View Poll Results: Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    48 71.64%
  • Disagree

    16 23.88%
  • I oppose the Second Amendment completely

    2 2.99%
  • There should be no rule of law

    1 1.49%
Page 25 of 45 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 446

Thread: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

  1. #241
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    Right, I think that is a completely fair way of looking at it. If you see someone with a gun yelling, "Time to die B***!", then obviously the man is guilty, but if someone gets caught with drugs in their car, they should have a criminal trial because the drugs may or may not be theirs, I believe. But if someone comes into a police station and says to a cop, "I murdered 12 children", although he is a monster, he shouldn't be shot because he is no longer committing a violent act at the time. NO ones life is in jeopardy if he lives to draw another breath because he is now in our failed justice system.
    I am not aware of anyone here who has said otherwise.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  2. #242
    Guru
    Jryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-12-16 @ 09:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,987
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    I am shocked, stunned, to learn you are taking psychology classes. Who woulda guessed?
    You do realize that psychology is the study and measurement of how our brain works. Philosophy uses logical assumptions to get their thesis. Philosophy =/= Psychology in no way, shape, or form. Though philosophy is usually psychologies forefront.
    I'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
    -Jryan

  3. #243
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Hmmm, do you think forum rule enforcement should take into consideration the subsconciousness and positive or negative self feelings of the infractor?

    Wow, I have a good defense if so. I wonder what a mod would do with that? I send a PM telling of my horrific childhood, lack of any conditioning in normal civilized communications, lack of formal education - all due to no fault of my own... why do I think that would only not work, but maybe get me put off the forum for being psychologically incapable of functioning within the rules? Or, rather, should I be held to rules same as everyone else and THAT is how I learn "proper behavior?" Does it matter whether I learn or not at all anyway, why would that be their concern or responsibility?

    Just an analogy of course. Know the rules or not, good motive or bad, because those rules are necessary for society to function therefore they are enforced equally.

    Even the Supreme Court has explained the "fairness" of laws - whether tax law, civil law or criminal law - is NOT founded in the "justice" of the law. It is found in the law being univerally and equally applied towards everyone. THAT is what make a law "fair."

    Once excuses of bad behavior are allowed to control, that fairness is gone. Whoever can tell the most pitiful story about their past gets the most breaks? If it isn't a trial of 1.) what happened and 2.) what punishment does the law call for if any for what happened, but rather becomes who can present the best self-pity-me excuses of their past, then the fundamental concept of fairness is gone.

    How many people do horrific things while on drugs - explaining "it was the drugs, not me?" and that they didn't know drugs would "make" them do such a horrific thing. Answer? Doesn't matter. They are judged for what they did.

    A person's subscious thoughts are their own. I see no reason those should ever be put on trial either way.
    Last edited by joko104; 04-06-12 at 02:52 PM.

  4. #244
    Guru
    Jryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-12-16 @ 09:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,987
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Hmmm, do you think forum rule enforcement should take into consideration the subsconciousness and positive or negative self feelings?

    Even the Supreme Court has explained the "fairness" of laws - whether tax law, civil law or criminal law - is NOT founded in the "justice" of the law. It is found in the law being univerally and equally applied towards everyone. THAT is what make a law "fair."

    Once excuses of bad behavior or allowed to control, that fairness is gone. Whoever can tell the most pitiful story about their past gets the most breaks? If it isn't a trial of 1.) what happened and 2.) what punishment does the law call for if any, but rather becomes who can present the best self-pity-me excuses of their past, then the fundamental concept of fairness is gone.

    A person's subscious thoughts are their own. I see no reason those should ever be put on trial either way.
    Bad behavior is not excusable. If people weren't inharently bad, bad behavior would cease to exist. This can never happen though because where there is society there are people who want to take advantage of it. Also yes, I do think courts should take a look at this because then they would find that Corporal Punishment is unjustifiable if the person is merely a product of their society. This way we could say, "Hey he had no chance at becoming a normal member of society because he was beaten as a child, grew up with drug addicted parents, has an IQ of 80, grew up in a drug infested neighborhood, all of his friends are drug addicts/criminals." If we can say all this, I would find it surprising if someone in this situation didn't turn out to be a drug addict/career criminal. As for 2), think of it this way. Just because he had such a **** start and was probably inevitably going to be a criminal does not mean that he shouldn't be "punished". I mean we can't allow as a society for people to run around addicted to crack or murdering families. That would be why we remove them from society, offer them help with their mental disorder, and try and reprogram that mind so that it thinks that the right thing to do is become a normal person of society. If maximizing someone's well being entails that, then I am all for it.

