IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th November 2021, 11:52 PM   #81
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You keep saying I made an analogy as if I constructed it. As far as I know, I haven't had many brushes with Death from which to draw upon. All analogies have their limitations, and I've been reasonably clear about the main point, which is an irrational over-reaction. You might have something resembling a point if I had said, "This is exactly like the time when..."
Your brush with death doesn't offer any insight into situation of the woman whose home was under attack, because the difference between attackers shouting death threats while throwing stones and someone who is no longer a threat to you makes the latter useless in discussing the former.

Again, if you think it does offer some insight, feel free to explain the connection, but so far I'm still not seeing it. For instance, it's pretty clear that violently attacking someone who isn't a threat to you is an overreaction. But how exactly does that offer insight to the case of someone who violently attacks people who are are threat? When you left your analogy alone you did have some interesting things to say about that situation, but, one more time, the analogy didn't add to the discussion.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 05:16 PM   #82
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,744
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Your brush with death doesn't offer any insight into situation of the woman whose home was under attack, because the difference between attackers shouting death threats while throwing stones and someone who is no longer a threat to you makes the latter useless in discussing the former.

Again, if you think it does offer some insight, feel free to explain the connection, but so far I'm still not seeing it. For instance, it's pretty clear that violently attacking someone who isn't a threat to you is an overreaction.

But how exactly does that offer insight to the case of someone who violently attacks people who are are threat? When you left your analogy alone you did have some interesting things to say about that situation, but, one more time, the analogy didn't add to the discussion.
On the contrary, it has literally added to the discussion -- because you keep adding post after post. You're just toggling back to points that have already been addressed. I quoted the original line:

"In his ruling [the judge] explained the intent of the youths may have been to scare and offend and not physically injure - but the fact that the rocks could have caused serious injury and even possibly death was what had to be considered."

If you cannot see how that's kind of like my situation, then, oh, well. In one obvious respect where it's dissimilar is that the rocks were less likely to cause death because she's protected by, ahem, a house. It's not a car speeding directly into a person. As for this talk about an "ongoing" threat, you seem to conveniently forget where we were in the discussion: The lady could reduce the threat of death-by-rock by retreating into the property. Duh... don't just stand there. Holing up or retreating also speaks to a lot of this "self-defense" nonsense where people bravely "stand their ground." Y'know, handy-dandy alternatives to lethal violence.

In a subsequent post, it was explained the bad wolves had (allegedly) threatened to set fire to the house. One of many important details that were omitted. What a painfully stupid and needless digression.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 09:33 PM   #83
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,150
I do not think the threat to set fire to the house was a needless digression, because, if true, it negates your contention that the woman could have reduced the likelihood of aggression by retreating into the property.

It is known that the youths in question smashed numerous windows of the house, and that at least one of them was able without impediment to throw a rock of over four pounds through a window of the house. I was not kidding when I suggested that full understanding of the situation might occur if you were to pick up a four pound rock and try to throw it through a window from any but a very close distance.

We are informed that the youths never attempted to enter, but it's only speculation after the fact that suggests they did not plan to, especially if she had retreated deep in and stopped watching.

While it turns out that the youths did not possess any incendiary devices, there is no reason to believe that they could not have. One small molotov cocktail under a porch, through a window, or into the cellar through a broken window, and their threat to burn the house down comes true. It is, after all, what they explicitly claimed to intend, and what they apparently wanted the occupant to believe. Sure, after the fact it's easy to say she shouldn't have believed them, but since they tried their best to convince her, whose fault is it if they succeeded?

You know, or you ought to, that if you had been one of the assailants, and if you had actually wished to do the harm they claimed they would, you could do it with terrifying ease. A bottle in a coat pocket, a wad of newspaper and a pocket lighter sets a house afire. All you have to do is wait for them either to burn inside or to come out screaming, and then kill them with the stones you have proven so well to be able to aim and throw. Or maybe they'd mellow and settle for leaving them homeless, destitute and freezing.

They claimed that they wanted to do a thing that they could, in fact, have done easily. I think this is the part that differentiates this incident from some others: they clearly announced harmful, and possibly fatal, intentions while engaged in harmful behavior.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 25th November 2021 at 09:35 PM.
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 10:34 PM   #84
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,744
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I do not think the threat to set fire to the house was a needless digression, because, if true, it negates your contention that the woman could have reduced the likelihood of aggression by retreating into the property.
Just to be clear, I am not saying THAT was a pointless and needless digression. Roborama haranguing me for this example is the needless digression because it was on point at the time. It diverged when important details that had been omitted were later added, so it's pretty daffy to complain ex post facto.

Quote:
They claimed that they wanted to do a thing that they could, in fact, have done easily. I think this is the part that differentiates this incident from some others: they clearly announced harmful, and possibly fatal, intentions while engaged in harmful behavior.
Again worth noting that this is what she claimed they said. There are no (as of yet) witnesses to corroborate this ever-changing story.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.

Last edited by Cain; 25th November 2021 at 10:56 PM.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2021, 10:55 PM   #85
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,744
Also... it's worth imaging instead of a beleaguered immigrant mother of two, the homeowner had been a crabby white guy. The evidence remains unchanged: rocks in his house, his testimony, and a dead kid. I do wonder how that would color attitudes and assumptions on this forum. ETA: Not that I'm asking anyone. People have been prone to misinterpretation, bad faith, and dumb takes. But I do wonder...
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.

