|
On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote:
Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you. But I think you need mental help, not capital punishment.
You're the one who needs mental help, you're pathologically stupid.
|
A knife isn't actually that effective anyway. Cutting someone doesn't stop them from moving, hitting someone with a frying pan slapstick style does. Other useful slapstick methods include, a two by four, a wok booby trap, pie made of questionable amounts of white goo, highly unstable nitroglycerin.
On June 30 2011 14:00 zZygote wrote:
Get your FENCING SWORDS. You can poke but you can't slash!
I can see this being a great excuse to take one of the ancient arts of swordsmanship - fencing.
A foil doesn't even hurt, I know from experience. 
You can use Sabres in fencing too.
|
They really should clarify the legal defintion of burglary while they r at it. I (and at least half of us in this thread probably) was under the idea it was just robbing someone's house.
|
On June 30 2011 14:09 MozzarellaL wrote:
You're the one who needs mental help, you're pathologically stupid.
Maybe if you repeat it a few more times, it will actually become true!
|
Oh boy, I can see some problems with defining 'burglars'...
|
On June 30 2011 14:10 Hekisui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:09 MozzarellaL wrote:
You're the one who needs mental help, you're pathologically stupid. Maybe if you repeat it a few more times, it will actually become true!
We're 6 pages into a thread about burglary, and you still haven't acknowledged that you were wrong about the definition of a burglar.
I don't need to repeat what I said about your intelligence, it's pretty self-explanatory.
|
Yes, you are right and I was wrong. Burglary actually means raping. Sorry. I don't know English.
|
I'm just glad I live in a reasonable state wherein I can defend myself and my property without fear of prosecution. "Duty to retreat" laws are the stupidest statutes ever created. Protecting the rights of criminals in the process of committing criminal acts is laughable.
|
This is about time, people have gone to jail here for killing piece of shit burglars that deserve it.
|
Criminals are humans too. They are protected by the universal human rights just as much as anyone else. These rights are inseparable. They can't be given up even lest alone taken away by others.
This will be struck down in the EU court even if it goes unchallenged in UK court.
Cameron said: 'Burglars give up any human rights' but in fact a person can't even give up his or her own human rights willingly. By definition of being human, you have these rights.
|
On June 30 2011 14:12 Hekisui wrote:
Yes, you are right and I was wrong. Burglary actually means raping. Sorry. I don't know English.
You still don't have the dignity or integrity to admit you were wrong. I don't care how moral you claim to be, you aren't enough of a human being to sincerely admit you made a mistake. Pathetic. You instead resort to a laughable straw man in an attempt to save face
|
On June 30 2011 14:05 MozzarellaL wrote:Current English law defining burglary: A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or raping any person therein, or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.(section 9(1)(a)) Oh. Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 13:58 Hekisui wrote:
If we reduce violence to the minimum needed level, yes we will all be dead because of excess violence! Instead, we kill everyone who seems to be a threat. Sure! No you idiot, you will be dead because all the immoral people have no scruples to kill you, and they aren't going to wait for you to ascertain their intentions. Just because most people are raped by people they know does not mean that burglars do not have an intention to rape. No, a robber wants to steal your plasma TV. A burglar is someone else entirely. Again, your naivete shows, because you don't even know what a burglar is. Show nested quote +These people are petty criminals. If they were ruthless they wouldn't break into random homes at night. Really? Burglary is a FELONY. I wasn't aware felonious crimes counted as 'petty crimes'. Show nested quote +wtf does rape even come in to this whole thing? It's just a stupid thing you made up on the spot because you couldn't think of anything else to counter argue with You're an idiot, read the UK law defining burglary. I'm done arguing with your ignorant mind, if you want to continue, please go educate yourself. Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:05 Hekisui wrote:
The principle or proportionality is a universal moral principle. Not abiding or respecting it is a sigh of objective moral deficiency NEWS FLASH: THE ENTIRETY OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW IS IMMORAL
I have no idea if you guys are serious or not. If so, take a long hard look at the argument you have just had and ask yourselves if it needed to be had, if you could have been less massively aggressive, and why you are so angry about something completely random and unrelated to the topic anyway. Then slap yourselves in the faces. Like...you're going mental over whether or not burglars are defined as potential rapists. You've been arguing it for 2 pages. Why?
If you're not serious, shhhhh.
|
On June 30 2011 14:15 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:12 Hekisui wrote:
Yes, you are right and I was wrong. Burglary actually means raping. Sorry. I don't know English. You still don't have the dignity or integrity to admit you were wrong. I don't care how moral you claim to be, you aren't enough of a human being to sincerely admit you made a mistake. Pathetic. You instead resort to a laughable straw man in an attempt to save face
you must b joking right?
|
On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote:
Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you.