    I totally agree about the fairness of laws. The laws are set up to maximize well being. Their isn't much inherently wrong with our current justice system's way of thinking. The problem is when people say, "He should be punished for murdering that family." Why should he be punished? When he was born into this world did he suddenly think that when he grew up he wanted to be a career criminal? No, of course not. I think that our thoughts/consciousness is like a boat on the sea. The boat rises and falls with the tides that it has no control over, and the only input that this metaphorical boat has is other boats seemingly passing by.
    I'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
    -Jryan

  5. #245
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    You do realize that psychology is the study and measurement of how our brain works. Philosophy uses logical assumptions to get their thesis. Philosophy =/= Psychology in no way, shape, or form. Though philosophy is usually psychologies forefront.
    Oh I don't know if I really understand that. I was not allowed essentially any education as a child and was a runaway fleeing for my life at 15. Really.

    You have written a lot about psychology, so why duck it now? Doesn't philosphy tend to just assert various premises and then consider if so what conclusions should be drawn from those premises? For example... If God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good (assumed premises for discussion) - then how can there be evil? That is philosophy.

    Psychology would be the question of why people believe in their mind there is a good, loving all powerful God given that there is such great evil all around? Is that the distinction between the two?

  6. #246
    Guru
    Jryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-12-16 @ 09:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,987
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Oh I don't know if I really understand that. I was not allowed essentially any education as a child and was a runaway fleeing for my life at 15. Really.

    You have written a lot about psychology, so why duck it now? Doesn't philosphy tend to just assert various premises and then consider if so what conclusions should be drawn from those premises? For example... If God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good (assumed premises for discussion) - then how can there be evil? That is philosophy.

    Psychology would be the question of why people believe in their mind there is a good, loving all powerful God given that there is such great evil all around? Is that the distinction between the two?
    Let me re-clarify, I believe philosophy draws a lot of its opinions from psychology. Philosophy then uses those opinions to look at the general actions within any group. Philosophy tends to answer those questions that are unanswerable with our current technology/understanding of it.

    Psychology is about the effects in our brains, IE the study of what IS happening.

    So no, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, what you wrote is wrong. I only wrote what I did to clarify even further the differences. I do not believe psychology deals with metaphysics of the brain...

    And yes, I have written a few things on psychology that I have derived from my psychology class, such as IQ tests and memory, but I hardly doubt that is indicating my mastery of the subject.

    Anyways, I don't see your point. Why does it matter that we clarify that we are talking about psychology or philosophy, which I believe we have been in philosophy's dome.

    Although, I guess to give some credit, some people do think that metaphysics will one day fall under the domain of science.
    Last edited by Jryan; 04-06-12 at 03:12 PM.
    I'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
    -Jryan

  7. #247
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    Bad behavior is not excusable. If people weren't inharently bad, bad behavior would cease to exist. This can never happen though because where there is society there are people who want to take advantage of it. Also yes, I do think courts should take a look at this because then they would find that Corporal Punishment is unjustifiable if the person is merely a product of their society. This way we could say, "Hey he had no chance at becoming a normal member of society because he was beaten as a child, grew up with drug addicted parents, has an IQ of 80, grew up in a drug infested neighborhood, all of his friends are drug addicts/criminals." If we can say all this, I would find it surprising if someone in this situation didn't turn out to be a drug addict/career criminal. As for 2), think of it this way. Just because he had such a **** start and was probably inevitably going to be a criminal does not mean that he shouldn't be "punished". I mean we can't allow as a society for people to run around addicted to crack or murdering families. That would be why we remove them from society, offer them help with their mental disorder, and try and reprogram that mind so that it thinks that the right thing to do is become a normal person of society. If maximizing someone's well being entails that, then I am all for it.

