Marijuana.com

MickityMike

Yet the necessary deterrent forcing both sides to “settle” into an uneasy quasi-peace as observed during the Cold War may not be possible in this situation. The enemy (Islamic fundamentalists) must be convinced that we will go to war and that we will fight and that we will not give up, if we wish the deterrent on our end to be viable and, more importantly for the sake of the uneasy peace, believable. If they have no reason to fear through either inaction or skittishness on our part, then whatever value our large and powerful military might have as a deterrent becomes completely useless. The whole point of deterrence, and the reason it’s effective, is the very belief of one side that the other will not hesitate to go to war if shoved sufficiently. The entire concept either succeeds or fails, oddly enough, not in military strength but in the psychology akin to a high-stakes game of poker: Is he bluffing or is he holding an ace-high straight? Unfortunately, one can only bluff one’s way out so often. Eventually someone’s gonna call your hand.

Very true. But I’d say that for the most part the leadership among the Islamists are entirely rational in their tactics. (Parts of their political strategy, by the way, aren’t as fanciful, IMHO, as some might think.) They’re simply using the most effective means of waging war at their disposal. Their tact, though certainly vicious and brutal, seems rather well designed to prey on the weaknesses of Western power (public opinion) while minimizing the opportunities for the West to use a significant portion of its strength (military capability).

I’d say that overall they’re probably less irrational than they are committed to their cause.

Heh, every once in a while I’ll conclude a post with a melodramatic call to nuke China – while we’ve still time!

When going to war, either reactively or preemptively, I think it’s necessary to weigh the pros and cons. I think that, in general, a preemptive strike against an Asian nation armed with nuclear weapons and a billion Chinese might be a very bad idea.

In hindsight, most definitely. At the time, probably not. Either way, they did try and the attempt didn’t go so well.

Yeah, I tend to dislike being all greasy.

Meh, not to be too snarky, but I’d also like to “believe” in not retaliating by force. However, I also know that the world is populated by people that don’t subscribe to my value system and hold human life in much lesser esteem than I do. I think your belief is fairly dangerous as it assumes your values in others: our friends as well as our enemies.

Sometimes self-defense necessarily implies the use of force.

Sure, that’d be nice. But I think the UN controlling Jerusalem as an open city is about as likely to happen as the Israelis nuking Jenin for a single suicide bomber is: not very. (Doesn’t one of the endings to a Tom Clancy novel have the Swiss military controlling Jerusalem as an international city?

I’d say that the “loss of law” occurred the very moment that you decided not to intervene to physically help your neighbor in whatever way you could. The cops can’t be there for us all the time, 24/7. As a civil society, we ought to be willing to act and meet violence with violence until the aggressing party’s assault is interrupted. We should be willing to stand up for one another, and at the very least, ourselves.

I wonder what the result might’ve been if, I believe it was Flight 93, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, had been occupied by pacifists? Would the death toll on that day likely have been greater if not for the use of force - or at least the attempt of force – encouraging the jihadists to nose the plane into an empty field rather than another densely populated urban target?

So no double taps to the head then? I’d say that if a “death wound” is what’s necessary in order to get the attacker to cease, then... so be it. The attacker has forfeited his right to life by the act of trying to take another’s.

Eh, no. I don’t think anyone has data back that far... So I guess I can’t prove that one. But I can ask if it seems reasonable that some violent deterrent (police, authoritarian army, knights, cave men with a spear, etc.) to civil crime is unavoidable due the “one bad apple” (Prisoner’s Dilemma) theory? Putting just one criminal into a society of pacifists would be like having a wolf act as a sheepherder: he’d tear ‘em up and no one would be there to stop him.

...And a hammer is only a tool as well, but without one you’re up ****’s Creek if you need to drive a nail into a 2x4.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

 

CheebaMonkey

Self-defense maybe an inherent right, but the use of force against another is not.

This is contradictory. You say people have the right to defend themselves, yet they cannot use force against others. That's what self-defense involves. Using force upon others because they're trying to hurt you when you've done nothing to harm them. How about women who take self defense classes in case the day ever comes where they're attacked by a man (or woman). Are you going to tell them that they don't have to the right to defend themselves from some person trying to rape them?

No, deadly force is never the option. If all else failed, I would, sadly, have to allow the abuse to continue until the opportunity comes for the arrest. I know that sounds brutal, but the loss of law is not the answer.

So if someone took ten people hostage, and the only way to save their lives was to kill the aggressor, you would be against this? How about if it was only two people? You save two lives even if you kill the agressor, rather than having them both die, and at most only saving one life, the person who was going to kill them anways.

Your absolute view of use of deadly force is completely unrealistic and needlessly dangerous to innocent lives, IMO.

However, if the child is in danger of being killed, I may make an exception for the police to use deadly force (guns) so long as the police did not attempt to make a death wound.

Why do children only get this right for police to use deadly force to save their lives? Are the lives of teenagers, adults, elderly people, etc. not as equally important? I'm pretty sure mommy and daddy want to be around to take care of their child, as the child would rather have their parents alive.

Have the number of violent acts decreased since the formation of the police?

The police do deter violent acts. When people are in the presence of LEO's (obviously not undercover ones, they have to be aware of them), they're not going to commit any violent crimes, unless they have **** for brains.

If we didn't have any formal organization of police, I think we would see more violent crime.

__________________

^_^truth

Well Mike, I do believe it is impossible for me to convince you, but in hindsight I do think I managed to get you to see my view on it. Thank you for the oppertunity for such a great arguement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to Cheeba:

And what I am arguing is that Self-Defense does not require the use of force. Knowing when to run, and when to ignore the dangers is all self-defense is about. In this situation you presented I would argue that when the person about to commit the rape has his/her (it could be a her) pants down, she runs. Attacking the person isn't going to prevent violence and injury to a human, if anything it will increase the chance of her getting hurt.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

Note that I stated that the use of a gun maybe used So long as the officer does not shoot to kill!

As to your next comment: I agree the life of all humans are vaild, but the question that was at hand was in referance to childern. In the case of older humans, I again would state the use of deadly force should never be used; however, if the sitution is so extreme that nothing else is viable (which I doubt), the use of a gun can be used if the gun is used not to inflict a mortal or death wound.

You ignored my question. I want proof that the formation of the police service as lowered the rate of crime in the world. Until you can provide that data your arguement, at least to me, becomes invaild.

__________________
Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Nietzsche

MickityMike

The basis of your rejection is in and of itself invalid. It's unreasonable to demand actual data, as no such data exists.

And I think Cheeba has done a fairly good job of demonstrating how this assertion, while not backed by actual raw data, is an extremely reasonable assumption to make. Do you disagree with the assumption?

Does it seem unreasonable to conclude that pacifists only exist at the benevolence of their society? What might a society of pacifists do if only one of their number turned "bad" and started a-rapin' and a-killin'?

Yeah I know I won’t convince you, but I usually have a pretty good time arguing things like this.

CheebaMonkey

And what I am arguing is that Self-Defense does not require the use of force. Knowing when to run, and when to ignore the dangers is all self-defense is about.

Except that not all situations you can run from or be aware of. Thinking that they can all be handled without ever having to use force is being naïve.

In this situation you presented I would argue that when the person about to commit the rape has his/her (it could be a her) pants down, she runs.

But they can't always run from their attacker. For example, the victim could be locked in a car, a room, etc., where there's no where to run. That's where self-defense comes in.

Attacking the person isn't going to prevent violence and injury to a human, if anything it will increase the chance of her getting hurt.

Yes it does prevent harm to them. It prevents them from getting raped. Which do you think is worse? Having some possibly sore hands or feet from defending yourself, or having to endure the physical harm and psychological trauma caused by being raped?

Self-defense means you can use force to defend yourself:
Main Entry: self–de·fense
Pronunciation: 'self-di-'fens
Function: noun
1 : the use of force to defend oneself

Either revise your earlier statement, or admit you contradicted yourself.

Note that I stated that the use of a gun maybe used So long as the officer does not shoot to kill!

You have avoided answering my question. Here it is again:

So if someone took ten people hostage, and the only way to save their lives was to kill the aggressor, you would be against this? If you don't answer it, you're going to lead me to believe you'd let ten innocent people needlessly lose their lives.

In the case of older humans, I again would state the use of deadly force should never be used; however, if the sitution is so extreme that nothing else is viable (which I doubt), the use of a gun can be used if the gun is used not to inflict a mortal or death wound.

So you'd rather have the police shoot the aggressor non-fatally and have the hostage die, rather than the police fatally shoot the aggressor, and have the hostage live?

You ignored my question. I want proof that the formation of the police service as lowered the rate of crime in the world. Until you can provide that data your arguement, at least to me, becomes invaild.

What would you like? Statistics? I can't provide those to you, because they don't exist! Formal state police organizations were formed in the what, 1800's (obviously not for some of the later states)? Statisticians didn't take the time to examine violent crime before the police were formed, and after.

Follow my logic on this one. There's a police officer in a convenience store. Let's be stereotypical and say they're buying doughnuts. Along comes in someone who is planning to rob the store. They see the police officer. Do you think they're going to go through with that robbery there, with the LEO present? Not if they have a brain. Hence, simply the presence of police will deter crime, violent or not.