Last edited by Cain; 25th November 2021 at 11:23 PM.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 12:06 AM   #86
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,150
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Also... it's worth imaging instead of a beleaguered immigrant mother of two, the homeowner had been a crabby white guy. The evidence remains unchanged: rocks in his house, his testimony, and a dead kid. I do wonder how that would color attitudes and assumptions on this forum. ETA: Not that I'm asking anyone. People have been prone to misinterpretation, bad faith, and dumb takes. But I do wonder...
I'd be less sympathetic to the crabby white guy, but I'd still be inclined to support his right to preserve himself if the evidence is there, and if there is no history to suggest he's unreliable. Remember, even if the homeowner's report is uncorroborated, she did call the police, and presumably said something about what she was calling about, and the investigation did show evidence of the rock throwing and window smashing.

If you make a concerted effort to terrorize someone, it's your own fault if you succeed.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 03:45 PM   #87
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,744
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
If you make a concerted effort to terrorize someone, it's your own fault if you succeed.
I don't think it's as simple as that, which is only further complicated with minors involved.

In any event, here's a Twitter thread from Graeme Wood about a recent "self-defense" case. It involves a father picking up his son from his ex-wife's new husband/boyfriend's house as per the visitation schedule. Wood's words are in italics, though I bracket additional information throughout and bold what I consider the most important point:

Disturbing video below. It is sickening and cannot be unseen.

Carruth [the home-owner] tells Read [the father] to leave, then retrieves a rifle.

Chest-bumping ego battle. Carruth fires into the ground.

Read grabs the gun and yanks the barrel.

Carruth scoots back a few paces and fires twice, killing Read.

The fact that Carruth steps back before killing Read would in saner jurisdictions be evidence that deadly force was unjustified. But this is Texas, so I bet Carruth walks.

[quoting a Texas lawyer]

Quote:
The crazy thing about this murder is that it is almost assuredly totally legal under Texas law. The right to defend your home is almost absolute in Texas. There is no duty to flee or call the police, though either action would have likely avoided this.

Note the Rittenhouse two-step: legally bring a gun to [a] situation that doesn't call for it, then use it (again, legally) after an agitated person tries to take it from you. Carruth plausibly claims that he thought Read intended to shoot him with it. Self-defense.

That's the legal analysis. Morally—this was an atrocity. Carruth says he regrets what happened. If he is not a sociopath it will haunt him to his death. I’m not sure anyone who doubts this judgment can be persuaded of it. However,

Surely those who morally and legally defend this kind of “self-defense” can be persuaded that their killer was incompetent, dishonorable, and unworthy of the responsibility of possessing a gun? I understand love guns, but not the use of them in this shabby and immoral way

First there is the idiotic decision to retreat into the house and bring the gun out. Guns are distance weapons. If you are far from the threat, stay far from the threat. Go inside. Get your loved ones inside. Don’t come out. Definitely don’t stand close enough to smell his breath

Middle/close distance is what pepper spray is for. And (here we enter the land of the fully sane) what about de-escalation skills? Among gun folk I hear way too little about de-escalation, as if to broach the topic is to admit that gun ownership is a flawed idea from the start.

If you love guns, may I suggest that your side’s credibility is increased, rather than decreased, by talking a lot about the imprudence and immorality of those who place themselves in positions where they needlessly (if legally justifiably) use them?

For every hour at the range, how many hours do you spend thinking of ways never to use your gun, ever? 5:1 seems not too much to ask, but (with a few honorable exceptions, like ASP’s John Correia) it more often seems like the ratio is just about infinite.

Instead we get this. “THIS IS WHAT THe 2ND AMMeNDMeNT LOOKS LIKe” [A meme of Kyle Rittenhouse wearing a backward hat patrolling Kenosha with an AR-15; another picture of Trump posing alongside Rittenhouse, both grinning and giving the thumbs up] Uh, if you like 2A, I would suggest making 2A heroes of people who show the classical virtues of prudence and temperance. If gun owners flee these virtues, I don’t see how mass gun ownership can be defended.

There are now two fatherless boys, 9 and 14. Their stepmother is seeking custody, on the grounds that their mom is still with the guy who killed their dad. Needless to say I hope her petition is granted, and that the killer repents and seeks forgiveness.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2021, 11:39 PM   #88
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,150
I'm not quite sure how this last case fits with others here, and don't have time tonight to get too close to the details, but my first impression is that the self-defense angle is preposterous.

Aside from the fact that Carruth brought a gun into the confrontation, how can he claim he thought Read was going to shoot him with it, if he was the one using it to shoot Read? Read was not, it seems, holding the gun when Carruth stepped back putting him in a better position to shoot Read. And why twice? If he was afraid of being shot, all he had to do was click the safety and put the rifle back in the house behind him.

I hope he doesn't get away with it, but at least that if he does it haunts the hell out of him for the rest of his life. And I hope the kid spits in his face every day and lets him know he'll piss on his grave.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 06:07 AM   #89
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Here is an example

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...ouse_after_he/

Do you think the victim has a right to deadly force at any point in this? I would say, "no."
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.