GhostWriter16
Deity
I'd think you were a dirtbag if you were willing to kill over such a small sum.
If someone stole your life savings I'd be much more understanding (Yes, I know it would probably be in your bank) if you used lethal force if that was the only way to avoid losing everything.
The difference is of degree, not kind, buit that's why I think the difference of force that is acceptable to use is different in degree. If someone snatches your lolipop, you aren't ethically unjustified if you snatch it back, but you are unjustified if you kill, because it just isn't that big a deal.
What's an even bigger deal than the amount however, is that they broke into your house. If you don't want to get shot, you should'nt break into someone's house, I mean, c'mon.
Shoplifting is a little different because even though it is still a crime, you didn't break into someone's private dwelling place in order to do it.
What I'm advocating, admittedly, has a lot of nuance to it. Its just fundamentally a more pro-property position than what you guys are advocating. What you guys are advocating protects criminals way too much for my tastes. That doesn't mean I'm so fundamentally heartless that I want to see 10 year olds killing each other over lollipops.
I guess there's a fine line for me between misdemeanors, or felonies masquerading as them, and high felonies. Once you cross a certain line, I don't care about your rights anymore, I am more important. If you break into my house, that line is crossed and you should not get any protection until the police catch you or you surrender.
That said, I have serious issues with the state's monopoly on force anyway. I think if a cop can use lethal force to catch a criminal, a victim should be allowed to use the same level of force.
As I said however, I think that we should use the minimum amount of force necessary to recover what we had stolen from us. If the least amount of force is REALLY lethal violence I'd theoretically be OK with it, although, again, you are a dirtbag if you use that kind of force over a lollipop.
If it were up to me, I should be allowed to threaten lethal force (Point a gun), I should be allowed to fire warning shots, I should be allowed to hold the criminal and wait for cops, heck, I should be allowed to do a citizen's arrest myself if I really want to. I should be allowed, if necessary, to shoot in such a way that is unlikely to kill. If necessary, I should be allowed to kill.
Right now, its illegal to do ANYTHING short of killing or leaving them be, and that's just stupid. I should be allowed to use violence to stop theft without it becomming lethal if I can manage it. And really, if the criminal is not willing to prevent it from going to that level, he's either stupid (If he keeps fleeing after you point the freaking gun and warn him) or he's trying to kill you.
Why do people assume I'm an American?
I don't need to force it on anyone cus Labour and the Lib Dems are in favour of it.
The Democrats are now these days too. But I wasn't trying to assume. I just don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about SSM.
In America, here's what it comes down to for me.
Personally I don't agree with it, but I've got far bigger things to worry about. The amount of force used on both sides, save the extremeists, to "Enforce" their views is so little that its not even worth the effort on either side. There was a time when people were actually being criminally prosecuted for that kind of behavior. I'm strongly on their side. On the alternate side, if churches were being forced to marry gays against their convictions, I'd be strongly on their side.
When it comes to the marriage debate, I just don't care that much. I care a lot more about America's imperialist foreign policy, the drug war, patriot act, the TSA, the NDAA, the killing of innocents in the womb (I admit government has only so much power over this one) and our debt situation, that I really just don't care if two dudes can get married. Gary Johnson is fine with it, and I've ignored the fact because he's so much better than Romney/Obama on the other issues (Except abortion, where he is certainly better than Obama but may or may not be better than Mitt Romney).
I really wish we could just come up with a fair compromise on SSM so we can focus on other issues and stop having so many people support the GOP on such a stupid, minor side issue. Ironically enough, Barack Obama is probably exactly the kind of person who would actually consider a compromise, having been on both sides, in spite of his horiffic record on almost everything else.
I'm essentially personally opposed, but staying out of the fight. It just doesn't make a difference to me. Heck, most of the "Christian Right" is more worried about this issue than getting Roe v Wade overturned, which baffles my mind
The only case in which my view on this would possibly make a difference is the extremely unlikely case where both candidates are basically good and identical except the fact that one is pro-SSM and the other is against SSM. In that case, I'd vote for the one who was against SSM if everything else is equal, but I'd probably even be looking at factors like who is the better speaker before I got to deciding based on that issue, or if the issue came up in a referrendum. In a referrendum, I'd vote against SSM if it did not mean banning other types of legal union (California) or would stay out of it altogether if it was a vote against both (North Carolina.)So yeah, I'm not really your opponent when it comes to SSM. I'm just happily sitting out of it while I address real problems.
.
