Red Mosquito

I don't know why anyone would think that the same government that refuses to enforce its laws in their sovereign territory has the authority to decide what the citizens can do in said territory. You don't even need a conception of rights to make an argument for why the government has no authority here.

BurtReynolds wrote: You're only argument seems to be "well, he may not have done anything illegal or immoral, but it still feels wrong to me somehow, and thus there should be a law against it."

That's exactly correct. He should be free because what the law actually says is what matters not what we want it to say, but we should change the law to deter such behavior in the future to avoid situations where this sets a precedent for both the rioters and the... anti-rioters? Whatever K-rit thinks he was.

What's wrong with that?

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: You're only argument seems to be "well, he may not have done anything illegal or immoral, but it still feels wrong to me somehow, and thus there should be a law against it."

That's exactly correct. He should be free because what the law actually says is what matters not what we want it to say, but we should change the law to deter such behavior in the future to avoid situations where this sets a precedent for both the rioters and the... anti-rioters? Whatever K-rit thinks he was.

What's wrong with that?

Everything.

Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

And again, I'm not saying what he did was legally right. I don't know the law there. I'm saying what he did wasnt ethically wrong. I'm not saying I would do what he did or that it was a smart decision on his part, but I am saying that what he did was at worst morally neutral. So I can't imagine why there would be a law against it.

And I'm saying all this from within the framework of western liberalism and its conception of human rights.

BurtReynolds wrote:And again, I'm not saying what he did was legally right. I don't know the law there. I'm saying what he did wasnt ethically wrong. I'm not saying I would do what he did or that it was a smart decision on his part, but I am saying that what he did was at worst morally neutral. So I can't imagine why there would be a law against it.

And I'm saying all this from within the framework of western liberalism and its conception of human rights.

Hey Burt, move to Seattle and you’ll find plenty of laws against things that are “morally neutral.”

I like "Kyle Trial," Bammer

Jorge wrote:I like "Kyle Trial," Bammer

Yeah it just makes too much sense. Can’t believe they all whiffed on it.

what's with this strawman that the government had surrended authority? there were cops all over the place.

spike wrote:what's with this strawman that the government had surrended authority? there were cops all over the place.

The cops weren't shooting arsonists so the free market stepped in to fill the demand.

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

You make it sound like he showed up and just started shooting people, which is very different from what actually occurred. Even if he walks, his life is pretty much ruined. Nobody watching the trial wants to be in Kyle's position.

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

It's ok to defend yourself with violence from violent aggressors who want to harm you. It the court backs that up, good for the court.

In a lawless situation, whether it's ok or not, it is gun owners who get to decide... well ... everything. If guns were banned, then that power would fall to whoever is the biggest, strongest, most numerous, etc. So that's hardly an improvement is it? Better to recognize the reality that lawlessness can occur and alter one's values accordingly.

The beautiful part is that protestors also have the right to defend themselves from violent aggressors, whether the law is present or not (but especially when it's not). It's a win/win!

This the beauty of having clear values based on something more substantial than vague intuitions or just thrown together in an ad hoc manner!

macphisto wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

You make it sound like he showed up and just started shooting people, which is very different from what actually occurred. Even if he walks, his life is pretty much ruined. Nobody watching the trial wants to be in Kyle's position.

it doesn't matter if it was self defense or not. people hear and see what they want to.

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

It's ok to defend yourself with violence from violent aggressors who want to harm you. It the court backs that up, good for the court.

In a lawless situation, whether it's ok or not, it is gun owners who get to decide... well ... everything. If guns were banned, then that power would fall to whoever is the biggest, strongest, most numerous, etc. So that's hardly an improvement is it? Better to recognize the reality that lawlessness can occur and alter one's values accordingly.

The beautiful part is that protestors also have the right to defend themselves from violent aggressors, whether the law is present or not (but especially when it's not). It's a win/win!

This the beauty of having clear values based on something more substantial than vague intuitions or just thrown together in an ad hoc manner!

lawlessness can occur, let's just get rid of laws!

spike wrote:

macphisto wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

You make it sound like he showed up and just started shooting people, which is very different from what actually occurred. Even if he walks, his life is pretty much ruined. Nobody watching the trial wants to be in Kyle's position.

it doesn't matter if it was self defense or not. people hear and see what they want to.

The fear that someone somewhere might decide that it's ok murder protestors is slightly valid I guess, but that hardly justifies passing laws against self defense or personal autonomy, or finding an innocent person guilty to appease the lowest among us.

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

It's ok to defend yourself with violence from violent aggressors who want to harm you. It the court backs that up, good for the court.

In a lawless situation, whether it's ok or not, it is gun owners who get to decide... well ... everything. If guns were banned, then that power would fall to whoever is the biggest, strongest, most numerous, etc. So that's hardly an improvement is it? Better to recognize the reality that lawlessness can occur and alter one's values accordingly.

The beautiful part is that protestors also have the right to defend themselves from violent aggressors, whether the law is present or not (but especially when it's not). It's a win/win!

This the beauty of having clear values based on something more substantial than vague intuitions or just thrown together in an ad hoc manner!

lawlessness can occur, let's just get rid of laws!

Wat

What laws exactly?

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Laws shouldn't be made to satisfy the unease created from vague intuitions and feelings for one.

Isn't criminal law suppose to be that? Explicit, bounding rules of behavior in society that allow for adjustment as that society changes?

Yes, laws are bounding rules of behavior and do change as society changes, but that doesn't remotely justify passing laws to satisfy some unarticulated sense that it makes one feel bad. Laws should be based on a philosophical, rational and ethical framework.

where's the line, slippery slope, etc...

kyle walks, the courts are saying it's okay for civilians to shoot rioters.

now we're relying on gun owners to decide who's disturbing the peace. we all know what happens next... shooting protesters, shooting a group of undesirables hanging out where they shouldn't be, etc...

It's ok to defend yourself with violence from violent aggressors who want to harm you. It the court backs that up, good for the court.

In a lawless situation, whether it's ok or not, it is gun owners who get to decide... well ... everything. If guns were banned, then that power would fall to whoever is the biggest, strongest, most numerous, etc. So that's hardly an improvement is it? Better to recognize the reality that lawlessness can occur and alter one's values accordingly.

The beautiful part is that protestors also have the right to defend themselves from violent aggressors, whether the law is present or not (but especially when it's not). It's a win/win!

This the beauty of having clear values based on something more substantial than vague intuitions or just thrown together in an ad hoc manner!

lawlessness can occur, let's just get rid of laws!

Wat

What laws exactly?

all of them!