Gods and killing...

hedonist

Are you advocating doing nothing when threatened? Taking no action to protect yourself - not talking solely about using a gun, but a knife, tire iron, whatever is handy to preserve your life?

Self-defense isn't assault, to me. Never will be.

Aafke

There are other ways than protecting yourself with physical violence or using weapons of any kind, yes...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Let's leave it to the individuals. For those that think they are 'assailant whisperers'... let them weave their non-violent methods as they are about to get smoked. It'll probably work I'm sure.

For others that aren't quite as confident in the non-violent methods of self-defence, use the force necessary to preserve you and yours.

rr165892

Aafke said:

Yes, and you choose to take his path by assulting him, at the same level he asdsults you... with violence

So let me get this straight.Using your logic in order to be morally superior to the attacker Me and my family have to be killed in order to prove that violence against violence is not the answer.So the morally correct dies and the morally corrupt lives to kill or rob or invade again.Is this correct?
I believe you are projecting a false value to the life of someone who does not in fact value the lives of others.
I for one would be just fine contemplating this morel dilemma while having the assailants blood cleaned out of my carpet after he tried to force himself into our peaceful enviorment.

brianlux

rr165892 said:

callen said:

The thugs were once those darling kids and the environment to which they were subjected created what they became. It's too easy to hate.

Callen,that's no excuse.Just because someone is a product of their respective enviorment does not justify them projecting the same negative on to other.If a person is abused as a child it's NOT ok or an excuse to then go and do Abuse on another child.

I knew a woman who was abducted by four young men. They locked her in the trunk of her car and sped around and then dumped her off somewhere. She was uninjured but of course was very traumatized. The young men were caught and tried. Their defense brought up several points about the young men's bad and difficult upbringing. The judge said, "That may explain what they did but it doesn't excuse it."

Thirty Bills Unpaid

brianlux said:

rr165892 said:

callen said:

The thugs were once those darling kids and the environment to which they were subjected created what they became. It's too easy to hate.

Callen,that's no excuse.Just because someone is a product of their respective enviorment does not justify them projecting the same negative on to other.If a person is abused as a child it's NOT ok or an excuse to then go and do Abuse on another child.

I knew a woman who was abducted by four young men. They locked her in the trunk of her car and sped around and then dumped her off somewhere. She was uninjured but of course was very traumatized. The young men were caught and tried. Their defense brought up several points about the young men's bad and difficult upbringing. The judge said, "That may explain what they did but it doesn't excuse it."

This is such an appropriate thing to add.

It never ceases to amaze me how some just want to excuse people for not owning their behaviours. Too often, and well after the fact, shitbaggers want to play the 'poor me' card to excuse their horrific acts. They do so strategically because they know many people lose perspective in these situations as to who is the real victim. For most people, the person in the ground is typically considered the 'real' victim.

Not all people who have bad upbringings go commit awful offences. And... many times people who have had excellent upbringings commit awful offences as well. It is all irrelevant- once someone crosses the line, most often knowing full well at the moment that they have crossed the line... it's a little much to expect understanding and sympathy when the deed is done.

Aafke

rr165892 said:

Aafke said:

Yes, and you choose to take his path by assulting him, at the same level he asdsults you... with violence

So let me get this straight.Using your logic in order to be morally superior to the attacker Me and my family have to be killed in order to prove that violence against violence is not the answer.So the morally correct dies and the morally corrupt lives to kill or rob or invade again.Is this correct?
I believe you are projecting a false value to the life of someone who does not in fact value the lives of others.
I for one would be just fine contemplating this morel dilemma while having the assailants blood cleaned out of my carpet after he tried to force himself into our peaceful enviorment.

I get the feeling, my repeat button is pushed in over, and over again...., but let me try to explain my opinion again.

I don't say you and your family have to be killed, to be moral superior, but why do all of you automatically assume that if you don't aim the first shot you will be killed...

Maybe you guys and your villeins are so used to having guns around, that in your society this is the only option, in situations like these, I don't know...

I'm not used to having guns around, in my country we have very strict gun laws. So guns aren't that much seen around here. I think we have a different mindset. We have the right to defend ourselves, but only if the criminal has done his deed, If we use excessive force, we will be on trail as well as the offender. Excessive force, in a robbery or burglary is hitting the burglar, you may only restrain him, until the police arrives,
If someone aims a gun at you, you may use force to overtake the gun, but not pull out your own, if you disarmed the gunman, you may not use his gun, you have to restrain him without using his gun against him.
I f you get raped, you may kick your rapist in the nuts, to get away, but after he let go of you, you may not kick him again.

