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
> news:3c63e...@news1.meganetnews.com...
> > Another defense of capital punishment is based on an analogy that capital
> > punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the
> > individual. The reasoning is that, in dangerous circumstances, the
> > individual is justified in protecting himself by self-defense with deadly
> > force. Since society (or the political body) is like a large person,
> > society, too, is justified in using deadly force through capital
> punishment.
> >
> > However, for this analogy to be a successful, it must parallel the
> accepted
> > principle that self-defense with deadly force is justified only when there
> > is no alternative open to us (such as fleeing). This means we must see
> > whether any alternative to capital punishment is open (such as long term
> > imprisonment). Further, the self-defense with deadly force is grounded in
> > the moral right of self-preservation. However, only people, properly
> > speaking, have moral rights; abstract entities and institutions such as
> > governing bodies do not. Consequently, the analogy between capital
> > punishment and self-defense fails it a basic level.
>
>
> If you kill someone and plead self defence you have to demonstrate
> that the dead person was actually in the process of committing an
> act of violence which caused you direct and immediate danger.
This is incorrect. What follows is a direct quote from the 2000 Texas
Penal Code under Chapter 9: Self Defense:
"Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is
justified in using deadly force against
another:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31;
~ ~ (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have
retreated; and
~ ~ (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force
is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated
sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
~ (b) [added 9/1/95] The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does
not apply to an actor who uses force
against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an
offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of
the actor. "
It is possible legally for one person to act in the defense of
another.
>
> If you cold-bloodedly plan to kill somebody based on the abstract
> notion that at some point in the future the chance exists that he
> might possibly cause you harm, no court in the world would accept
> the self-defence plea.
Not necessarily. There are two reasons for self defense, immediate
violence in a situation which no reasonable person could expect to
take alternatives to, and implied violence. There does not need to be
an overt act of violence for self defense if any reasonable person
(key phrase) would fear for their life under the threat of violence.
(or the lives of others, for that matter)
A very good example of this situation could be if a person threatened
to shoot me dead the next time we met and I looked up the street and
saw him approaching from a distance of 200 meters with no way out. (my
street is a cul de sac.)
If I repeatedly warned him, yet he continuted to advance and I killed
at a range of fifty meters with my tactical rifle, I doubt any grand
jury here would do other than no bill me. (Of course if he was stupid
enouth to advance on a rifleman who repeatedly warned him, they might
figure he died of being an idiot).
--
Richard Jackson
Euroguy
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net>
??????:8cb86b49.02020...@posting.google.com...
> 1.Defense of oneself when physically attacked: She was taking a course
> in self-defense.
> 2.Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
> 3.Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened
> violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.
>
> Excerpted from The American Heritage?Dictionary of the English
> Language, Third Edition ?1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company."
>
> Please note the third definition of self-defense, which is "The right
> to protect oneself against violence or THREATENED violence with
> whatever force or means is necessary." Also please note that this is
> the definition generally accepted in Law in most nations. It is based
> upon the judgement of the individual as to how much danger they are in
> at the time of the act of violence or threatened violence against
> them. Society is made of of people. People who have the right to not
> only protect themselves, but be protected through their legal system.
In that last acceptance, self-defense vehicles a notion of immediate danger.
When a policeman shoots at a criminal who has a gun, is ready to use it
against the policeman or against other citizens, it can be said it is
society's self-defense.
Likewise, when Israel decided to make a "preventive war" against Arab States
in 1967, or when the US decided a military action against al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan, there was clearly an "immediate danger" and this could be
argued (and has been argued) as self-defense actions.
When a society executes a criminal after 10 or 20 years of death row, there
is no immediate danger" anymore and this can in no way be justified as
self-defense.
> It is possible to incarcerate a criminal for the remainder of his
> natural life, but such incarceration cannot, despite the best efforts
> of man, totally remove the threat to kill that some people represent.
That is true. And this is why it is necessary to keep an open door, for all
murderers, and let them hope the possibility of parole in the long-term.
Murders in European jails are quite rare, because murderers have this small
hope. Putting desperate people in jail not only is cruel, but also conduces
them to act desparately and even kill. Once you are in jail and you know you
will be executed some day, you can kill as many as you like without risking
any more severe punishment.
> As long as a violent human wants to cause harm to other humans, and as
> long as there is any opportunity to do so, that threat is present.
> This includes ultra-maximum security prisons, and the best of
> proceedures. Even in the strictest of prisons, prisoners sometimes
> meet oyther humans. This is inevitable. The others they meet may be
> warders, or visitors, can be medical or legal team members, but no
> matter what, sooner or later, the opportunity to be with others in one
> form or another presents itself.
>
> A prison is only a system designed by human beings. Humans are
> fallable, and mistakes in design or proceedure are inevitable. It is
> those mistakes which allow murderers in prison to kill again in the
> best of circumstances. Due to this fact, there is only one way which
> is totally effective in preventing murderers from killing again, and
> that is a properly carried out execution.
But since humans are fallable, no execution can be guaranteed as being
properly carried out. This is why several innocents have been executed in
the US over the last 10 years, based on flawed proceedures or fake
testimonies.
> Good try, but your argument fails IMO.
I don't think your last definition of self-defense can possibly enable to
present executions as self-defense, because there is no "immediate danger"
to justify that. Now, I also noticed the words "with whatever force or means
are reasonably necessary". You can't show, beyond any doubt, that capital
punishment could be a "reasonably necessary" means and not life
imprisonment. Neither of these punishments offers all guarantees that no
mistake is made, but at least the latter is amendable. That is what makes it
superior.
Euro
Euroguy
And your example confirms that, for the argument of self-defense to be
admitted, you need an immediate danger.
This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
from someone coming toward you with no weapon visible.
It is the PERCEPTION of a threat. Having no weapon visible,
the person coming toward Richard CANNOT represent an 'immediate'
danger. Yet Richard (and society) is certainly JUSTIFIED in
taking self-defense action, BECAUSE of that perception.
Most especially if the person advancing on him was a KNOWN
murderer. Which obviously provides a heightened perception
of the danger.
> This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions.
>
This is why self-defense is ALWAYS relevant in capital
executions. It is the PERCEPTION. The greater we
PERCEIVE the danger, the more certain we become that
execution is the ONLY preventive measure that would
assure our self-defense from further damage by the murderer.
PV
> Euro
>
>
>
Richard Jackson
Not really. Most people could not hit a barn door at fifty yards with
a pistol. (I happen to be the exception, and have practiced long range
pistol shooting quite a bit) I wold not be in actual danger in most
instances untl the person closed to within twenty five yards or less,
and raised the firearm to threaten me with it.
In the example I indicated, the threat was implied. I never said the
person was aiming or shoting at me, only htat he had made the threat
and was carrying a firearm while walking down my street.
>
> This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions.
>
> Euro
Good try.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
Or perceived danger.
>
> When a policeman shoots at a criminal who has a gun, is ready to use it
> against the policeman or against other citizens, it can be said it is
> society's self-defense.
>
> Likewise, when Israel decided to make a "preventive war" against Arab States
> in 1967, or when the US decided a military action against al-Qaeda in
> Afghanistan, there was clearly an "immediate danger" and this could be
> argued (and has been argued) as self-defense actions.
No argument with either statement.
>
> When a society executes a criminal after 10 or 20 years of death row, there
> is no immediate danger" anymore and this can in no way be justified as
> self-defense.
The problem with your statement is that the trials are not considering
what is in the future, but the present. A jury or judge considering
the penalty in a capital murder case cannot, in their duty, forsee the
defendant's mental state or attitude a decade or two in the future,
but must make judgements of the future danger to society based upon
the defendant's behavior in both past and current time. The danger
judged in a trial IS the immediate danger that person represents and
may be reasonably expected to represent.
>
> > It is possible to incarcerate a criminal for the remainder of his
> > natural life, but such incarceration cannot, despite the best efforts
> > of man, totally remove the threat to kill that some people represent.
>
> That is true. And this is why it is necessary to keep an open door, for all
> murderers, and let them hope the possibility of parole in the long-term.
> Murders in European jails are quite rare, because murderers have this small
> hope. Putting desperate people in jail not only is cruel, but also conduces
> them to act desparately and even kill. Once you are in jail and you know you
> will be executed some day, you can kill as many as you like without risking
> any more severe punishment.
It might be a revelation to you, but Texas does not have LWOP. We
have a life sentence option for capital murder, but that does have a
parole possibility after a long prison term. Other states define life
as a much lesser term after which a prisoner may be parolled, while
still others have the LWOP
>
>
> > As long as a violent human wants to cause harm to other humans, and as
> > long as there is any opportunity to do so, that threat is present.
> > This includes ultra-maximum security prisons, and the best of
> > proceedures. Even in the strictest of prisons, prisoners sometimes
> > meet oyther humans. This is inevitable. The others they meet may be
> > warders, or visitors, can be medical or legal team members, but no
> > matter what, sooner or later, the opportunity to be with others in one
> > form or another presents itself.
> >
> > A prison is only a system designed by human beings. Humans are
> > fallable, and mistakes in design or proceedure are inevitable. It is
> > those mistakes which allow murderers in prison to kill again in the
> > best of circumstances. Due to this fact, there is only one way which
> > is totally effective in preventing murderers from killing again, and
> > that is a properly carried out execution.
>
> But since humans are fallable, no execution can be guaranteed as being
> properly carried out. This is why several innocents have been executed in
> the US over the last 10 years, based on flawed proceedures or fake
> testimonies.
Prove one case since 1973 conclusively. I see you make this claim
often. I see you present cases such as graham, where the defendant
claims innocence, yet there is no conclusive evidence of innocence in
any of them. You have yet to prove innocence, or even raise suspicion
of innocence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
>
> > Good try, but your argument fails IMO.
>
> I don't think your last definition of self-defense can possibly enable to
> present executions as self-defense, because there is no "immediate danger"
> to justify that.
see above.
Now, I also noticed the words "with whatever force or means
> are reasonably necessary". You can't show, beyond any doubt, that capital
> punishment could be a "reasonably necessary" means and not life
> imprisonment.
Legally, the term "reasonable" comes from what a "reasomable and
prudent" person would do in a given situation. Reasonable is,
therefore, subjective and open to interpretation. What is not
reasonable to you is reasonable to me, and to a large majority of my
fellow Texans and Americans.
Neither of these punishments offers all guarantees that no
> mistake is made, but at least the latter is amendable. That is what makes it
> superior.
>
> Euro
There are no guarantees in life. Retentionists must, by supporting
the death penalty, aggept the risk that a person who is factually
innocent of murder might be executed. We can do everyting we may so
to ensure that will not happen, but the risk is still there. For me,
personally, the question is one of if the risk of esecuting an
innocent is so slight it if far outweighed by the need for societal
self defense. I believe it is, since there are a great many
safeguards in place within our legal system. These extensive
safeguards are the very reason it takes so long between sentencing and
execution in the US. Of course, there is also the fact that desite
the best efforts of abolitionist liberals,
not one case of a factually innocent person has been conclusively
proven since the resumption of the death penalty.
You want absolutes in capital murder cases. Absolutes are
impossibilities in most human endeavors. In human endeavor, the ONLY
absolute IMO, is that humans are fallable. Everything else is a
question of probability.
--
Richard Jackson
Euroguy
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:Czn98.75010$jO5.9...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
But then you must give a proof that this threat 1/ really exists and 2/ is
immediate. The second point would be very difficult to prove if, as you
write, the person has no weapon visible (I don't know where you got this
detail from, anyway): in a trial, the procuror might suggest you that this
person had only verbally threatened you and you couldn't know he had a
weapon, yet you killed him (I can imagine what he would say: "Mr. PV, what
is the criteria that makes you kill those who advance to your door? The
moustache, or the colour of the skin?"), and might seek the death penalty
against you.
Back to topic: your remark doesn't show anything, since you still fail to
give evidence that once convicted murderers represent to society an
immediate threat to which society would have no other response than
self-defense.
Besides, I view self-defense as something that must be used as a last
resort, and certainly not in a systematic way as in the case of executions.
This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions....
> >
> This is why self-defense is ALWAYS relevant in capital
> executions. It is the PERCEPTION. The greater we
> PERCEIVE the danger, the more certain we become that
> execution is the ONLY preventive measure that would
> assure our self-defense from further damage by the murderer.
since, contrary to what you say, there are other preventive measures.
Euro
Richard Jackson
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
> ??????:Czn98.75010$jO5.9...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He has a valid point, and so do you. Of course, not being from Texas,
you cannot know there are other nuances of the situation which must be
considered. The fact that the person threatened to kill and then
approaches the person's house with a pistol may well be a prima facae
evidence of the threat and the immediacy all on its own.
You should also be aware that there are two standards at play. A
civillian who is not a trained combattant falls under less of a burden
of proof in this instance than a policeman would. If this senario
involved a policeman defending himself or another,the perpetrator
would very likely have to actually aim the firearm before a
self-defense plea could be successful. A civillian, being generally
untrained in this type of situation would not have to await an overt
action to meet the same burden of proof.
>
> Back to topic: your remark doesn't show anything, since you still fail to
> give evidence that once convicted murderers represent to society an
> immediate threat to which society would have no other response than
> self-defense.
>
> Besides, I view self-defense as something that must be used as a last
> resort, and certainly not in a systematic way as in the case of executions.
>
> This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions....
Only to you. For those who support its use, it is very relevant.
--
Richard Jackson
A Planet Visitor
To whom should I offer such proof? Are you going to be the
judge and jury that decides? Rather, the point is 'society'
decides. And if society can decide on 'individual' proof of
self-defense, it can certainly decide on 'self' proof of
self-defense. Justification, in fact, lies within the 'self'
of society.
> The second point would be very difficult to prove if, as you
> write, the person has no weapon visible (I don't know where you got this
> detail from,
Well, I think Richard has now said he presumed he had mentioned
a visible weapon, but I can see no claim of such from the point of
his example, following 'a very good example --'
> anyway): in a trial, the procuror might suggest you that this
> person had only verbally threatened you and you couldn't know he had a
> weapon, yet you killed him (I can imagine what he would say: "Mr. PV, what
> is the criteria that makes you kill those who advance to your door? The
> moustache, or the colour of the skin?"), and might seek the death penalty
> against you.
>
What a bunch of rubbish. You miss the point of PERCEPTION,
totally and absolutely. Society does NOT need to defend that
perception in front of a procuror (sic - I believe a procuror/procurer
is more properly thought of in terms of defense. I believe you
meant prosecutor). Society, in fact, IS the prosecutor, and
cannot be presumed to prosecute itself. Society could judge
the 'perception' of an individual, but is not required to judge its
OWN perception.
> Back to topic: your remark doesn't show anything, since you still fail to
> give evidence that once convicted murderers represent to society an
> immediate threat to which society would have no other response than
> self-defense.
>
My list... you keep forgetting the EVIDENCE of 'my list.' Nor
is society required to GIVE evidence that a penalty cannot be
applied for a crime. They need ONLY give evidence to substantiate
a finding of guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The so-called
'evidence' you speak of is the creation of the law by the
legislators we empower to create those penalties.
> Besides, I view self-defense as something that must be used as a last
> resort, and certainly not in a systematic way as in the case of executions.
>
How YOU view it, is not material to an argument which is
trying to define how SOCIETY views it.
> This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions....
>
No matter how often you say it... it's STILL WRONG. Your
argument has obviously been reduced to 'how you view it.'
You may view that Santa Claus is alive and well in retirement,
and living in Malibu, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING.
> > >
> > This is why self-defense is ALWAYS relevant in capital
> > executions. It is the PERCEPTION. The greater we
> > PERCEIVE the danger, the more certain we become that
> > execution is the ONLY preventive measure that would
> > assure our self-defense from further damage by the murderer.
>
> since, contrary to what you say, there are other preventive measures.
>
That only demonstrates how feeble your argument has become.
We could sentence rapists to 6 months in prison, while there
are 'other preventive measures.' Does that mean we should
do THAT? We actually sentence to penalties that are both
APPROPRIATE to the crime and reasonably assure our
'self-defense.' If the DP meets those conditions, there is
no reason to use 'other defensive measures.'
PV
> Euro
>
>
>
>
>
>
Euroguy
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net>
??????:8cb86b49.02021...@posting.google.com...
My understanding was clearly that the person had a weapon when approaching
your house. It seems PV concluded otherwise. In your example, self-defense
is obvious if the person has a weapon, but if such weren't the case, it
becomes less obvious - for me at least.
> You should also be aware that there are two standards at play. A
> civillian who is not a trained combattant falls under less of a burden
> of proof in this instance than a policeman would. If this senario
> involved a policeman defending himself or another,the perpetrator
> would very likely have to actually aim the firearm before a
> self-defense plea could be successful. A civillian, being generally
> untrained in this type of situation would not have to await an overt
> action to meet the same burden of proof.
That seems quite logical to me as well.
> >
> > Back to topic: your remark doesn't show anything, since you still fail
to
> > give evidence that once convicted murderers represent to society an
> > immediate threat to which society would have no other response than
> > self-defense.
> >
> > Besides, I view self-defense as something that must be used as a last
> > resort, and certainly not in a systematic way as in the case of
executions.
> >
> > This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions....
>
> Only to you. For those who support its use, it is very relevant.
I guess so, but I don't see the reasons for its relevance. That's all the
more troubling since the existence of those reasons should precede adhesion
to death penalty.
Euro
Euroguy
But if you shot at the person without him threatening in a whatever way,
that wouldn't be self-defense to me (and to legislation in most European
countries as well) - even for a civilian. I don't know how it would be in
the US, but in Europe, that would be a murder with mitigating circumstances.
After all, that person was maybe not really aiming at killing you, but just
willing to impress you or frighten you. There's no reason to kill for that.
Euro
Euroguy
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com>
??????:BGF98.61218$Gb1.11...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Unlike you, I'm not trying to judge anyone or try to sentence anyone. But if
you try to convince me, or anyone else (and I take it that your mails may
have that objective), you have to explain the reasons of your positions.
> Rather, the point is 'society'
> decides. And if society can decide on 'individual' proof of
> self-defense, it can certainly decide on 'self' proof of
> self-defense. Justification, in fact, lies within the 'self'
> of society.
So you are basically saying that if society decides that trees are red, I
should quietly accept it and not asking on which grounds this decision is
made.... Sorry, but I'm not that docile.
> > The second point would be very difficult to prove if, as you
> > write, the person has no weapon visible (I don't know where you got this
> > detail from,
>
> Well, I think Richard has now said he presumed he had mentioned
> a visible weapon, but I can see no claim of such from the point of
> his example, following 'a very good example --'
He didn't write it. But it seemed so obvious for me that I understood it
this way. The fact you didn't is indicative of a big cultural gap, as the
existence of a weapon is an absolute condition to self-defense for me.
I'm a bit unclear on what you hear by "society". Is it you? Pro-DPers in
general? After all, there is no constitutional or legal text in the US (as
far as I know) that says capital punishment is self-defense for society.
That's something only pro-DPers say.
So, why do you hide under this term "society", and who does it refer to?
> > This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions....
> >
> No matter how often you say it... it's STILL WRONG. Your
> argument has obviously been reduced to 'how you view it.'
> You may view that Santa Claus is alive and well in retirement,
> and living in Malibu, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING.
You probably realise that I could reply you the same.
Richard Jackson
By coming to my house with a weapon, he is threatening.
> that wouldn't be self-defense to me (and to legislation in most European
> countries as well) - even for a civilian. I don't know how it would be in
> the US, but in Europe, that would be a murder with mitigating circumstances.
> After all, that person was maybe not really aiming at killing you, but just
> willing to impress you or frighten you. There's no reason to kill for that.
>
> Euro
That's Europe, and has no consequence with our laws. It IS one reason
europeans have so much problem with the societal self defense concept.
Europeans tend to wait for the other person to get off the first shot
or hit prior to defending themselves. (That is also, consequently,
one reason Germany overran western Europe so fast.) In any conflict,
there are only winners and losers. Fairness is not part of the deal
in a fight. My motto is that is it better to give than to receive.
The whole key to this senario would be that the person was coming to
me, did not heed my repeated warnings, was carrying a weapon capable
of killing at a distance, and (most importantly) already had made the
threat of bodily harm to the point of death to me.
A reasonable person would, under those conditions, assume the other
person meant to kill or harm him. It is the implied threat which you
deny, and which is central to the argument.
Self defense does not require actual violence, but an implied threat
of violence. The difference you speak of is possibly allowing an
armed man to get withn a range for his weapon in which he is
comfortable with and possibly killing his intended victim with the
first shot before defending one's self. In this situation, the person
would already have impressed me by threatening to take my life and
approaching my home with a firearm. He has already stated his intent.
If he came to apoligise, all he had to do is show up without the
weapon and do so. Being armed, and refusing to stop despite repeated
warnings (I assure you I can easily be heard from 100 meters. I'm an
old football coach) is another indicator of his deadly intent. I do
not, nor would the law, want me to become a victim by allowing him to
raise his weapon possibly getting the first shot off.
If I could, I would shoot to disable him and prevent him from
advancing. Firearms, however, can leave potentially fatal wounds even
in extreemities, and should I choose my most accurate weapon, (a .300
magnum rifle) a hit in an extremity will amputate it. There is no
guarantee that even if I shot to wound that he would live.
-
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
By coming to my house with a weapon, he is threatening.
> that wouldn't be self-defense to me (and to legislation in most European
> countries as well) - even for a civilian. I don't know how it would be in
> the US, but in Europe, that would be a murder with mitigating circumstances.
> After all, that person was maybe not really aiming at killing you, but just
> willing to impress you or frighten you. There's no reason to kill for that.
>
> Euro
That's Europe, and has no consequence with our laws. It IS one reason
A Planet Visitor
we form a society, and GIVE the responsibility to judge such
proof to those we select. We do not presume that we can
make that judgment on an individual basis, and we even call
doing so a crime... 'vigilante justice.' Murderers, of course, have
DEMONSTRATED they WILL murder and HAVE murdered.
Thus, society need only examine the proofs which are the
circumstances surrounding that murder, and the probability that
the murderer will recommit such a murder at a later date. And
clearly society decides those 'facts.' Not any individual.
Society also determines if INDIVIDUAL 'self-defense' was
ACTUALLY self-defense or a vigilante type act, which would
of course be criminal, and NOT justified.
>
> > Rather, the point is 'society'
> > decides. And if society can decide on 'individual' proof of
> > self-defense, it can certainly decide on 'self' proof of
> > self-defense. Justification, in fact, lies within the 'self'
> > of society.
>
> So you are basically saying that if society decides that trees are red, I
> should quietly accept it and not asking on which grounds this decision is
> made.... Sorry, but I'm not that docile.
>
Are you completely unfamiliar with FACT, as opposed to
opinion? It is obviously ridiculous to claim that trees are
red, if one views them in a factual framework. Just as it
is ridiculous to claim 'the DP is murder,' if one views that
statement in a factual framework. Having an opinion that
trees are red or the DP is murder, is only seen as an
opinion which CANNOT have a factual basis. It is the
same as a claim that Santa Claus is a 'real' person
(sorry, kids).
But the PERCEPTION of 'self-defense' cannot be disproved or
proved in a factual framework. Thus, it is meaningful to state
that an examination of that 'self-defense' is factually permissible,
understanding that PROOF of such cannot be established
one way or another. Certainly, each and every one of us
can hold a different opinion of what constitutes self-defense,
in an INDIVIDUAL sense. How we respond to an individual
threat is ALWAYS seen as an inward PERCEPTION of the
threat being exerted on us. So to preclude the possibility
of EVERYONE who commits a killing claiming it was in
'self-defense,' society establishes a body, granting it power
to conduct an examination of the act, to determine independently
if it IS self-defense. And we call that body our 'criminal
justice system.' And we entrust that examination to
that body. Thus, this criminal justice system can examine
ALL facets of 'self-defense,' both INDIVIDUAL 'self-defense'
acts taken, and SOCIETY 'self-defense' acts taken in
providing penalties for those who have, in principle,
attacked SOCIETY. You cannot do it, I cannot do it.
Only society can determine if the act actually IS
'self-defense,' taken by either the individual or by the
society itself, in providing those penalties. In effect, ALL
penalties for crimes have an element of 'society self-defense'
connected to them in terms of providing such self-defense
for society through either temporary or permanent
incapacitation of the offender.
>
> > > The second point would be very difficult to prove if, as you
> > > write, the person has no weapon visible (I don't know where you got this
> > > detail from,
> >
> > Well, I think Richard has now said he presumed he had mentioned
> > a visible weapon, but I can see no claim of such from the point of
> > his example, following 'a very good example --'
>
> He didn't write it. But it seemed so obvious for me that I understood it
> this way. The fact you didn't is indicative of a big cultural gap, as the
> existence of a weapon is an absolute condition to self-defense for me.
>
I am simply explaining where I 'got this detail from.' What is
unstated is not actually 'obvious.' Nor is the existence of a
weapon an 'absolute condition' to INDIVIDUAL self-defense.
If one is being physically choked to death, by someone much
physically stronger, such as a 'man on woman' attacker, and
she finds a crowbar with a struggling hand while being choked, it is
obviously self-defense to USE that crowbar in her defense.
And please, do not insult our intelligence by now referring to
the greater strength as 'the weapon.' We KNOW of what you
are speaking. And I don't see that as a 'cultural gap,' but a
gap in your understanding of self-defense, in addition to finding
your reference to a presumed 'cultural gap,' an 'uncultured'
comment in itself. In any case, it is the PERCEPTION that
determines the reaction, if that reaction can be called self-defense.
Please refer to an English dictionary... Because I will not attempt
to define for you the most simple of words. WE ALL know what
'society' IS. There is no constitutional or legal text that says
'The DP is murder,' but I believe you presumed it was. There
IS a constitutional and legal text embodied in establishing the
criminal justice system to prosecute crimes, and provide
penalties for those crimes. And the DP is presumed as such
a lawful penalty in an oblique reference in the Fifth Amendment.
The embodiment of these penalties is to punish and prevent.
Punishment, of course, is an essential element to ALL penalties.
Prevention is embodied in deterrence and incapacitation,
either temporarily or permanently. Prevention of further
damage inflicted on society, through the acts of those
crimes is obviously in the interest of 'public safety,' which
IS 'society self-defense.'
The fact that only pro-DPers say it, is because it is the 'elephant
in the living room' to the anti-DP argument. To admit that
the DP is used in 'society self-defense' is to ADMIT that
justification exists for its use. It is absurd to claim that
someone opposed to the DP would be so stupid as to
claim that the DP IS 'society self-defense.' The two cannot
exist simultaneously in the view of those opposed to the
DP. Self-defense is presumed by ALL (except the deranged
perhaps) to be PERMISSABLE. But, strangely enough, those
opposed to the DP find nothing wrong with considering OTHER
penalties as containing an element of 'society self-defense.'
> So, why do you hide under this term "society", and who does it refer to?
>
HIDE??? you're mad!! It is you who would hide under a
pretext that there is no society. It refers of course, to ALL
who are members of that particular society. Simplistically,
society is a body of individuals living as members of a
community, who establish common goals and common
interests for their protection and greater well-being, as
THEY believe those goals and interests can be achieved.
Nor is there any condition placed upon that society to even
be democratic, although society in the U.S., and most
'civilized' nations is.
>
> > > This is why arguing self-defense is irrelevant in capital executions....
> > >
> > No matter how often you say it... it's STILL WRONG. Your
> > argument has obviously been reduced to 'how you view it.'
> > You may view that Santa Claus is alive and well in retirement,
> > and living in Malibu, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING.
>
> You probably realise that I could reply you the same.
>
No, you cannot. Unless, as you do when you claim 'the DP
is murder,' you would deny FACT, and place opinion above
that fact. The FACT is that the criminal justice system IS
predicated on 'self-defense' of its members from the acts of
criminals. That's hardly deniable. You would certainly not
deny it in the case of a rapist being sentenced to 20 years
instead of 6 months in prison. Why do you feel it is only
appropriate to deny it in the case of the DP?
Exador
It's also a good way to prevent too many people getting killed in a
traditional conflict. Europe has been a collection of more or less
equivalently powerful nations for thousands of years. Sitting back and
assessing the strength of the enemy is a pretty good strategy in those
circumstances.The US has never experienced that,in fact the "US" forces
have been the most technically advanced and hence most powerful in
virtually every conflict that the US has fought, from the original
invasion of the continent onwards. This has led to a certain arrogance
IMHO, which is reflected in the lawsImmigrants tend to forget it pretty
quickly in favour of the dominant paradigm of "shoot first, ask
questions afterward" in the US.
In any conflict,
> there are only winners and losers. Fairness is not part of the deal
> in a fight. My motto is that is it better to give than to receive.
Of course it is, but if you're the biggest kid on the block by far, and
you don't behave fairly you're nothing but a bully.
> The whole key to this senario would be that the person was coming to
> me, did not heed my repeated warnings, was carrying a weapon capable
> of killing at a distance, and (most importantly) already had made the
> threat of bodily harm to the point of death to me.
>
> A reasonable person would, under those conditions, assume the other
> person meant to kill or harm him. It is the implied threat which you
> deny, and which is central to the argument.
I must agree Richard, but that's a pretty clear case you've outlined.
Most claims of self-defence are not as clear cut. Even in the case
outlined, what if the person had (say) an umbrella in his hand which you
mistook for a gun in poor light, and was in fact coming to apologise?
> Self defense does not require actual violence, but an implied threat
> of violence. The difference you speak of is possibly allowing an
> armed man to get withn a range for his weapon in which he is
> comfortable with and possibly killing his intended victim with the
> first shot before defending one's self. In this situation, the person
> would already have impressed me by threatening to take my life and
> approaching my home with a firearm. He has already stated his intent.
> If he came to apoligise, all he had to do is show up without the
> weapon and do so. Being armed, and refusing to stop despite repeated
> warnings (I assure you I can easily be heard from 100 meters. I'm an
> old football coach) is another indicator of his deadly intent. I do
> not, nor would the law, want me to become a victim by allowing him to
> raise his weapon possibly getting the first shot off.
>
>
> If I could, I would shoot to disable him and prevent him from
> advancing. Firearms, however, can leave potentially fatal wounds even
> in extreemities, and should I choose my most accurate weapon, (a .300
> magnum rifle) a hit in an extremity will amputate it. There is no
> guarantee that even if I shot to wound that he would live.
>
> -
> Richard Jackson
>
I don't understand your point here. If your intent was to stop him and
you killed while intending to wound it has no effect on the central
self-defence issue
Cheers,
Craig
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>society,
<snipped>
>society
<snipped>
> society
<snipped>
>Society
<snipped>
> society
> SOCIETY
<snipped>
> SOCIETY.
<snipped>
> society
<snipped>
>society
<snipped>
> 'society
<snipped>
> society
<snipped>
>'society'
<snipped>
> society,
<snipped>
> 'society
<snipped>
> 'society
<snipped>
> 'society
<snipped>
> 'society
<snipped>
> society.
<snipped>
Bloody hell, PV.
And people think I overdo the word 'fuck'. At least I can define it!
I was going to finish this post off by asking you what 'society' is
exactly, given that you seem so sure what its opinions, rights and
piviliges are, but there was no need - your opposite number got there
before me, and you gladly demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt
what I have long suspected...
So, PV, define the word 'society':
>It refers of course, to ALL
>who are members of that particular society. Simplistically,
>society is a body of individuals living as members of a
>community, who establish common goals and common
>interests for their protection and greater well-being, as
>THEY believe those goals and interests can be achieved.
>Nor is there any condition placed upon that society to even
>be democratic, although society in the U.S., and most
>'civilized' nations is.
That's right. Not a fucking clue.
<snipped silly PV's blithering>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
news:mejg6u4s9psm7b3fo...@4ax.com...> Bloody hell, PV.
>
Bloody hell, yourself, dirt.
> And people think I overdo the word '****'. At least I can define it!
>
About the ONLY word you can define. I can see you
positively slaver over it when you write it.
> I was going to finish this post off by asking you what 'society' is
> exactly, given that you seem so sure what its opinions, rights and
> piviliges are, but there was no need - your opposite number got there
> before me, and you gladly demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt
> what I have long suspected...
>
> So, PV, define the word 'society':
>
Ummm, dirt... I don't define words. Rather I use them as they
ARE defined. Unlike yourself, I leave those definitions
to REPUTABLE sources, rather than finding them written on
toilet stall walls. From the OED --
Society -
2. The state or condition of living in association, company, or
intercourse with others of the same species; the system
or mode of life adopted by a body of individuals for the
purpose of harmonious co-existence or for mutual benefit,
defence, etc.: a. In reference to man.
3. a. The aggregate of persons living together in a more or less
ordered community.
5. The fact or condition of being connected or related; connexion,
relationship; union or alliance; affinity.
6. a. The state or condition of being politically confederated or allied;
confederation
b. A political alliance, league, or compact.
> >It refers of course, to ALL
> >who are members of that particular society. Simplistically,
> >society is a body of individuals living as members of a
> >community, who establish common goals and common
> >interests for their protection and greater well-being, as
> >THEY believe those goals and interests can be achieved.
> >Nor is there any condition placed upon that society to even
> >be democratic, although society in the U.S., and most
> >'civilized' nations is.
>
> That's right. Not a ****ing clue.
You're right... you don't have one.
PV
Speak, dirt... speak..
> w00f
Good dog...
Richard Jackson
> Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> > "Euroguy" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3c67b...@news1.meganetnews.com>...
<snip>
Surrender is always a decent way to prevent deaths. Even more
efficient is to make a "mutual-defense" treaty with every bad boy who
is near you. Finland is an expert at that. France is just expert at
losing major wars.
Europe has been a collection of more or less
> equivalently powerful nations for thousands of years. Sitting back and
> assessing the strength of the enemy is a pretty good strategy in those
> circumstances.The US has never experienced that,in fact the "US" forces
> have been the most technically advanced and hence most powerful in
> virtually every conflict that the US has fought, from the original
> invasion of the continent onwards. This has led to a certain arrogance
> IMHO, which is reflected in the lawsImmigrants tend to forget it pretty
> quickly in favour of the dominant paradigm of "shoot first, ask
> questions afterward" in the US.
>
> In any conflict,
> > there are only winners and losers. Fairness is not part of the deal
> > in a fight. My motto is that is it better to give than to receive.
>
>
> Of course it is, but if you're the biggest kid on the block by far, and
> you don't behave fairly you're nothing but a bully.
I've heard that all my life. From losers. I never in my life bullied
anyone, but I've ended the careers of a few who tried to bully me
simply by being the most ruthless in a fight and winning.
>
>
> > The whole key to this senario would be that the person was coming to
> > me, did not heed my repeated warnings, was carrying a weapon capable
> > of killing at a distance, and (most importantly) already had made the
> > threat of bodily harm to the point of death to me.
> >
> > A reasonable person would, under those conditions, assume the other
> > person meant to kill or harm him. It is the implied threat which you
> > deny, and which is central to the argument.
>
>
> I must agree Richard, but that's a pretty clear case you've outlined.
> Most claims of self-defence are not as clear cut. Even in the case
> outlined, what if the person had (say) an umbrella in his hand which you
> mistook for a gun in poor light, and was in fact coming to apologise?
I never shoot at anything without being perfectly clear of my target.
In this event, I would be looking through a very good telescopic
sight. I am extreemely familiar with firearms, and would have little
problem telling a pistol from an umbrella, cane, or other apparatus.
Were it at night, I would simply have to switch on the illuminator and
night scope on a varmit rifle I own, and the result would be the same.
Just heading off the inevitable argument of someone who has little or
no knowledge of firearms, Craig. I assume you are aware of the
hydrostatic effect of high powered rifles, but there are many who are
not so knowledgable who argue that you should attempt to disable
someone. I just did not want to hear that foolishness.
Besides, truth be told, I've been trained to take center mass shots,
or head shots if the suspect is wearing a vest or needs to be taken
out where he cannot squeeze a trigger or slash a throat.
--
Richard
Exador
It's a good way to work out whether the enemy is weak enough to take on.
Whatever Richard *sigh*.
I'm very well aware of it Richard. I have a very good knowledgre of
firearms Richard, the point was that if you shoot him with something
that is going to transfer so much momentum that the guy dies due to
hydrostatic shock, then it is hard to argue you were "shooting to
wound", but that doesn't affect the central issue of whether you did it
in self -defence.
> Besides, truth be told, I've been trained to take center mass shots,
> or head shots if the suspect is wearing a vest or needs to be taken
> out where he cannot squeeze a trigger or slash a throat.
Bully for you. It's got basically bugger-all to do with the argument.
Remedial reading 1: GO and read a good selection of PV posts and report
top 10 reasons that it's a pile of tripe -- rotting in the sun :-).
> --
> Richard
>
EndlsRayne
>But if you shot at the person without him threatening in a whatever way,
>that wouldn't be self-defense to me (and to legislation in most European
>countries as well) - even for a civilian.
You might want to consider that most people who live in America are here
because they did NOT want to live under the crummy laws of Europe. Funny how
that works.
> I don't know how it would be in
>the US, but in Europe, that would be a murder with mitigating circumstances.
It would depend on the state, some states want you to run away, and would
also arrest you for having the gun, others might look at it as self defense.
>After all, that person was maybe not really aiming at killing you, but just
>willing to impress you or frighten you. >There's no reason to kill for that.
Too bad for them. I don't think people should have to have psychic powers. If
the person who got shot didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have been there
causing a problem in the first place.
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>> So, PV, define the word 'society':
>>
>Ummm, dirt... I don't define words. Rather I use them as they
>ARE defined. Unlike yourself, I leave those definitions
>to REPUTABLE sources, rather than finding them written on
>toilet stall walls. From the OED --
>
>Society -
>2. The state or condition of living in association, company, or
>intercourse with others of the same species; the system
>or mode of life adopted by a body of individuals for the
>purpose of harmonious co-existence or for mutual benefit,
>defence, etc.: a. In reference to man.
>
> 3. a. The aggregate of persons living together in a more or less
>ordered community.
>
>5. The fact or condition of being connected or related; connexion,
>relationship; union or alliance; affinity.
>
>6. a. The state or condition of being politically confederated or allied;
>confederation
>
> b. A political alliance, league, or compact.
Very nice PV. So which one is it then? Come to think of it, where are
[1], [3b], [4] and any after [6]?
Perhaps those definitions didn't please you.
In any case, could you please advise me of the formula you use to
discern the will of any of these vague and nebulous non-entities?
Of course you can't, PV - that's because you are, as always, talking
shite. The reason why criminologists use the terms "protection" or
"restraint" when justifying criminal sanction is because they make
sense. It remains a simple fact that since society has no 'self', it
cannot exercise "self defence" - your hopeless floundering in your
attempts to attribute some form of self to such a vague collective as
"society" simply underlines this truth.
So there. Fuckwit.
<snipped>
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 03:42:16 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>
> >> So, PV, define the word 'society':
> >>
> >Ummm, dirt... I don't define words. Rather I use them as they
> >ARE defined. Unlike yourself, I leave those definitions
> >to REPUTABLE sources, rather than finding them written on
> >toilet stall walls. From the OED --
> >
> >Society -
> >2. The state or condition of living in association, company, or
> >intercourse with others of the same species; the system
> >or mode of life adopted by a body of individuals for the
> >purpose of harmonious co-existence or for mutual benefit,
> >defence, etc.: a. In reference to man.
> >
> > 3. a. The aggregate of persons living together in a more or less
> >ordered community.
> >
> >5. The fact or condition of being connected or related; connexion,
> >relationship; union or alliance; affinity.
> >
> >6. a. The state or condition of being politically confederated or allied;
> >confederation
> >
> > b. A political alliance, league, or compact.
>
> Very nice PV. So which one is it then? Come to think of it, where are
> [1], [3b], [4] and any after [6]?
>
determines which of the definitions are appropriate. I
would not claim that 'society' refers to 'high society,' in
the sense I use it, although it certainly IS a form of
society.
> Perhaps those definitions didn't please you.
>
Perhaps it's that the definitions I provided don't please YOU?
If so, then perhaps YOU can provide a source of the
definition of 'society,' and we can discuss how you became
the Ozzy Osbourne of lawyers.
> In any case, could you please advise me of the formula you use to
> discern the will of any of these vague and nebulous non-entities?
>
> Of course you can't, PV - that's because you are, as always, talking
> shite. The reason why criminologists use the terms "protection" or
> "restraint" when justifying criminal sanction is because they make
> sense. It remains a simple fact that since society has no 'self', it
> cannot exercise "self defence" - your hopeless floundering in your
> attempts to attribute some form of self to such a vague collective as
> "society" simply underlines this truth.
>
Of course I can define it, and of course it has a self. One need
only examine the definition of 'self' to see that it can :
Self --
A. to indicate emphatically that the reference is to the person or
thing mentioned and not, or not merely, to some other.
Now, I would suppose you would deny that 'Society' is a 'thing'?
So looking at 'thing' we find that to be --
Thing --
An entity of any kind.
That which exists individually (in the most general sense, in fact or
in idea); that which is or may be in any way an object of perception,
knowledge, or thought; a being, an entity. (Including persons,
when personality is not considered.
So allow me to offer you some reading material which expresses
more eloquently than I could what society consists of - Since
your 'classical education' seems to have missed a few courses,
if you're unfamiliar with what a 'society' is -- Try the first volume
of Will Durant's massive work on the history of mankind - "Our
Oriental Heritage," which describes the beginning of how society
has developed from our species. The entire history of the
ascent of society from those primitive beginnings to how it is
now structured would not only be beyond the capacity of the
bandwidth of this group, but beyond the capacity of your
limited intelligence --
-----------------------------------------------------------
I. THE ORIGINS OF GOVERNMENT
The unsocial instinct- Primitive anarchism-The clan and the tribe-
The king- War
MAN is not willingly a political animal. The human male associates
with his fellows less by desire than by habit, imitation, and the
compulsion of circumstance; he does not love society so much as he
fears solitude. He combines with other men because isolation endangers
him, and because there are many things that can be done better together
than alone; in his heart he is a solitary individual, pitted heroically
against the world. If the average man had had his way there would
probably never have been any state. Even today he resents it, classes
death with taxes, and yearns for that government which governs least.
If he asks for many laws it is only because he is sure that his
neighbor needs them; privately he is an unphilosophical anarchist, and
thinks laws in his own case superfluous.
In the simplest societies there is hardly any government. Primitive
hunters tend to accept regulation only when they join the hunting pack
and prepare for action. The Bushmen usually live in solitary families;
the Pygmies of Africa and the simplest natives of Australia admit only
temporarily of political organization, and then scatter away to their
family groups; the Tasmanians had no chiefs, no laws, no regular
government; the Veddahs of Ceylon formed small circles according to
family relationship, but had no government; the Kubus of Sumatra "live
without men in authority," every family governing itself; the Fuegians
are seldom more than twelve together; the Tungus associate sparingly in
groups of ten tents or so; the Australian "horde" is seldom larger than
sixty souls. In such cases association and cooperation are for
special purposes, like hunting; they do not rise to any permanent
political order.
The earliest form of continuous social organization was the clan- a
group of related families occupying a common tract of land, having the
same totem, and governed by the same customs or laws. When a group of
clans united under the same chief the tribe was formed, and became the
second step on the way to the state. But this was a slow development;
many groups had no chiefs at all, and many more seem to have
tolerated them only in time of war. Instead of democracy being a
wilted feather in the cap of our own age, it appears at its best in
several primitive groups where such government as exists is merely the
rule of the family-heads of the clan, and no arbitrary authority is
allowed.
Underneath all the phenomena of society is the great terra firma of
custom, that bedrock of time-hallowed modes of thought and action which
provides a society with some measure of steadiness and order through
all absence, changes, and interruptions of law.
-------------------------------------------------------
That being said... society has existed since man first emerged
from the caves and formed groups, and then clans, and then
tribes, and so on. Society is that grouping of humans who
desire to obtain synergy from that entity, and wish to abide by
common laws, and customs, not always based on democratic
rules, but certainly ESTABLISHED rules we call laws. Thus, Texas
is a society, within the society of the U.S. Texas cannot create
rules (laws) which would CONFLICT with the higher society, but
barring such conflict may establish the laws that THEY wish to
live by.
> So there. ****wit.
In your masturbatory fantasy, you have only shown that you
are the only poster in this group who can bend over backwards
and forwards at the same time.
Ummmm.... spank...spank...spank.
PV
>
> <snipped>
>
> w00f
>
>
dirtdog
<abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
>"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
>news:g81j6u8ueqbnnke86...@4ax.com...
<snipped>
>> Very nice PV. So which one is it then? Come to think of it, where are
>> [1], [3b], [4] and any after [6]?
>>
>Jesus... you ARE stupid. The structure of the sentence,
>determines which of the definitions are appropriate. I
>would not claim that 'society' refers to 'high society,' in
>the sense I use it, although it certainly IS a form of
>society.
So what were they then?
>
>> Perhaps those definitions didn't please you.
>>
>Perhaps it's that the definitions I provided don't please YOU?
>If so, then perhaps YOU can provide a source of the
>definition of 'society,' and we can discuss how you became
>the Ozzy Osbourne of lawyers.
Rich and successful? Loved by millions?
Sounds about right.
Oh dear.
Again, as is so often the case when engaging you, PV, I invite you to
re-read your answer to my point here. It never ceases to amaze me how
you manage to so effortlessly change subject ever-so-slightly in order
to appear as though you have something persuasive to say.
Why the word 'thing' bcame so pivotal here really is beyond me. Quite
clearly I state that 'society' has no 'self' - certainly not to any
sort of discernable extent that it would be possible to accurately
conclude what this entity's 'will' is. Indeed, the term is wholly
subjective, as you now well realise.
Because a definition you found of the word 'self' you found contains
the word 'thing', does not mean for one moment that the two are
interchangeable - quite clearly they are not. You will note that a
carrot, a tampon and and piece of dogshit are 'things'. They do not
have a 'self'.
I therefore reiterate my point, PV. 'Society' has no 'self' to defend,
but it may be possible to take measures to protect what you consider
to be society.
Hence the accurate penal justification, 'protection'
You dullard.
<snipped largely irrelevant article presumably posted by PV in order
to try to look clever>
>
>In your masturbatory fantasy, you have only shown that you
>are the only poster in this group who can bend over backwards
>and forwards at the same time.
Nope, in my masturbatory fantasy, I stick my rigid man meat up your
stinky wife's bob-hole whilst Wesley Snipes fucks her ear.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 01:10:04 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dirtdog" <dog.of.re...@w00f.w00f.w00f.cxm> wrote in message
> >news:g81j6u8ueqbnnke86...@4ax.com...
>
> <snipped>
>
> >> Very nice PV. So which one is it then? Come to think of it, where are
> >> [1], [3b], [4] and any after [6]?
> >>
> >Jesus... you ARE stupid. The structure of the sentence,
> >determines which of the definitions are appropriate. I
> >would not claim that 'society' refers to 'high society,' in
> >the sense I use it, although it certainly IS a form of
> >society.
>
> So what were they then?
>
Are you imitating 'Earl the Squirrel'?
> >
> >> Perhaps those definitions didn't please you.
> >>
> >Perhaps it's that the definitions I provided don't please YOU?
> >If so, then perhaps YOU can provide a source of the
> >definition of 'society,' and we can discuss how you became
> >the Ozzy Osbourne of lawyers.
>
> Rich and successful? Loved by millions?
>
> Sounds about right.
>
Sure does.
I think the subject is 'self' and society. And I've stuck
to it. I don't think anyone here has actually discerned that
you have a point.
> Why the word 'thing' bcame so pivotal here really is beyond me. Quite
> clearly I state that 'society' has no 'self' - certainly not to any
> sort of discernable extent that it would be possible to accurately
> conclude what this entity's 'will' is. Indeed, the term is wholly
> subjective, as you now well realise.
>
'Thing' becomes pivotal, because 'self' is defined in terms
of a 'thing.' And society is a 'thing' by definition of what a
'thing' is. Thus society is a 'thing,' a 'thing' is a self. qed :
Society is a 'self.' 'Quite clearly,' what you state has no
meaning since 'self' has quite a different meaning than what
you would presume. Read the definition again -- 'the person
or thing...'
> Because a definition you found of the word 'self' you found contains
> the word 'thing', does not mean for one moment that the two are
> interchangeable - quite clearly they are not. You will note that a
> carrot, a tampon and and piece of dogshit are 'things'. They do not
> have a 'self'.
>
According to the definition.. all of those 'things' have a self.
Do you have ANY idea how many 'things' are not living that
are referred to as 'self'? Self-sealing envelope, self-loading
cartridge, self-evident fact... chee... I could probably name
a thousand items that are 'things' which we claim have a 'self.'
You seem to believe that 'self' can ONLY be in respect to
biological forms -- life forms. But the definition clearly refers
to 'things,' which are not always forms of life. 'Self' refers to
an entity. An aircraft, or a ship has a 'self.' It is 'unique' among
ALL other aircraft or ships. That uniqueness makes it a 'self.'
All societies are unique as well. They are constituted from an
arrangement between biological creature as the 'self-embodiment'
of those creatures in respect to how they decide to interact with
each other. In point of fact, even 'things' which we have no
actual knowledge of their existence can be referred to as 'self.'
Such as the individual soul. Read the definition of what a
'thing' is, and then recognize that 'self' is defined in terms of
a 'thing,' as well as a 'person.'
> I therefore reiterate my point, PV. 'Society' has no 'self' to defend,
> but it may be possible to take measures to protect what you consider
> to be society.
>
You only make yourself look more silly the more you say it.
So that's actually not my problem.
> Hence the accurate penal justification, 'protection'
>
Meaning, you ACCEPT 'society self-defense' as a concept,
you just don't like it because I said it. Nonetheless, the
concept is quite un-extraordinary, being used by EVERY
society, in some respects. Since that was the primary
reason that a society was even CREATED, as a 'thing,'
by man. As shown in the writings of Durant in my previous
post. You really need to work on that half of the
'classical education' that you seem to have missed out
on.
> You dullard.
>
>
> <snipped largely irrelevant article presumably posted by PV in order
> to try to look clever>
>
> >
> >In your masturbatory fantasy, you have only shown that you
> >are the only poster in this group who can bend over backwards
> >and forwards at the same time.
<obscenity relating to dirt's admission of a lack of having an
argument clipped> Ummm.. dirt is again relying on St. George
Seminal Observations (1) Personal flame and (2) Issue Avoidance.
PV
PV