Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:The illegalization of marijuana benefits the rich at the expense of the poor? If marijuana were legal like regular cigarets, it would Improve quality and reduce price to the consumer. I think you need to come up with another example.

I'll take that as a yes!

please follow this link to continue:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12904

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The illegalization of marijuana benefits the rich at the expense of the poor? If marijuana were legal like regular cigarets, it would Improve quality and reduce price to the consumer. I think you need to come up with another example.

I'll take that as a yes!

please follow this link to continue:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12904

You would rather have poor people pay as much as possible for poor quality marijuana, right? You don't want rich people contributing to higher quality and lower prices for poor people, right? I rest my case, you poor pathetic fool.

"...should shoot themselves instead..."

Won't give you the pleasure.

henry quirk wrote:"...should shoot themselves instead..."

Won't give you the pleasure.

No HQ, you got me all wrong, as I would find no pleasure in the news of your misguided resolve. No matter who it was that was either killed, or did the killing, I'd feel sorry for them. Knowing that they just didn't deserve/get it. Killing another human should be reserved for self defense and nothing more, and even then one should try and resolve the conflict peacefully.

"Killing another human should be reserved for self defense"

Perhaps killing the mass killer 'is' (a kind of retroactive/proactive) self-defense.

Certainly the dead mass killer can't kill again.

henry quirk wrote:"Killing another human should be reserved for self defense"

Perhaps killing the mass killer 'is' (a kind of retroactive/proactive) self-defense.

Certainly the dead mass killer can't kill again.

Yes, HQ I hear you, from an emotional standpoint, but intellectually, I understand that the mass killer, didn't have complete free will, that he was obviously mentally stunted.
"There has never been a mass murderer that wasn't mentally challenged!" Or any other killer for that matter, that wasn't doing so only in self defense. I'm speaking intellectually, based upon the knowledge I've amassed, particularly as it pertains to psychology and sociology! The ones I really feel sorry for are assassins, as for them to do such, they really have to be missing something, inevitability childhood (love) related.

"I understand that the mass killer, didn't have complete free will, that he was obviously mentally stunted."

Irrelevant for me.

If a (four- or two-legged) rabid dog is comin' for me, I'm not wastin' time wonderin' how much self-control it (or, he, or she) has.

In the same way: I have the rabid dog in a cage...I can keep it locked up and (carefully) care take it for the rest of its life, or, I can put it out of its misery (and scratch one problem offa the list).

Not seein' what obligates me to 'care take' a rabid dog.

There is absolutely no justification for killing anybody except for self-defense when there is no other alternative.

henry quirk wrote:"I understand that the mass killer, didn't have complete free will, that he was obviously mentally stunted."

Irrelevant for me.

If a (four- or two-legged) rabid dog is comin' for me, I'm not wastin' time wonderin' how much self-control it (or, he, or she) has.

In the same way: I have the rabid dog in a cage...I can keep it locked up and (carefully) care take it for the rest of its life, or, I can put it out of its misery (and scratch one problem offa the list).

Not seein' what obligates me to 'care take' a rabid dog.

As to the four legged, I understand, but as to the two legged, I do in fact feel sorry for you, as everyone can be seen as anothers rabid dog, in one way or another.

"There is absolutely no justification for killing anybody except for self-defense when there is no other alternative."

I agree.

Where we disagree: a definition of "self-defense" (I'm thinkin' mine is a bit broader than yours), and, criteria for assessing when "there is no other alternative".

*shrug*

##

"I do in fact feel sorry for you..."

Likewise.

#

"...as everyone can be seen as anothers rabid dog, in one way or another"

No shit...'prey versus predator'/'me versus you' is fundamental to living.

That is: I fully expect to be viewed by some (by many) as 'mad dog' or 'food'.

I plan accordingly.

henry quirk wrote:"There is absolutely no justification for killing anybody except for self-defense when there is no other alternative."

I agree.

Where we disagree: a definition of "self-defense" (I'm thinkin' mine is a bit broader than yours), and, criteria for assessing when "there is no other alternative".

*shrug*

##

"I do in fact feel sorry for you..."

Likewise.

#

"...as everyone can be seen as anothers rabid dog, in one way or another"

No shit...'prey versus predator'/'me versus you' is fundamental to living.

That is: I fully expect to be viewed by some (by many) as 'mad dog' or 'food'.

I plan accordingly.

But maybe you wouldn't have to plan so hard, if you saw it differently. Do you think this way shall serve you well when you're old and senile, an ever easier target? Or at that time shall you depend upon sympathy?

Look if you're a country man, I'm with you, I fracking hate the city, and if you live in the woods, that might be why you see things as you do, a function of your environment.

But make no mistake, the king of the jungle, is a temporary position, for sure!

Bob Evenson: "There is absolutely no justification for killing anybody except for self-defense when there is no other alternative."

Henry Quirk: "I agree."

S.O.B. (I love that abbreviation): "Where we disagree: a definition of "self-defense" (I'm thinkin' mine is a bit broader than yours), and, criteria for assessing when "there is no other alternative".

Bob Evenson: Self defense is something for the police and judicial system to decide. Florida's "stand your ground" law is improper. It doesn't matter if somebody invades your home. If he doesn't pose an immediate threat such as brandishing a weapon, it is improper to shoot him. Contact the police and let them do their job.

"Self defense is something for the police and judicial system to decide."

If you wanna put 'your self' in the care of others, that's your affair.

Not trusting the other guy to be as interested in my living as 'me', *I'll decide what the appropriate criteria is for my self-defense.

##

"the king of the jungle, is a temporary position"

SOB,

You got a bad habit of stating the obvious.

You seem to think I haven't fully considered all the consequences (intended and unintended) of living as I do.

Do me a favor: if you imagine you've come up with a novel objection to my way, please take it for granted that I've already thought of, and dismissed, it.









*this also applies to where and how I dispose of what's left after my defense of self...not spendin' a day in the slam cuz I remove a piece of garbage from the playing field

henry quirk wrote: Not trusting the other guy to be as interested in my living as 'me', *I'll decide what the appropriate criteria is for my self-defense.

And the government will decide whether to throw your ass behind bars.

Only if 'it' can catch me.