We may not bare arms, as civilians, except people who are member of a shooting-club or hunter, about 70.000, are currently given and only after a very strict and profound investigation. I don't say assailants can't get there hands on them, but it is a lot more difficult for them, than it is in the US. These are the boundaries, which I grew up with.

So using violence is not that excepted in my society as it is in yours, and the expectation that I have to deal with a gun violence encounter is far less than it is for you...

hedonist

"I f you get raped, you may kick your rapist in the nuts, to get away, but after he let go of you, you may not kick him again."
I'm by no means violent. But if I "get raped", rest assured I'll fight as hard as I can, even to the death. No one can tell me what I may or may not do to assure some asshole doesn't continue to stick his dick or some object in me.

It's great if it works for you and your countrymen; me, not so willing to take that chance.

Again - this isn't about moral superiority (and maybe this is where the differences in opinion - and culture - lie). For me, and I think for many others, it's about survival, and not getting killed, or hurt, not getting raped, not allowing these things to happen to ourselves and those we care most about, once the act has begun.

Hope this makes sense because I can think of no other way to put it anymore!

rr165892

brianlux said:

rr165892 said:

callen said:

The thugs were once those darling kids and the environment to which they were subjected created what they became. It's too easy to hate.

Callen,that's no excuse.Just because someone is a product of their respective enviorment does not justify them projecting the same negative on to other.If a person is abused as a child it's NOT ok or an excuse to then go and do Abuse on another child.

I knew a woman who was abducted by four young men. They locked her in the trunk of her car and sped around and then dumped her off somewhere. She was uninjured but of course was very traumatized. The young men were caught and tried. Their defense brought up several points about the young men's bad and difficult upbringing. The judge said, "That may explain what they did but it doesn't excuse it."

Exactly

rr165892

hedonist said:

"I f you get raped, you may kick your rapist in the nuts, to get away, but after he let go of you, you may not kick him again."
I'm by no means violent. But if I "get raped", rest assured I'll fight as hard as I can, even to the death. No one can tell me what I may or may not do to assure some asshole doesn't continue to stick his dick or some object in me.

It's great if it works for you and your countrymen; me, not so willing to take that chance.

Again - this isn't about moral superiority (and maybe this is where the differences in opinion - and culture - lie). For me, and I think for many others, it's about survival, and not getting killed, or hurt, not getting raped, not allowing these things to happen to ourselves and those we care most about, once the act has begun.

Hope this makes sense because I can think of no other way to put it anymore!

I somehow knew this was going to be the next post.Saw it coming,I think I heard you even raise your voice.lol
I think we are dealing with a cultural difference here.Can you imagine, it's like being a double victim .

hedonist

rr165892 said:

I somehow knew this was going to be the next post.Saw it coming,I think I heard you even raise your voice.lol
I think we are dealing with a cultural difference here.Can you imagine, it's like being a double victim .

Raised my inner voice on the last sentence...good ear

rr165892

hedonist said:

rr165892 said:

I somehow knew this was going to be the next post.Saw it coming,I think I heard you even raise your voice.lol
I think we are dealing with a cultural difference here.Can you imagine, it's like being a double victim .

Raised my inner voice on the last sentence...good ear

Loud and clear:)

jeffbr

hedonist said:

"I f you get raped, you may kick your rapist in the nuts, to get away, but after he let go of you, you may not kick him again."
I'm by no means violent. But if I "get raped", rest assured I'll fight as hard as I can, even to the death. No one can tell me what I may or may not do to assure some asshole doesn't continue to stick his dick or some object in me.

It's great if it works for you and your countrymen; me, not so willing to take that chance.

Again - this isn't about moral superiority (and maybe this is where the differences in opinion - and culture - lie). For me, and I think for many others, it's about survival, and not getting killed, or hurt, not getting raped, not allowing these things to happen to ourselves and those we care most about, once the act has begun.

Hope this makes sense because I can think of no other way to put it anymore!

Nailed it. Very well said. I suppose it is cultural, and perhaps I'm simply not multicultural enough to get it, but waiting to be raped, waiting to be assaulted, waiting to be killed, waiting to be victimized before taking action, and having that action limited to "restraining" the scumbag is hardly self-defense. If that sort of self-defense is really the law, it is doing none of their citizens any favors, and is clearly enabling the perp at the expense of the victim. But if it is also cultural that both the perp's and the victim's lives are equally as valuable to society and no judgement is allowed to occur before the cime takes place, I suppose that does explain the twisted logic that results in that bizarre definition of self-defense. I believe they started with a faulty premise, which then lead to a wacky self-defense definition codified into law. Thankfully I'm lawfully allowed to use necessary means to defend my life and the lives of my family members without being unduly constrained. I have no desire to fire the first shot or take the first punch. But I will if I believe that is what is necessary.

Aafke

hedonist said:

"I f you get raped, you may kick your rapist in the nuts, to get away, but after he let go of you, you may not kick him again."
I'm by no means violent. But if I "get raped", rest assured I'll fight as hard as I can, even to the death. No one can tell me what I may or may not do to assure some asshole doesn't continue to stick his dick or some object in me.

It's great if it works for you and your countrymen; me, not so willing to take that chance.

Again - this isn't about moral superiority (and maybe this is where the differences in opinion - and culture - lie). For me, and I think for many others, it's about survival, and not getting killed, or hurt, not getting raped, not allowing these things to happen to ourselves and those we care most about, once the act has begun.

Hope this makes sense because I can think of no other way to put it anymore!

It makes sense to me.. And, no, it's not about superiority...But I hope my explanation also does make sense to you. We do have the right to defend ourselves but, with a lot less violence then is allowed in the US. Therefor the violent behavior in my society is less. Sure it does exist, but it's a far less prominent aspect of my society. Here are some numbers for you. In my country of every 100.000 citizens 0,87 gets killed on a yearly basis, against 5,0 in the US...

hedonist

Thanks, Aafke. Your explanation doesn't resonate with me personally, but I can see your point for the environment / country in which you live. It's simply different.

Are other crimes - non-murders such as rape, stabbings, beatings, molestation - as low where you are?

Please understand - I'm not strolling around Los Angeles with a gun strapped to my hip looking for someone nefarious to take down. But I'll use whatever means I have to protect myself - myself, if legitimately threatened. I value my life and that of my husband's more than any others. It's just how it is.

As jeffbr said, "I have no desire to fire the first shot or take the first punch. But I will if I believe that is what is necessary."

Aafke

hedonist said:

Thanks, Aafke. Your explanation doesn't resonate with me personally, but I can see your point for the environment / country in which you live. It's simply different.

Are other crimes - non-murders such as rape, stabbings, beatings, molestation - as low where you are?

Please understand - I'm not strolling around Los Angeles with a gun strapped to my hip looking for someone nefarious to take down. But I'll use whatever means I have to protect myself - myself, if legitimately threatened. I value my life and that of my husband's more than any others. It's just how it is.

As jeffbr said, "I have no desire to fire the first shot or take the first punch. But I will if I believe that is what is necessary."

These are the numbers that I could find... I'm no violence expert, or Google nerd so if you can show me different numbers, I'll see them coming. But as far as my quick (Okay, not so quick...) investigation shows, The numbers in the NL are lower over all...

The numbers for rape victims: 12% of the women in the NL - 20% of the women in the US

The number of stabbings victims: 0,25% of the citizens in the NL - .0,98% of the citizens in the US

Numbers on domestic violence victims: :14% of the citizens in the NL - 25 % of the citizens in the US

Numbers on child molestation victims (estimation): 15% girls and 10 % boys in the NL - 25% girls and 17% boys in the US.

I just think it is a slightly different world we live in, and therefor I have the luxury that I can afford a non violent approach... But I still believe it is a downward spiral, by the fear of being attack in a violent way, you will probably act more violently towards your assaulter, he on his turn, expect you to act with much more force than an assaulter in the NL, and therefor will use al lot more violence against you, to stay on top of his game, you will see his violent approach and ... etc. etc...Now you have a perfect violence circle, is it possible to break this chain, do you even want to break it?

brianlux

^^^ I'm envious of the world you live in, Aafke- a place where rarely do people walk around with guns a place where non-violence is more the norm. My heart aches to be somewhere like that.

Aafke

brianlux said:

^^^ I'm envious of the world you live in, Aafke- a place where rarely do people walk around with guns a place where non-violence is more the norm. My heart aches to be somewhere like that.

I hear you, it's a pure luxury... That's why most of the times, not all the time, talking is the way to solve problems, for me...

rr165892

brianlux said:

^^^ I'm envious of the world you live in, Aafke- a place where rarely do people walk around with guns a place where non-violence is more the norm. My heart aches to be somewhere like that.

Uh Isnt pot also legal??

hedonist

brianlux said:

^^^ I'm envious of the world you live in, Aafke- a place where rarely do people walk around with guns a place where non-violence is more the norm. My heart aches to be somewhere like that.

It'd be nice for sure but here, just not realistic.

Aafke - I don't live in fear of violence, by the way. But should it find me, I can't see passively responding to an attack.