Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 202 203 [204] 205 206 ... 759

Author Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread  (Read 1293862 times)

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3045 on: September 18, 2012, 11:44:00 pm »

They were a majority for a while, but....well, Sapiens Wins, Flawless Victory.

Neanderthal DNA: "Are you sure? Mwahahahaha!"
Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

Nadaka

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • http://www.nadaka.us
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3046 on: September 18, 2012, 11:56:48 pm »

@da_nang

Death is a rather debilitated state.

You ask if I would attack to debilitate or kill in my defense? That is a terribly naive question. You have not been paying attention. Every time you attack someone, you are taking a chance that they will die. And every time you shy away from the task with impotent half attempts you are putting yourself at greater risk.

If I am going to attack someone in self defense, I am going to debilitate them in the most efficient way possible. I will not take the chance that a shot to the leg or arm does not stop their advance. I will not take the chance that they might be tough enough that a crack to the skull will fail to stop them. I will not take the chance for them to pin me down and overpower me. The attacks with the highest chance of disabling someone are exactly the same attacks with the highest chance of killing. There is no difference between attacking to disable and attacking to kill.
Logged
Take me out to the black, tell them I ain't comin' back...
I don't care cause I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me...

I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3047 on: September 19, 2012, 12:20:10 am »

If I am going to attack someone in self defense, I am going to debilitate them in the most efficient way possible. I will not take the chance that a shot to the leg or arm does not stop their advance. I will not take the chance that they might be tough enough that a crack to the skull will fail to stop them. I will not take the chance for them to pin me down and overpower me. The attacks with the highest chance of disabling someone are exactly the same attacks with the highest chance of killing. There is no difference between attacking to disable and attacking to kill.

Nevermind that, in the most common situation of male attacking female, the attacker is almost definitely going to have the upperhand. If that early advantage isn't pushed it means you're almost assuredly at their mercy, and the sound strategy is to open with the best chance at an incapacitating strike. But I'm sure da_nang just wants targets to shrug their shoulders and go "Well, I don't want to actually kill the guy, and since shooting him in the leg didn't work I'll just sit here and let him absolutely dehumanize me. Gee, I hope he doesn't kill me afterwords!" Rapist: "I'm going to kill you afterwords." Target snapping fingers: "Darn. At least I have the moral high ground!"

Do I sound mad about this? I'm sorta mad about this. In a culture where rape is already horribly dealt with, he wants to add the idea that a person shouldn't adequately defend themselves because the poor Rapist's life is at stake, unless they're using lethal force themselves, which will totally easy to see beforehand because rapists carry guns or something! Let's not just blame the victims who survive an assault, let's make sure to shame them before they're even attacked into considering the life of the person willfully initiating a potentially lethal violent crime before their own safety!

Okay. That's off my chest. I'm calm. I swear.
Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

da_nang

  • Bay Watcher
  • Argonian Overlord
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3048 on: September 19, 2012, 01:28:56 am »

Right, so your position is that a person being raped should think of their assailant before themselves. I was just making sure.
My position is to make sure the victim doesn't become the assailant. Using self-defense, you have to weigh the force used versus the force being received. If the force used is "heavier" than the force being received on the scale of balance, you're no longer the victim. I mean, if a thief steals your purse, do you really think you have a right to pull out a gun and kill him? Because that's why there exists a thing called disproportionate use of violence.

Chapter 24 of the Swedish Criminal Code §1:
Quote
En gärning som någon begår i nödvärn utgör brott endast om den med hänsyn till angreppets beskaffenhet, det angripnas betydelse och omständigheterna i övrigt är uppenbart oförsvarlig.
"An act committed in self-defense is a crime only if it with respect to the nature of the aggression, the importance of the affected and the circumstances in general is blatantly unjustifiable."

You ask if I would attack to debilitate or kill in my defense? That is a terribly naive question. You have not been paying attention. Every time you attack someone, you are taking a chance that they will die. And every time you shy away from the task with impotent half attempts you are putting yourself at greater risk.

If I am going to attack someone in self defense, I am going to debilitate them in the most efficient way possible. I will not take the chance that a shot to the leg or arm does not stop their advance. I will not take the chance that they might be tough enough that a crack to the skull will fail to stop them. I will not take the chance for them to pin me down and overpower me. The attacks with the highest chance of disabling someone are exactly the same attacks with the highest chance of killing. There is no difference between attacking to disable and attacking to kill.
The difference between shoot to kill and shoot to debilitate is that the probability of death in the latter is orders of magnitudes lower compared to the former. If you shoot in the head, chances are it will kill the assailant. If you shoot in the kneecap, he's not going to be able to move on two feet. The worst that can happen is he bleeds to death, but chances are that by the time the police and paramedics arrive at the scene he'll still be alive if you call them as soon as possible.

Nevermind that, in the most common situation of male attacking female, the attacker is almost definitely going to have the upperhand. If that early advantage isn't pushed it means you're almost assuredly at their mercy, and the sound strategy is to open with the best chance at an incapacitating strike. But I'm sure da_nang just wants targets to shrug their shoulders and go "Well, I don't want to actually kill the guy, and since shooting him in the leg didn't work I'll just sit here and let him absolutely dehumanize me. Gee, I hope he doesn't kill me afterwords!" Rapist: "I'm going to kill you afterwords." Target snapping fingers: "Darn. At least I have the moral high ground!"

