Digg It

makeinu

If someone chooses to be a Darmin Award nominee, no one else can be credibly held responsible.

How obnoxious. Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but no one chooses to be a "Darmin" Award nominee. They call it natural selection because nature is the one doing the nominations. Who knows, maybe nature will nominate you!

Let me ask you this, if you were in a state where concealed firearms were legal and you started acting unpredictably and illegally, then would some lone ranger be justified in putting you down? No, absolutely not solely on the basis of unpredictable and illegal behavior. The person in possession of deadly force is responsible for controlling it. They MUST guarantee that such deadly force does not get used unlawfully, no matter what, or else they are committing a federal crime. Last I checked, traffic violations and misdemeanors do not trump federal crimes.

Are you serious?

Absolutely. I can't go around shooting my concealed firearm at jaywalkers and say, "oops they shouldn't have been jaywalking." It doesn't work like that.

No one should ever be in control of a deadly force unless they are willing to do whatever it takes to guarantee that that force is only released in a responsible manor. Anything less is morally reprehensible.

Any motorist that isn't willing to take full responsibility for anyone they kill while they're behind the wheel is as selfish and deranged as a serial killer.

gosmsgo

How obnoxious. Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but no one chooses to be a "Darmin" Award nominee. They call it natural selection because nature is the one doing the nominations. Who knows, maybe nature will nominate you!

Let me ask you this, if you were in a state where concealed firearms were legal and you started acting unpredictably and illegally, then would some lone ranger be justified in putting you down? No, absolutely not solely on the basis of unpredictable and illegal behavior. The person in possession of deadly force is responsible for controlling it. They MUST guarantee that such deadly force does not get used unlawfully, no matter what, or else they are committing a federal crime. Last I checked, traffic violations and misdemeanors do not trump federal crimes.

Absolutely. I can't go around shooting my concealed firearm at jaywalkers and say, "oops they shouldn't have been jaywalking." It doesn't work like that.

No one should ever be in control of a deadly force unless they are willing to do whatever it takes to guarantee that that force is only released in a responsible manor. Anything less is morally reprehensible.

Any motorist that isn't willing to take full responsibility for anyone they kill while they're behind the wheel is as selfish and deranged as a serial killer.

You are out there!!

So you would basically lower the speed limit to 10 mph because that is how slow everyone would have to be going to avoid a collision when someone runs a red light.

Do you ever drive a car? If so what is the fastest you go? Even on your bike when your blasing down a hill at 40 and someone in a SUV pulls out in front of you it would be your fault for going too fast to stop right?

What if another cyclists pulls out in front of you and you kill them on the impact....your fault?

dobber

How obnoxious. Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but no one chooses to be a "Darmin" Award nominee.

.......................................

It doesn't work like that.

Wow. Just wow.

makeinu

So you would basically lower the speed limit to 10 mph because that is how slow everyone would have to be going to avoid a collision when someone runs a red light.

Well, I don't like to tell people what to do, but I'd certainly say that anyone propelling a ton of mass in speeds excess of 10 mph should go to jail should they hurt someone.

Do you ever drive a car? If so what is the fastest you go? Even on your bike when your blasing down a hill at 40 and someone in a SUV pulls out in front of you it would be your fault for going too fast to stop right?

It might be my fault that a collision occurred, but it would be the driver's fault if the collision resulted in death or serious injury.

If I put cyanide in someone's tooth paste whose fault is it? Certainly the victim would be the only one responsible for using the toothpaste. However, I would be the one responsible for the fact that when they used the toothpaste they died. Which is the more egregious error?

What if another cyclists pulls out in front of you and you kill them on the impact....your fault?

If I'm shooting at the gun range and someone jumps in front whose fault is it? What if the gun range were next to a park? What if I was pointing my gun at the park because it is in the same direction as the targets?

Every motorist is aware that there could be pedestrians, cyclists or other motorists around, and yet the blast down the road with 2000 pounds of steal at speeds in excess of 30 mph. How much closer do they have to point their weapons at innocent bystanders in order for you to consider them responsible? Isn't it enough that I'm shooting in the same direction of the park? Does it have to be point blank in order for you to consider the weapon holder responsible?

elgalad

Obviously the cross traffic.

They are the ones in possession of deadly force. It is their responsibility to control it. Period.

They're not the only ones. You think that hitting someone with your bicycle travelling at 20 mph isn't going to cause someone serious injury? If you jumped a red light and I crashed into you on my bike, I can guarantee you'd be on the receiving end of more than a few stern words.

Traffic controls such as red lights are there for a reason, and even if you don't care about other people's safety, you should at least be smart enough to realise that they're there for your safety as well. Not to mention the fact that you have no right of recourse if you run a red light and get taken out by a car, regardless of who you think is doing the right thing.

gosmsgo

Well, I don't like to tell people what to do, but I'd certainly say that anyone propelling a ton of mass in speeds excess of 10 mph should go to jail should they hurt someone.

It might be my fault that a collision occurred, but it would be the driver's fault if the collision resulted in death or serious injury.

If I put cyanide in someone's tooth paste whose fault is it? Certainly the victim would be the only one responsible for using the toothpaste. However, I would be the one responsible for the fact that when they used the toothpaste they died. Which is the more egregious error?

If I'm shooting at the gun range and someone jumps in front whose fault is it? What if the gun range were next to a park? What if I was pointing my gun at the park because it is in the same direction as the targets?

Every motorist is aware that there could be pedestrians, cyclists or other motorists around, and yet the blast down the road with 2000 pounds of steal at speeds in excess of 30 mph. How much closer do they have to point their weapons at innocent bystanders in order for you to consider them responsible? Isn't it enough that I'm shooting in the same direction of the park? Does it have to be point blank in order for you to consider the weapon holder responsible?

After reading your posts I see no reason to argue with you.

You have some very odd ideas that put you at odds with 99.999999999999% of the population so you should find no shortage of people willing to argue with you.

CommuterRun

How obnoxious. Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but no one chooses to be a "Darmin" Award nominee. They call it natural selection because nature is the one doing the nominations. Who knows, maybe nature will nominate you!

That's where you're wrong. People make these choices all the time. Choosing to run a redlight is just one example. Choosing to ride at night without active lights, choosing to ride or drive drunk, choosing to drive without a seatbelt, all examples of the same thing.

Let me ask you this, if you were in a state where concealed firearms were legal and you started acting unpredictably and illegally, then would some lone ranger be justified in putting you down? No, absolutely not solely on the basis of unpredictable and illegal behavior. The person in possession of deadly force is responsible for controlling it. They MUST guarantee that such deadly force does not get used unlawfully, no matter what, or else they are committing a federal crime. Last I checked, traffic violations and misdemeanors do not trump federal crimes.

A bad anology that is off topic, and wrong again, but to answer the question: Yes. If I am behaving in an illegal and dangerous manner with a weapon, then anyone observing this behavior not only has the right to self-defense, but the responsibility of mitigating the threat before I hurt someone else.

Absolutely. I can't go around shooting my concealed firearm at jaywalkers and say, "oops they shouldn't have been jaywalking." It doesn't work like that.

Again, bad anology, but no, you can't do that. Maybe I can come up with a hypothetical situation to clear this up. You're driving at slightly lower than the speed limit, the jaywalker unexpectedly steps out in front of your car, you brake, but cannot stop before hitting them. How can it be your fault? The jaywalker made the choice that put them in the wrong place.

Now if you swerve to avoid the jaywalker, run up on the sidewalk and hit another pedestrian, then yeah, it would be your fault. Should have chosen running over the Darwin Award candidate, rather than risk an innocent bystander.

No one should ever be in control of a deadly force unless they are willing to do whatever it takes to guarantee that that force is only released in a responsible manor. Anything less is morally reprehensible.

Do you include bicycles in this? Bicycles have been known to kill pedestrians. Using your logic it is "morally reprehensible" for a cyclist to run a redlight because of the possibility of hitting a pedestrian.

Any motorist that isn't willing to take full responsibility for anyone they kill while they're behind the wheel is as selfish and deranged as a serial killer.

This has to be applied to anyone engaging in any activity to have merit.

makeinu

They're not the only ones. You think that hitting someone with your bicycle travelling at 20 mph isn't going to cause someone serious injury? If you jumped a red light and I crashed into you on my bike, I can guarantee you'd be on the receiving end of more than a few stern words.

Traffic controls such as red lights are there for a reason, and even if you don't care about other people's safety, you should at least be smart enough to realise that they're there for your safety as well. Not to mention the fact that you have no right of recourse if you run a red light and get taken out by a car, regardless of who you think is doing the right thing.

Point taken. Call me a selfish menace if you like, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Still, I think it's a much smaller risk than getting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle and obeying traffic laws while driving even half the speed limit.

As far as me getting taken out by a car...well I'd rather be a victim than a murderer.

gosmsgo

t by a car...well I'd rather be a victim than a murderer.

Then why do you carry a concealed gun? I have exactly the opposite belief which is why I own a gun.

gosmsgo

I think another way to put it would be straight from the LAB's video.

"You cant slow or stop for everyone who might make a mistake or you would never get home."

That is true whether you are driving or cycling. I guarantee you that you can drive as slow as you want and still kill someone if they are dumb enough.

CommuterRun

I guarantee you that you can drive as slow as you want and still kill someone if they are dumb enough.

+1000

Thank you, Gos. Very succinct way of putting it.

makeinu

That's where you're wrong. People make these choices all the time. Choosing to run a redlight is just one example. Choosing to ride at night without active lights, choosing to ride or drive drunk, choosing to drive without a seatbelt, all examples of the same thing.

Just forget it. I know you were trying to be a smart ass, but none of this has anything to do with the darwin's theory of evolution.

A bad anology that is off topic, and wrong again, but to answer the question: Yes. If I am behaving in an illegal and dangerous manner with a weapon, then anyone observing this behavior not only has the right to self-defense, but the responsibility of mitigating the threat before I hurt someone else.

That's not the scenario I was referring to. I was referring to an armed individual killing an unarmed individual, simply because the unarmed individual was acting unpredictably and unlawfully (but not necessarily in a threatening manor).

Again, bad anology, but no, you can't do that. Maybe I can come up with a hypothetical situation to clear this up. You're driving at slightly lower than the speed limit, the jaywalker unexpectedly steps out in front of your car, you brake, but cannot stop before hitting them. How can it be your fault? The jaywalker made the choice that put them in the wrong place.

Yes, the jaywalking made the choice that put them in the wrong place and the driver made the choice to (likely) kill anyone in the wrong place. The jaywalker is only guilty of disrupting traffic. The driver is responsible for taking someone's life.

Do you include bicycles in this? Bicycles have been known to kill pedestrians. Using your logic it is "morally reprehensible" for a cyclist to run a redlight because of the possibility of hitting a pedestrian.

I personally do not consider it morally reprehensible because the chances of a cyclist killing a pedestrian in the event of a pedestrian collision is orders of magnitude lower than a motorist. Perhaps I would change my mind if cyclist on pedestrian collisions killed more people than the black plague like motorized collisions do.

This has to be applied to anyone engaging in any activity to have merit.

Absolutely. That's why people with any sense of moral decency avoid activities which are likely to cause death to others.

makeinu

Then why do you carry a concealed gun? I have exactly the opposite belief which is why I own a gun.

I don't. That was just a hypothetical argument. I don't carry a gun for the exact same reason I don't drive a car. I respect human life, which, unfortunately, seems to be a minority stance.

I think another way to put it would be straight from the LAB's video.

"You cant slow or stop for everyone who might make a mistake or you would never get home."

That is true whether you are driving or cycling. I guarantee you that you can drive as slow as you want and still kill someone if they are dumb enough.

That's not the point. From a statistical perspective, there is always a chance that any given action will result in any given result. That doesn't mean we can't make responsible decisions based on statistical reasoning. On the contrary, statistical reasoning allows us to weigh the uncertain consequences of our actions more carefully in order to make the most responsible decisions we can possibly make.

CommuterRun

Just forget it. I know you were trying to be a smart ass, but none of this has anything to do with the darwin's theory of evolution.

No, it doesn't, but it is a popular definition, however incorrect to the actual theories of Charles Darwin.

Yes, the jaywalking made the choice that put them in the wrong place and the driver made the choice to (likely) kill anyone in the wrong place. The jaywalker is only guilty of disrupting traffic. The driver is responsible for taking someone's life.

The jaywalker would also, intentional or not, be guilty of suicide by proxy.

I personally do not consider it morally reprehensible because the chances of a cyclist killing a pedestrian are orders of magnitude lower than a motorist. Perhaps I would change my mind if cyclist on pedestrian collisions killed more people than the black plague like motorized collisions do.

Oh I see, so killing a lot of people is wrong, but killing only a few is okay? Just exactly how does the logic work on that?

Absolutely. That's why people with any sense of moral decency avoid activities which are likely to cause death to others.

So pretty much nobody does anything, especially not team sports. This doesn't jibe at all with your last paragraph.

makeinu

The jaywalker would also, intentional or not, be guilty of suicide by proxy.

I disagree. Suicide is, by definition, an intentional act. However, semantics never wins arguments. So even if you wanted to call it suicide, I would still say that the driver is guilty of a much more egregious moral crime.

Oh I see, so killing a lot of people is wrong, but killing only a few is okay? Just exactly how does the logic work on that?

The logic works like this:
Statistically speaking, if you do anything enough times you will end up killing a few people. Therefore, defining "wrong" as anything that might kill anyone is a useless definition with no decision making value because it would place all decisions in the same category ("wrong").

A more useful definition would be to define "wrong" as making a decision which incurs a significantly higher probability of killing someone than any alternative decision available to you. I use this definition because it has a number of appealing properties. For example, by this definition, minimizing the number of wrong decisions you make (or the overall wrongness of your decisions if you don't necessarily want to use black and white categories) also minimizes the number of deaths you expect to cause. It can also easily be generalized to include other kinds of wrong and right, such as hurting people, loving people, helping people, etc.

If you have a definition which you think might work better with the kinds of statistical observations that we call "the real world", then I'd love to hear it. But it seems to me that you're trying to apply deductive reasoning to a statistical situation, which can only lead to contradictions.

So pretty much nobody does anything, especially not team sports. This doesn't jibe at all with your last paragraph.

No, because an activity which could cause death to others may not necessarily be likely to cause death to others. See above about statistical reasoning.

Dchiefransom

gosmsgo

makeinu

Soooooooooooooooooooooooo, earlier this week when the guy drove through/around the train crossing arm that was down over the road, and the red lights flashing, and got struck and killed by the train, that means the train operator murdered him? The train operator should go to prison?

I don't know. You tell me. What's reasonable?

A train is obviously a dangerous vehicle. It's momentum (and thus it's potential to destroy/kill) is much greater than a car. Moreover, it can't swerve to avoid potential victims and has poor stopping ability considering it's momentum. On the other hand, it runs on a separated grade in an attempt to reduce the likelihood that this power is unleashed.

Does the separated grade sufficiently reduce the danger posed by the machine when it has crossings? Perhaps it's not enough? Perhaps there should be no crossings? Perhaps it should have more stopping power? Perhaps the train operator should have thought about these things before accelerating all that steel?

I know the poor sap is probably just trying to earn a buck, but perhaps he should also be thinking about the moral implications of his actions? Would he have acted the same way if every motorist at every crossing was his wife, or daughter, or son? Is human life not precious enough that he couldn't refuse the job and tell his boss that the train needs bridge crossings or to take it a little slower at crossings? Would he have considered the danger posed by his actions small enough if the death of another human being equaled prison for him?

Is it moral to conclude that the risk of an event is acceptable if it kills someone else, but unacceptable if it sends you to jail? If you were framed for a crime and could stop yourself from going to jail by killing someone else, would you do it? Is your own personal freedom worth more than someone else's life?

Brian

I don't. That was just a hypothetical argument. I don't carry a gun for the exact same reason I don't drive a car. I respect human life, which, unfortunately, seems to be a minority stance.

I respect human life too. Which is exactly the reason I frequently carry a loaded gun in my car. It's usually in the door pocket, inches from my left knee.

gosmsgo

I don't know. You tell me. What's reasonable?

A train is obviously a dangerous vehicle. It's momentum (and thus it's potential to destroy/kill) is much greater than a car. Moreover, it can't swerve to avoid potential victims and has poor stopping ability considering it's momentum. On the other hand, it runs on a separated grade in an attempt to reduce the likelihood that this power is unleashed.

Does the separated grade sufficiently reduce the danger posed by the machine when it has crossings? Perhaps it's not enough? Perhaps there should be no crossings? Perhaps it should have more stopping power? Perhaps the train operator should have thought about these things before accelerating all that steel?

I know the poor sap is probably just trying to earn a buck, but perhaps he should also be thinking about the moral implications of his actions? Would he have acted the same way if every motorist at every crossing was his wife, or daughter, or son? Is human life not precious enough that he couldn't refuse the job and tell his boss that the train needs bridge crossings or to take it a little slower at crossings? Would he have considered the danger posed by his actions small enough if the death of another human being equaled prison for him?

Is it moral to conclude that the risk of an event is acceptable if it kills someone else, but unacceptable if it sends you to jail? If you were framed for a crime and could stop yourself from going to jail by killing someone else, would you do it? Is your own personal freedom worth more than someone else's life?

wow -

makeinu

I respect human life too. Which is exactly the reason I frequently carry a loaded gun in my car. It's usually in the door pocket, inches from my left knee.

Ah. Well allow me to be more specific and say that I respect all human life (equally).

Brian

wow -

Indeed. By far the single most hypocritical post I have ever read on these forums.

Ah. Well allow me to be more specific and say that I respect all human life (equally).

I doubt that.

aMull

WHAT!!!???!?!?!?

Please lock your bike somewhere and lose the key.
If i feel it's safe i run the lights, otherwise i stay put. I say it again, how hard can it be to cross a street, some of you people lead me to believe you find it impossible without a light telling you it's "safe" to do so.

dobber

If i feel it's safe i run the lights, otherwise i stay put. I say it again, how hard can it be to cross a street, some of you people lead me to believe you find it impossible without a light telling you it's "safe" to do so.

You're missing the point. Running the light is a violation of the traffic laws. If we're advocating for the cyclist rights to be treated as a vehicle, one that shares the road, then we have to accept that we need to observe the applicable laws.

And as I queried in my original post, if cyclists are allowed to run the light, who is responsible for the inevitable cyclist - cross traffic collision?

makeinu

Indeed. By far the single most hypocritical post I have ever read on these forums.

And that is the single most baseless and unjustifiable post I have ever read on these forums. Last I checked, you've never even met me. How in the world could you even have the slightest clue as to whether or not my actions live up to my words?

I doubt that.

And I can't fault you for that. You would be an utter fool to make a certain judgment about a topic of which you're ignorant. Taking an agnostic stance is certainly a prudent choice.

Although, given your tendency to jump to fantastic and fallacious conclusions, I wonder if you have any doubt at all. I wonder if your proclaimed doubt might be more accurately called ignorant and unsubstantiated preconceived notions.

aMull

And as I queried in my original post, if cyclists are allowed to run the light, who is responsible for the inevitable cyclist - cross traffic collision?
The cyclist of course, i think that's obvious. I've read some suggestions here that some cities let cyclists go a few seconds before motorists, sounds very good to me. Until they do that, i will go through a red when i feel it's safe to do so.

CommuterRun

No, because an activity which could cause death to others may not necessarily be likely to cause death to others. See above about statistical reasoning.

Sounds to me like you're trying to justify an action that you know is wrong, yet you repeat the action.

StrangeWill

Digg is one of the biggest group of plain idiots imaginable.

StrangeWill

makeinu, is that you Yamcha?

Just forget it. I know you were trying to be a smart ass, but none of this has anything to do with the darwin's theory of evolution.
Darwin awards != Darwin theory. Durrrrrrr

It's an award named in honor of him, not his theory, of people dumb enough to end up removing themselves from the gene pool. Obviously this generally consists of people greater than reproduction age, and stupid people are more likely to breed more, so obviously Darwin's theory doesn't play well in this manner.

Brian

And that is the single most baseless and unjustifiable post I have ever read on these forums. Last I checked, you've never even met me. How in the world could you even have the slightest clue as to whether or not my actions live up to my words?

You ride the bus to the train station, don't you?

And I can't fault you for that. You would be an utter fool to make a certain judgment about a topic of which you're ignorant. Taking an agnostic stance is certainly a prudent choice.

Although, given your tendency to jump to fantastic and fallacious conclusions, I wonder if you have any doubt at all. I wonder if your proclaimed doubt might be more accurately called ignorant and unsubstantiated preconceived notions.

You value all life equally. So is Chester Stiles your equal? If someone rapes your wife or daughter, you will stand by, idle? You're not going to interfere, and use violence (if necessary) against your equal?

I-Like-To-Bike

Ah. Well allow me to be more specific and say that I respect all human life (equally).

Indeed. By far the single most hypocritical post I have ever read on these forums.

I doubt that.

Is makeinu the same love-beaded fellow who recently posted on BF his wish for a bus driver to murder me with his motor vehicle?

Brian, are you just now recognizing his character or did you show a trace of hypocrisy too with your previous wink-wink reactions to the obvious lunacy of this self righteous poster?

makeinu

Sounds to me like you're trying to justify an action that you know is wrong, yet you repeat the action.

Ok. Do you have any other knee jerk reactions you'd like to share without thought or justification?

You ride the bus to the train station, don't you?

No, I actually don't, but why don't you just lay out your whole argument at once instead of trying to lead me down a chain of reasoning to prove that I'm a hypocrite. In all likelihood our disagreement does not hinge on a failure of logic, but a difference of assumptions.

So why don't we just cut to the chase and talk about whose assumptions are superior? Lay it out and I'll point out where your assumptions differ from mine and why I believe mine are superior.

You value all life equally. So is Chester Stiles your equal? If someone rapes your wife or daughter, you will stand by, idle? You're not going to interfere, and use violence (if necessary) against your equal?

Chester Stiles is my equal. However, somehow I get the feeling that you're failing to grasp the idea of "equal". Equal does not mean that others are more important than me. It means they are equal. Idly standing by while someone else unequalizes the situation is not consistent with equal valuation.

Brian

No, I actually don't, but why don't you just lay out your whole argument at once instead of trying to lead me down a chain of reasoning to prove that I'm a hypocrite. In all likelihood our disagreement does not hinge on a failure of logic, but a difference of assumptions.

So why don't we just cut to the chase and talk about whose assumptions are superior? Lay it out and I'll point out where your assumptions differ from mine and why I believe mine are superior.

You want to make out motorists, bus drivers, and even train engineers as somehow evil killers. Yet you have no problem using their services. Hypocrisy.

Chester Stiles is my equal. However, somehow I get the feeling that you're failing to grasp the idea of "equal". Equal does not mean that others are more important than me. It means they are equal. Idly standing by while someone else unequalizes the situation is not consistent with equal valuation.

You're dodging the questions (as usual) and are either full of it, or have no sense of self-preservation. The moment someone becomes a true threat to me or my family, they will be met with swift and debilitating violence. I do not carry a gun to kill people, I carry it to prevent harm to myself and my family. I have a license to carry it, have been trained to use it, and the threats to my wife are very real, due to the nature of her work. If you feel that is somehow wrong, then you are against rights granted to all US citizens by the Constitution.

Why do you hate America?

makeinu

You want to make out motorists, bus drivers, and even train engineers as somehow evil killers. Yet you have no problem using their services. Hypocrisy.

It's not my stance that motorists, bus drivers, etc are evil killers simply by virtue of the fact that they control dangerous machines. Danger is part of life. It is unavoidable. However, the nature of an immoral killer is to take life lightly. Willful selfishness, neglect, and thoughtlessness is evil.

It's the same difference between moral and immoral research on human subjects. It is not the absolute harm that determines what is moral or immoral, but the recognition of the inherent tradeoff, the appreciation of the sacrifices that need to be made and the effort that goes into minimizing those sacrifices.

If the train conductor that killed the man previously mentioned justified his actions by saying that his family would have starved to death without him driving that train and that the dead man is an unfortunate, but worthwhile, sacrifice then the conductor is thinking morally. I would think that a man with such a frame of mind would also have been happy to go to jail if it meant keeping his family alive. People may disagree with his moral reasoning, but the fact that he is trying to morally reason at all is what separates him from a cold blooded killer. A cold blooded killer, on the other hand, has no concern for the life that was lost. Whether or not someone dies, it makes no difference to the cold blooded killer as long as he gets to feed his selfish desires.

Call the moral man a hypocrite if you want, but hypocrite or not, he does much more good for his fellow man than the cold blooded killer who is happy to admit that he's willing to let anyone and everyone die if it gains him even the slightest benefit. It's no insult to call someone a hypocrite if being a hypocrite corresponds with moral action (as it does in the philosophical framework we've constructed here). Everyone makes mistakes, but that doesn't diminish the value of morality. On the contrary, the presence of immoral actions only highlights the importance of pursuing moral actions. Two wrongs don't make a right and if we allow the error of being a hypocrite to discourage us from trying our best to do what is right in the future then we are only adding one wrong to another.

That's the entire point. You can't eliminate all wrong from the world. You can only try to minimize it and if minimizing wrongdoing leaves us with hypocrisy then so be it. If it means you always try your best and always fail then so be it. It's better to fail to reach high goals than to succeed at reaching lower goals, if the former allows you to attain higher achievements, don't you think?

You're dodging the questions (as usual) and are either full of it, or have no sense of self-preservation. The moment someone becomes a true threat to me or my family, they will be met with swift and debilitating violence. I do not carry a gun to kill people, I carry it to prevent harm to myself and my family. I have a license to carry it, have been trained to use it, and the threats to my wife are very real, due to the nature of her work. If you feel that is somehow wrong, then you are against rights granted to all US citizens by the Constitution.

Why do you hate America?

Because not hating America is just plain unamerican. :)

Anyway, good luck with your philosophy about self preservation. What did Ghandi know anyway, right? He's as unamerican as the Nobel prize itself and nothing is more important than being American, right?

UmneyDurak

Digg is one of the biggest group of plain idiots imaginable.

Oh I don't know I can think of one other.

CommuterRun

Ok. Do you have any other knee jerk reactions you'd like to share without thought or justification?

Excuse me? Nothing knee-jerk about it. Go back and reread your posts from an objective point of view, if you can, and you will see the justification.

Dchiefransom

I don't know. You tell me. What's reasonable?

Is it moral to conclude that the risk of an event is acceptable if it kills someone else, but unacceptable if it sends you to jail? If you were framed for a crime and could stop yourself from going to jail by killing someone else, would you do it? Is your own personal freedom worth more than someone else's life?

What's reasonable? As in the original post, what's reasonable is that if someone disregards a traffic control, and loses their life for it, the person driving the car has no obligation, period. No jail time, no traffic citation.

In answer to your last paragraph, the answer is no if the person is not the one that framed me for the crime, but a definite yes if it's the person that framed me.

gabdy

How obnoxious. Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but no one chooses to be a "Darmin" Award nominee. They call it natural selection because nature is the one doing the nominations. Who knows, maybe nature will nominate you!

Let me ask you this, if you were in a state where concealed firearms were legal and you started acting unpredictably and illegally, then would some lone ranger be justified in putting you down? No, absolutely not solely on the basis of unpredictable and illegal behavior. The person in possession of deadly force is responsible for controlling it. They MUST guarantee that such deadly force does not get used unlawfully, no matter what, or else they are committing a federal crime. Last I checked, traffic violations and misdemeanors do not trump federal crimes.

1 - Absolutely. I can't go around shooting my concealed firearm at jaywalkers and say, "oops they shouldn't have been jaywalking." It doesn't work like that.

No one should ever be in control of a deadly force unless they are willing to do whatever it takes to guarantee that that force is only released in a responsible 2 - manor. Anything less is morally reprehensible.

3 - Any motorist that isn't willing to take full responsibility for anyone they kill while they're behind the wheel is as selfish and deranged as a serial killer.

1 - LOL, I find it funny that you actually believe that bullsh1t.

2 - So they should only use deadly force in a mansion?

3 - Sounds as though you might be a little deranged mate.

Everyone in this thread is "stupider" for having read your posts, sorry, but you don't have a clue.

gabdy

Obviously the cross traffic.

They are the ones in possession of deadly force. It is their responsibility to control it. Period.

If you ran a red light and I killed you with my car, when I was legally allowed to pass through said traffic lights, not only would I not care, I would expect your estate to fix the damage to my car.

dobber

I-Like-To-Bike

If you ran a red light and I killed you with my car, when I was legally allowed to pass through said traffic lights, not only would I not care, I would expect your estate to fix the damage to my car.

Better yet, if you have read this character's posts on his finances you might collect quite a tidy sum since he is on track to becoming a millionaire because he doesn't own a car.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately his unique financial wizardry appears to on the same wavelength as his very "special moral standard.":(

makeinu

Excuse me? Nothing knee-jerk about it. Go back and reread your posts from an objective point of view, if you can, and you will see the justification.

Nope. The fact is you didn't provide any justification. Go back and reread your post.

If you're not going to provide justification then you're just wasting our time. I'm not going to argue with someone that, for all I know, bases their opinions on the color swirls they see in their Cocoa Pebbles. Sorry.

LOL, I find it funny that you actually believe that bullsh1t.

I seriously doubt that anyone cares about your comedic preferences. However, if anyone does care, then they might be interested to know that I think Jerry Seinfeld is funny.

So they should only use deadly force in a mansion?

What do you think? I think that I must have made a great case if a mere typo makes the top three list of mistakes.

Sounds as though you might be a little deranged mate.

If you're hearing sounds for no apparent reason then perhaps CommuterRun could empathize with you. He also seems to be suffering from the same symptoms.

Or did you mean to say that you believe I am deranged, but would rather not provide any justification for your belief because you don't want to draw attention to its ridiculousness?

If you ran a red light and I killed you with my car, when I was legally allowed to pass through said traffic lights, not only would I not care, I would expect your estate to fix the damage to my car.

Well I hope you enjoy it when you lose your wife or daughter in this way and the perpetrator comes to collect. Although somehow I expect you'd be singing a different tune in that case. Deranged murderers' generally don't like to taste their own medicine.