There is no way to tell the intentions of a criminal when he is in your house. If someone is in your house uninvited, then their intentions are not good 99.99999999% of the time. This person could be a murderer, burglar, rapist, whatever. It does not matter, because you shouldn't waste your time to find out. Your own life is worth more than a criminals, isn't it? Would you kill someone who is threatening your life? You would take the chance to see what the criminal does? Your logic is not logic at all, it is stupidity.
If a criminal is in your house he will either run away, or run at you. It's your decision what you do after that.
|
On June 30 2011 14:13 ComusLoM wrote:
This is about time, people have gone to jail here for killing piece of shit burglars that deserve it.
Nothing is changing; this was already the case. The law currently is 'reasonable force' allowed, left openly ambiguous to cater for individual circumstance. The tories claim to be clarifying the law, really they're not doing much at all and claiming the credit.
|
On June 30 2011 14:15 Hekisui wrote:
Criminals are humans too. They are protected by the universal human rights just as much as anyone else. These rights are inseparable. They can't be given up even lest alone taken away by others.
This will be struck down in the EU court even if it goes unchallenged in UK court.
Cameron said: 'Burglars give up any human rights' but in fact a person can't even give up his or her own human rights willingly. By definition of being human, you have these rights.
I agree with Cameron, criminals give up their human rights when they enter the house of someone else with the intent to harm them either through burglary or rape or murder or assault. And it is the innocent persons right to kill that intruder.
|
On June 30 2011 14:11 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:10 Hekisui wrote:On June 30 2011 14:09 MozzarellaL wrote:
You're the one who needs mental help, you're pathologically stupid. Maybe if you repeat it a few more times, it will actually become true! We're 6 pages into a thread about burglary, and you still haven't acknowledged that you were wrong about the definition of a burglar. I don't need to repeat what I said about your intelligence, it's pretty self-explanatory.
Getting angry about something inconsequential and repeatedly insulting the person who disagreed with you may also say something about your intelligence.
|
On June 30 2011 14:15 The KY wrote:
I have no idea if you guys are serious or not. If so, take a long hard look at the argument you have just had and ask yourselves if it needed to be had, if you could have been less massively aggressive, and why you are so angry about something completely random and unrelated to the topic anyway. Then slap yourselves in the faces. Like...you're going mental over whether or not burglars are defined as potential rapists. You've been arguing it for 2 pages. Why?
If you're not serious, shhhhh.
I'm just getting a kick out of flaming this person with the IQ of a post.
On June 30 2011 14:10 Cubu wrote:
They really should clarify the legal defintion of burglary while they r at it. I (and at least half of us in this thread probably) was under the idea it was just robbing someone's house.
A reasonable mistake. Unfortunately some people are unable to realize that their initial impression was wrong.
|
On June 30 2011 14:17 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 14:08 Hekisui wrote:
Yes, the solution to immoral people is to immorally violate their universal human rights and kill them. They might be rapists!
Btw, I am not dead yet. Maybe I would be if I met you. I seem to be a threat to you. There is no way to tell the intentions of a criminal when he is in your house. If someone is in your house uninvited, then their intentions are not good 99.99999999% of the time. This person could be a murderer, burglar, rapist, whatever. It does not matter, because you shouldn't waste your time to find out. Your own life is worth more than a criminals, isn't it? Would you kill someone who is threatening your life? You would take the chance to see what the criminal does? Your logic is not logic at all, it is stupidity. If a criminal is in your house he will either run away, or run at you. It's your decision what you do after that.
This is where proportionality applies. You can't irrationally assume a person is out to kill or rape you. If a person is deemed a threat, you can respond in a certain manner. If a person is violent, you can respond with violence. Under this principle you can use plenty of violence and the problem you describe never arises.
Burglars are almost never armed. So how is killing unarmed people with lethal weapons proportional? If they are armed this almost always means that if the burglar is killed, you won't be found guilty of any crimes.
No, the debate is if a criminal gives up their human rights by choosing to be a criminal. Apparently, right wing lunatic Cameron thinks so. Why should other leaders of poorer countries, for example in Northern Africa, respect universal human rights when Cameron can make statements so much in defiance of the concept of universal inseparable human rights?
|
On June 30 2011 14:20 The KY wrote:
Getting angry about something inconsequential and repeatedly insulting the person who disagreed with you may also say something about your intelligence.
If you went back and read our exchange, you would note I only got angry when he began insulting me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