Do I sound mad about this? I'm sorta mad about this. In a culture where rape is already horribly dealt with, he wants to add the idea that a person shouldn't adequately defend themselves because the poor Rapist's life is at stake, unless they're using lethal force themselves, which will totally easy to see beforehand because rapists carry guns or something! Let's not just blame the victims who survive an assault, let's make sure to shame them before they're even attacked into considering the life of the person willfully initiating a potentially lethal violent crime before their own safety!
Strawman. I'm sorry if I come off sounding callous or something but I can't possibly justify "death for an eye". I can't possibly justify killing someone if he didn't at least make an effort to show his intention to kill (e.g. pull out a gun on you). That's barbaric and not fitting in a civilized society. Let's not resort to barbarism in the name of self-defense. Act civilized and handle it nobly.

Cue magma. Can we please get another topic, I feel this is getting us nowhere.
Logged
"Deliver yesterday, code today, think tomorrow."
Ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam.
Future supplanter of humanity.

Skyrunner

  • Bay Watcher
  • ?!?!
    • View Profile
    • Portfolio
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3049 on: September 19, 2012, 04:05:50 am »

Comment: Someone kept saying strawmen "proved" something. They don't. It's a fallacy for a reason.
Comment 2: Given the chance to shoot an assaulter in the torso or the legs, I'd go with torso. It's easier to hit for lots of reasons.
Logged

bay12 lower boards IRC:irc.darkmyst.org @ #bay12lb
"Oh, they never lie. They dissemble, evade, prevaricate, confoud, confuse, distract, obscure, subtly misrepresent and willfully misunderstand with what often appears to be a positively gleeful relish ... but they never lie" -- Look To Windward

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3050 on: September 19, 2012, 04:30:00 am »

Also, expecting a rape victim to make a clear, conscious decision is plain stupid. If someone is trying to rape me, I won't spent 5 minutes pondering the moral imperatives before reacting.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3051 on: September 19, 2012, 04:41:23 am »

Cue magma. Can we please get another topic, I feel this is getting us nowhere.

I'm more than willing to move onwards, but try to point out a "strawman" instead of just claiming so as an "I WIN!" that needs no more extrapolation. If you mean the exaggeration for effect, I thought it was pretty clear that I don't believe you actually want a target to do nothing in defense, but you seem to be under some misapprehensions about what is feasible in such situations and how your moral imperative against lethal force leaves even fewer options (which probably won't work) when those are already limited.
Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

lorb

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3052 on: September 19, 2012, 08:12:57 am »

I second the motion to move on to another topic.

Apparently Neil Young has a hard time staying clean (of pot) after years of smoking it like others do cigarettes. (Writes the New York Times.) Makes you wonder if he could done all the nice music without the stuff or maybe he would have created even more masterwork songs without it?
Logged
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
"This tile is supported by that wall."

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3053 on: September 19, 2012, 12:29:51 pm »

Well there have been a whole lot of shenanigans about this anti-Muslim movie. Specifically in France, as the government has now banned protests against the film.

Quote
Jean-Marc Ayrault said organisers of Saturday’s protest against the film Innocence Of Muslims will not receive police authorisation.

Mr Ayrault told French radio RTL today: “There’s no reason for us to let a conflict that doesn’t concern France come into our country. We are a republic that has no intention of being intimidated by anyone.”

Admittedly there have been deaths in other countries from protests, but some people in France seem to be intentionally angering Muslims by publishing mocking cartoons about Mohammed. The magazine only got a condemnation from the government, but was still allowed to publish the cartoons.

France wants the conflict out of their country and that's understandable, but if they're going to let their magazines bring the conflict into the country then they should let the Muslims deal with it peacefully.
Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3054 on: September 19, 2012, 12:36:22 pm »

The French government is wrong in not allowing peaceful protests against the film, but they would be equally wrong in censoring magazines for mocking Mohammed. Everyone has the right to peacefully protest.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

kaijyuu

  • Bay Watcher
  • Hrm...
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3055 on: September 19, 2012, 12:40:01 pm »

* kaijyuu agrees with MSH

It's silly to try and remove the conflict from their country. First off, they'll inevitably fail, and secondly, they just fan the flames as they piss people off. Not to mention free speech violations.
Logged
Quote from: Chesterton
For, in order that men should resist injustice, something more is necessary than that they should think injustice unpleasant. They must think injustice absurd; above all, they must think it startling. They must retain the violence of a virgin astonishment. When the pessimist looks at any infamy, it is to him, after all, only a repetition of the infamy of existence. But the optimist sees injustice as something discordant and unexpected, and it stings him into action.

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Luke_Prowler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Wait, how did I get back here?
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3057 on: September 19, 2012, 02:39:56 pm »

Unlikely. Fights like this usually don't end with the losing side actually changing their stance, just putting on a new face and letting bad feelings stew.
Logged

Quote from: ProtonJon
And that's why Communism doesn't work. There's always Chance Time

penguinofhonor

  • Bay Watcher
  • Minister of Love
    • View Profile
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3058 on: September 19, 2012, 03:25:28 pm »

The French government is wrong in not allowing peaceful protests against the film, but they would be equally wrong in censoring magazines for mocking Mohammed. Everyone has the right to peacefully protest.

I wasn't recommending censoring the magazines, but just pointing out that it's hypocritical to censor one kind of speech because it could result in conflict/violence and not another with similar consequences.
Logged

Skyrunner

  • Bay Watcher
  • ?!?!
    • View Profile
    • Portfolio
Re: PoH's Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread
« Reply #3059 on: September 19, 2012, 08:15:27 pm »

I have just one question. What is this thread about? D:
Logged

bay12 lower boards IRC:irc.darkmyst.org @ #bay12lb
"Oh, they never lie. They dissemble, evade, prevaricate, confoud, confuse, distract, obscure, subtly misrepresent and willfully misunderstand with what often appears to be a positively gleeful relish ... but they never lie" -- Look To Windward
Pages: 1 ... 202 203 [204] 205 206 ... 759