    I totally agree about the fairness of laws. The laws are set up to maximize well being. Their isn't much inherently wrong with our current justice system's way of thinking. The problem is when people say, "He should be punished for murdering that family." Why should he be punished? When he was born into this world did he suddenly think that when he grew up he wanted to be a career criminal? No, of course not. I think that our thoughts/consciousness is like a boat on the sea. The boat rises and falls with the tides that it has no control over, and the only input that this metaphorical boat has is other boats seemingly passing by.
    I do understand what you are saying, though you think I don't. I just completely disagree.

    Have you noticed that you NEVER mention victims? Never. Why?

    I look at from the victim's perspective. Why does the rapists rotten past allow mitigating what he did to her? She didn't make that past. What possible relevance is that to her? Nor is there any green-light that will flash on when the rapist is "cured," so the question is what right is there to - based upon guessing his subconscious being "fixed" - to expose more potential victims to him?

    To the extent a person can be fixed, how is the fixing accomplished? How is bad behavior prevented? One way is fear of what will happen as a result. I've addressed the problem of MANY bad behavior men towards women. Men increasingly harassing a woman for example. Without exception, given my reputation and known/proven abilities, if I told that man "you cut that s...t out or I'm going to break your collar bone" he would correct his behavior. And because of I and a few other men like me, the women were and felt safe. And no one, including him, was hurt. His behavior accordingly modified. If I instead approached saying, "it seems something is troubling you inside you, what is it?" I'd end up having to break his collar bone or worse to prevent him from continuing to try to hurt me figuring I'm just a wimp-ass.

    It was FEAR that modified men's behavior away from misconduct they wished to do subconsciously. But, you know, as far as I'm concerned, they can violently rape that woman inside his mind and fantasy all he cares to. Think any damn thing he wants. I only cared what he does, not how he thinks or feels.

    Is it FEAR or state-of-mind that prevents crime? Do kids not shoplift because of fear of getting caught? Or because they feel good about themselves? I think it is fear of getting caught. And I think it need be absolutely known that if a person ends up in court for a crime they can't use self-pity of their past as a defense.

    A limitation on me in terms of violence against "evil men" has always been my sense of knowing where the line-of-law it. I might push it to the max but I wouldn't just disregard it. I didn't beat some of those men to death because I felt good about myself. It is because I did not want to go to prison. I could defend within law breaking their bones and dislocating joints pushing "defensing others" or myself to the max, but not beating the person to death. So I didn't. Doesn't mean I didn't want to or even didn't believe doing so was the right thing to do.
    Last edited by joko104; 04-06-12 at 03:19 PM.

  8. #248
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Wow, I have a good defense if so. I wonder what a mod would do with that? I send a PM telling of my horrific childhood, lack of any conditioning in normal civilized communications, lack of formal education - all due to no fault of my own... why do I think that would only not work, but maybe get me put off the forum for being psychologically incapable of functioning within the rules?
    I'll play misery poker with you any day of the week.

  9. #249
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,730

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    Let me re-clarify, I believe philosophy draws a lot of its opinions from psychology. Philosophy then uses those opinions to look at the general actions within any group. Philosophy tends to answer those questions that are unanswerable with our current technology/understanding of it.

    Psychology is about the effects in our brains, IE the study of what IS happening.

    So no, if I am understanding what you wrote correctly, what you wrote is wrong. I only wrote what I did to clarify even further the differences. I do not believe psychology deals with metaphysics of the brain...

    And yes, I have written a few things on psychology that I have derived from my psychology class, such as IQ tests and memory, but I hardly doubt that is indicating my mastery of the subject.

    Anyways, I don't see your point. Why does it matter that we clarify that we are talking about psychology or philosophy, which I believe we have been in philosophy's dome.

    Although, I guess to give some credit, some people do think that metaphysics will one day fall under the domain of science.

    too much college courses, not enough real life reality

  10. #250
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    re: Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    I'll play misery poker with you any day of the week.


    Haven't seen you around for a while, maybe different threads.
    I see hear alot of people do that, mostly women it seems. Which of them was more unfairly treated in the past, ie pity-contests. Sometimes it seems the whole country in involved it like the new national pasttime. Everyone psycho-analyzing themselves. Every problem someone else's fault.

Page 25 of 45 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •