Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Trespassers will be shot... or charged.

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:48:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So this is a question for those that believe if you have private property and you put a sign up that "trespassers will be shot" is enough justification to shoot and kill someone on sight (regardless if they were actually threatening in any manner).

If you believe that is justified, then what about posting a sign that say "trespassers will be fined $10,000" or whatever dollar amount. Should you be allowed to take pictures of trespassers, pass them to the police and force the trespassers to pay said fine? If so, is any dollar amount too extreme? Surely losing $10,000 is not such a travesty compared to losing one's life.

Anyway, just wondering what others have to say.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:52:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Those who believe in private property also generally subscribe to the estoppel theory of punishment. Under this, the only retaliation you may bring against someone who aggresses against your property is to the extent that they have estopped their own rights. Someone who steals a candy bar has not estopped the same amount of rights as someone who burns someone else's house down and the retaliation under this theory ought to be solely proportionate and nothing over. Just because you have a sign saying that like trespassers will be bludgeoned doesn't mean that you can actually justifiably do that.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:54:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:52:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Those who believe in private property also generally subscribe to the estoppel theory of punishment. Under this, the only retaliation you may bring against someone who aggresses against your property is to the extent that they have estopped their own rights. Someone who steals a candy bar has not estopped the same amount of rights as someone who burns someone else's house down and the retaliation under this theory ought to be solely proportionate and nothing over. Just because you have a sign saying that like trespassers will be bludgeoned doesn't mean that you can actually justifiably do that.

So then this thread does not apply to you.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:56:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Clarifying on the reasoning behind the estoppel theory of punishment, I think Kinesella argues better but whatever, the only options when it comes to punishment are that the offender could agree or not agree to it. If they agree then it's fine, no problem. If they disagree though it's impossible to argue against being treated in the same way you treated others without contradiction. It can only go as far as the person actually acted though, nothing over. The whole thing relies on the idea that people should act without contradiction.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:54:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:52:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Those who believe in private property also generally subscribe to the estoppel theory of punishment. Under this, the only retaliation you may bring against someone who aggresses against your property is to the extent that they have estopped their own rights. Someone who steals a candy bar has not estopped the same amount of rights as someone who burns someone else's house down and the retaliation under this theory ought to be solely proportionate and nothing over. Just because you have a sign saying that like trespassers will be bludgeoned doesn't mean that you can actually justifiably do that.

So then this thread does not apply to you.

My point is that trespassing signs don't decide by themselves what an appropriate retaliation is against property violation.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:00:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A better analogy would be to ask, "does one have a right to mug someone who trespasses on your property?" One does not take a picture of a trespasser, and than forward it to a cop, so the cop could shoot the trespasser; they shoot the trespasser themselves.
In my opinion, if someone trespasses on your property, you have a right to knock them over the head, and take their wallet. They are trespassing on your property, and therefore you have a right to compensation.
Likewise, you have a right to set up a toll booth on your property.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:03:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:57:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:54:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:52:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Those who believe in private property also generally subscribe to the estoppel theory of punishment. Under this, the only retaliation you may bring against someone who aggresses against your property is to the extent that they have estopped their own rights. Someone who steals a candy bar has not estopped the same amount of rights as someone who burns someone else's house down and the retaliation under this theory ought to be solely proportionate and nothing over. Just because you have a sign saying that like trespassers will be bludgeoned doesn't mean that you can actually justifiably do that.

So then this thread does not apply to you.

My point is that trespassing signs don't decide by themselves what an appropriate retaliation is against property violation.

Last I checked shooting trespassers predates the signs... The signs is a courtesy, to prevent having to shoot trespassers, by making them aware in order to deter them. Same goes for the "beware of ostrich" signs.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:07:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:03:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:57:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:54:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:52:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Those who believe in private property also generally subscribe to the estoppel theory of punishment. Under this, the only retaliation you may bring against someone who aggresses against your property is to the extent that they have estopped their own rights. Someone who steals a candy bar has not estopped the same amount of rights as someone who burns someone else's house down and the retaliation under this theory ought to be solely proportionate and nothing over. Just because you have a sign saying that like trespassers will be bludgeoned doesn't mean that you can actually justifiably do that.

So then this thread does not apply to you.

My point is that trespassing signs don't decide by themselves what an appropriate retaliation is against property violation.

Last I checked shooting trespassers predates the signs... The signs is a courtesy, to prevent having to shoot trespassers, by making them aware in order to deter them. Same goes for the "beware of ostrich" signs.

You miss the point. The point was that a warning doesn't justify any retaliation that goes above the rights estopped by the offender. You can't kill someone for trespassing since they haven't estopped their right to life. Note that this conversation is within the context of a right to life and property. I don't want to argue those meta-contentions at this point. I'm assuming it for the sake of conversation.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:17:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:48:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
So this is a question for those that believe if you have private property and you put a sign up that "trespassers will be shot" is enough justification to shoot and kill someone on sight (regardless if they were actually threatening in any manner).

If you believe that is justified, then what about posting a sign that say "trespassers will be fined $10,000" or whatever dollar amount. Should you be allowed to take pictures of trespassers, pass them to the police and force the trespassers to pay said fine? If so, is any dollar amount too extreme? Surely losing $10,000 is not such a travesty compared to losing one's life.

Anyway, just wondering what others have to say.

I don't think that would be justified, but it can be a good incentive for people to stay away. But of course, things get complicated. What if it's private property and you have a wall around your property, someone is sending you death-threats, and someone comes onto your property at night and is poking around your windows? What if someone is on your back porch? What if they open your door? In your bedroom? It's hard to draw the line and say 'Right there, that's fine. Anything else isn't'.

I just think anyone who takes up a gun needs to be very responsible about its usage.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:26:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:07:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:03:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:57:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:54:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:52:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Those who believe in private property also generally subscribe to the estoppel theory of punishment. Under this, the only retaliation you may bring against someone who aggresses against your property is to the extent that they have estopped their own rights. Someone who steals a candy bar has not estopped the same amount of rights as someone who burns someone else's house down and the retaliation under this theory ought to be solely proportionate and nothing over. Just because you have a sign saying that like trespassers will be bludgeoned doesn't mean that you can actually justifiably do that.

So then this thread does not apply to you.

My point is that trespassing signs don't decide by themselves what an appropriate retaliation is against property violation.

Last I checked shooting trespassers predates the signs... The signs is a courtesy, to prevent having to shoot trespassers, by making them aware in order to deter them. Same goes for the "beware of ostrich" signs.

You miss the point. The point was that a warning doesn't justify any retaliation that goes above the rights estopped by the offender.
Noone ever claimed the warning was the thing that justified it. You claimed I missed the point, but I didn't, I simply proved your point was inaccurate.
You can't kill someone for trespassing since they haven't estopped their right to life. Note that this conversation is within the context of a right to life and property. I don't want to argue those meta-contentions at this point. I'm assuming it for the sake of conversation.

If one violates your right to property you have a right to violate their right to life in defense of one's property. If someone tries to rob you, you have a right to shoot them; same applies to trespassing, which is the same concept but a different scenario.
If someone tries to kidnap you, would you say you have a right to kill them? They are not violating your right to life, only your right to liberty.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:32:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:26:08 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:07:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:03:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:57:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:54:18 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/17/2012 9:52:41 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Those who believe in private property also generally subscribe to the estoppel theory of punishment. Under this, the only retaliation you may bring against someone who aggresses against your property is to the extent that they have estopped their own rights. Someone who steals a candy bar has not estopped the same amount of rights as someone who burns someone else's house down and the retaliation under this theory ought to be solely proportionate and nothing over. Just because you have a sign saying that like trespassers will be bludgeoned doesn't mean that you can actually justifiably do that.

So then this thread does not apply to you.

My point is that trespassing signs don't decide by themselves what an appropriate retaliation is against property violation.

Last I checked shooting trespassers predates the signs... The signs is a courtesy, to prevent having to shoot trespassers, by making them aware in order to deter them. Same goes for the "beware of ostrich" signs.

You miss the point. The point was that a warning doesn't justify any retaliation that goes above the rights estopped by the offender.
Noone ever claimed the warning was the thing that justified it. You claimed I missed the point, but I didn't, I simply proved your point was inaccurate.
You can't kill someone for trespassing since they haven't estopped their right to life. Note that this conversation is within the context of a right to life and property. I don't want to argue those meta-contentions at this point. I'm assuming it for the sake of conversation.

If one violates your right to property you have a right to violate their right to life in defense of one's property. If someone tries to rob you, you have a right to shoot them; same applies to trespassing, which is the same concept but a different scenario.
If someone tries to kidnap you, would you say you have a right to kill them? They are not violating your right to life, only your right to liberty.

furthermore, if someone kills your mother due to drunk driving. Would you say they should get the death penalty (take away their life), or would you say they should be jailed (take away their liberty)? By your logic they should be hung, as they deprived your mother of her life, not her liberty.

If someone stole your car, should they be fined (take away their property) or jailed take away their liberty)? By your logic they should be fined, and should serve no jail time.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:28:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The entire point of shooting a trespasser is to make them no longer a threat. Shooting a trespasser stops him. Yelling, "Hey, you owe me $10,000 now!" does not. If anything, it only makes the problem worse.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 4:53:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It can only go as far as the person actually acted though, nothing over.
The actual offense of the act was nonrespect for an absolute and unitary right, the right of property, of which the right to life and liberty are subsets. The response: Nonrespect for that very same right.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 5:24:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It all depends on how much society or the individual values human life.

If someone feels nothing in killing a trespassing human without verbal warning, like one would shoot a wild animal that broke into his home,...well then there's a lot of implications to that. 1) Human beings clearly aren't worth that much....and 2) any kind of murder can be made justifiable through manipulation of the law.

There is no moral argument for or against the act. It all depends on what kind of depraved creature is creating that law and what kind of depraved creature agrees with it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:19:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:28:33 AM, mongeese wrote:
The entire point of shooting a trespasser is to make them no longer a threat. Shooting a trespasser stops him. Yelling, "Hey, you owe me $10,000 now!" does not. If anything, it only makes the problem worse.

Teenagers and children will trespass all the time. I honestly don't even see it as a big deal. If the person actually poses as a threat and looks like he/she will take steal, then I can see a reason to shoot.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:09:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
IMO the most legitimate reason to shoot a trespasser would be if it seems they present a physical threat to you or those on the premises.

Shooting people who are trespassing and are apparently armed is AOK

Otherwise I should think Presenting your arms and calling them out should generally be the first thing to do.
Shooting seemingly innocuous children who are playing hide and seek or something... Given that you yourself are under the belief that they're harmless kids.. would be absolutely abominable, and you should be disposed of.

However... such things really have to be understood on a case-by-case basis in which you try to understand what would be reasonable to think in the given scenario.. And the benefit of the doubt should always initially go to the property owner...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:19:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 5:24:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
It all depends on how much society or the individual values human life.

If someone feels nothing in killing a trespassing human without verbal warning, like one would shoot a wild animal that broke into his home,...well then there's a lot of implications to that. 1) Human beings clearly aren't worth that much....and 2) any kind of murder can be made justifiable through manipulation of the law.

There is no moral argument for or against the act. It all depends on what kind of depraved creature is creating that law and what kind of depraved creature agrees with it.

Doublethink is grand, isn't it?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:36:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:19:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/18/2012 5:24:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
It all depends on how much society or the individual values human life.

If someone feels nothing in killing a trespassing human without verbal warning, like one would shoot a wild animal that broke into his home,...well then there's a lot of implications to that. 1) Human beings clearly aren't worth that much....and 2) any kind of murder can be made justifiable through manipulation of the law.

There is no moral argument for or against the act. It all depends on what kind of depraved creature is creating that law and what kind of depraved creature agrees with it.

Doublethink is grand, isn't it?

what part of subjective morality is that difficult to understand? I mean, after explaining it to you several times,...why do I even bother. Here is a quote from Wnope that explains it far more eloquently than I could :

"I find true philosophical primitiveness to come from those who think ethical systems are only of use if you can conjure up some meta-ethical bludgeon to wield against any opposition.

How does a recognition of the lack of meta-ethical advantage of any particular system of morality lead to the conclusion that we ought not take as axiomatic a set of moral statements (while recognizing the choice of axioms is not inherent but instead prescribed by the self).

Human have cognitively based moral reactions before we even consciously process a moral scenario (in the sense of emotional processing occurs before activity in the frontal lobes becomes primary). Why can't we follow those moral reactions while recognizing that our cognitive responses are personal as opposed to deriving from some universal?

If a human being does not have an emotional reaction to moral scenarios, we call him a SOCIOPATH. Moral nihilists can ignore their moral reactions, but they cannot suppress them before the fact anymore than you can consciously suppress an emotion before it occurs (without knowing in advance the relevant emotion).

A philosophically sound moral nihilist will admit to the existence of moral reactions but will not ascribe inherent normative significance to them.

So please, cut the cognitive dissonance bullsh!t.

All moral nihilism means is that we can't convince others by wielding a meta-ethical bludgeon that ignores the complexities of sociological reality.

Instead, convincing is based on shared normative assumptions. If two people agree to a normative assumption, they can talk coherently about what they "ought" to do and "ought not" to do as long as they recognize the conditional aspect of their assumption.

If two people don't agree on normative assumptions, and they enter into conflict, the solution to that conflict will not be reconcilable by philosophical discussion.

People such as yourself remind me of Candide where the Jesuit priest, while being placed into a boiling pot by cannibals, argues that the cannibals have to stop what they are doing because Christ would not approve of it, and it is in their best interest to follow Christ.
"
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 4:18:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:36:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:19:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/18/2012 5:24:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
It all depends on how much society or the individual values human life.

If someone feels nothing in killing a trespassing human without verbal warning, like one would shoot a wild animal that broke into his home,...well then there's a lot of implications to that. 1) Human beings clearly aren't worth that much....and 2) any kind of murder can be made justifiable through manipulation of the law.

There is no moral argument for or against the act. It all depends on what kind of depraved creature is creating that law and what kind of depraved creature agrees with it.

Doublethink is grand, isn't it?

what part of subjective morality is that difficult to understand? I mean, after explaining it to you several times,...why do I even bother. Here is a quote from Wnope that explains it far more eloquently than I could :

"I find true philosophical primitiveness to come from those who think ethical systems are only of use if you can conjure up some meta-ethical bludgeon to wield against any opposition.

How does a recognition of the lack of meta-ethical advantage of any particular system of morality lead to the conclusion that we ought not take as axiomatic a set of moral statements (while recognizing the choice of axioms is not inherent but instead prescribed by the self).

Human have cognitively based moral reactions before we even consciously process a moral scenario (in the sense of emotional processing occurs before activity in the frontal lobes becomes primary). Why can't we follow those moral reactions while recognizing that our cognitive responses are personal as opposed to deriving from some universal?

If a human being does not have an emotional reaction to moral scenarios, we call him a SOCIOPATH. Moral nihilists can ignore their moral reactions, but they cannot suppress them before the fact anymore than you can consciously suppress an emotion before it occurs (without knowing in advance the relevant emotion).

A philosophically sound moral nihilist will admit to the existence of moral reactions but will not ascribe inherent normative significance to them.

So please, cut the cognitive dissonance bullsh!t.

All moral nihilism means is that we can't convince others by wielding a meta-ethical bludgeon that ignores the complexities of sociological reality.

Instead, convincing is based on shared normative assumptions. If two people agree to a normative assumption, they can talk coherently about what they "ought" to do and "ought not" to do as long as they recognize the conditional aspect of their assumption.

If two people don't agree on normative assumptions, and they enter into conflict, the solution to that conflict will not be reconcilable by philosophical discussion.

People such as yourself remind me of Candide where the Jesuit priest, while being placed into a boiling pot by cannibals, argues that the cannibals have to stop what they are doing because Christ would not approve of it, and it is in their best interest to follow Christ.
"

In case you forget, I'm already a moral nihilist. I'm a moral expressivist. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

Anyway--the doublethink comes in when you said that there is no moral inherency with shoot-on-sight, but then said that people who buy it are depraved, which is a word of value judgement, and consistent with negative moral connotations.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus